Slashdot Mirror


More News And Links On Yesterday's Terrorist Attack

Everyone out there who set up content mirrors helped the spread of information survive as well as it did. After the tremendous crush yesterday, conventional news sources seem to have largely recovered. However, people are still cushioning the network burden with their own mirrors and original reporting. We'll be putting up occasional updates as necessary, but for now hit that link below and you can read a ton of stories on all aspects of the story.

Ian Peon writes: "SF Gate has a short article on how the Internet "proved its mettle as a communications facilitator in a time of crisis." Kudos to all those who kept things running!"

An anonymous reader writes: "The who, what, and how are detailed in this Boston Herald story. The weapons were smuggled in the razor cases. And in order to get to the cockpit, they terrorized the stewardesses, killing a few in order to lure the pilot out. Once the pilot was out, they took control of the plane. They have identified a car driven by 5 arabs had flying instruction in arabic. The men have been traced back to different arab countries."

This WorldTribune.com story claims that Israeli intelligence reports favor the idea that the attacks may have had the backing of Saddam Hussein's Bagdhad government. According to a submission from UberOogie ,Osama bin Ladin denies involvement in the attacks. The claims, speculation and disclaimers will no doubt continue.

Connord D writes: "View the Survivor's Register Please, PLEASE go to the survivor registers, register that your looking for your family, tell your friends, pass the word around and identify those that have survived and those that are missing. Help worried families either confirm the fates of their loved ones so that they can mourn, or help them find those people that are missing." And Brian Mears, LAN Systems Operations Manager for Computer Sciences Corporation, writes: "I have created a forum on my website to allow families and friends of survivors to post messages and communicate with each other concerning this most tragic period." Here's the link: http://www.ntadmin.net/forum/.

It would be a godsend if the various survivor registries would pool their data, or if someone sets up a google-like search engine to reach all of them at once.

oo7 writes: "CNN has a stream of the first plane crash. If you'd like to download it you can from the videos section of this site; it has news updated as fast as I can and streams as fast as I can capture. Please forward any unknown news and links that you may have."

pKa writes: "The last image from WTCs 77th floor webcam is available on a few sites around the net. The original WCTA.org cam-site is dead, but available in Googles cache, where you can see the dark screen (camera already dead, most likely) at 09:52:52, 09/11/01 - just before the buildings crashed. Article (in norwegian) with screenshots available here" The stream of concern that yesterday's events will lead to an illiberal attitude toward privacy is growing into a torrent: vena writes: "CNN reported on television broadcast earlier today that the NSA was now going through volumes of recorded cellular calls for calls made by passengers on the planes. Clear admission."

GothChip writes: "Ananova are reporting that just hours after the terrorist attack on New York, the FBI started approaching ISPs asking for help in installing Carnivore."

mkelley writes: "This is only the beginning folks...looks like the internet is going to be blamed for this...Wired has a story that is sure to cause panic. This is going to be the goverment's way to push wiretapping into your email and web surfing. In this time of crisis, people in high places are going to use this to get their agenda through. "Blame the Internet" is going to be the rallying cry for everything ..." If you're interested in the details of the planes the terrorists chose, a Semi-Anonymous Coward writes: "American Airlines flight 77 confirmed down, crashed into the Pentagon, Washington DC. Flight 77 (Dulles to Los Angeles) is scheduled as a Boeing 757-200:

Boeing 757-200 data and history:

American Airlines Boeing 757-200 photos:

United Airlines flight 175 confirmed down, crashed into World Trade Center New York. Flight 175 (Boston to Los Angeles) is scheduled as a Boeing 767-200: United Airlines flight 93 confirmed down near Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania. Flight 93 (Newark to San Francisco) is scheduled as a Boeing 757-200:

1,529 comments

  1. WallStreetItalia webcam by Russ+Nelson · · Score: 5, Informative

    I have some pictures I grabbed from the WallStreetItalia.com webcam.
    -russ

    --
    Don't piss off The Angry Economist
    1. Re:WallStreetItalia webcam by Russ+Nelson · · Score: 3, Redundant

      Congratulations! Y'all have managed to generate more traffic to my server than Code Red! I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
      -russ

      --
      Don't piss off The Angry Economist
    2. Re:WallStreetItalia webcam by 1010011010 · · Score: 2

      A mirror for Russ' images, updating slowly...

      Please email me if you would like mirrors for your pictures or information.

      --
      Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
    3. Re:WallStreetItalia webcam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      is anyone concerned that the tragedy yesterday was a good learning experience for other future terrorism attacks on the US? It seems as though it would very useful to anyone interested in inflicting further damage than what occurred already by studying the way that authorities responded to yesterdays events. Like, how the police and fire responded to the scenes in DC and NY. How the pres. was whisked away to air force one. The role that the Red Cross plays in the aftermath. The overloading of cell towers. Loss of power to major urban city blocks. My heart to the victims....

    4. Re:WallStreetItalia webcam by GeekLife.com · · Score: 2

      Mr User #33911 are you not The Real Russ Nelson User #2165?

    5. Re:WallStreetItalia webcam by SourMilk · · Score: 1

      Let make sure we get 'em so bad that their grandchildren get cancer.

      --
      Life is what happens while you're busy making other .plans. --John Lennon
    6. Re:WallStreetItalia webcam by zpengo · · Score: 2

      I've opened the submission queue at Slant-Six so people who don't have their own websites and whose comments would otherwise be lost among the millions being generated in discussion forums like this will have a place where they can tell their story, post pictures, etc.

      --


      Got Rhinos?
    7. Re:WallStreetItalia webcam by Russ+Nelson · · Score: 2

      Well, Rob won't let people rename themselves. My original slashdot user number was 2165, and I named it "nelsonrn", which was the same as my login. But I wanted a more readable user name, so I switched to using Russ Nelson. But the *real* Russ Nelson is still 2165.
      -russ

      --
      Don't piss off The Angry Economist
  2. Get it right, W by billybob2001 · · Score: 1, Funny
    Gather information before acting, Mr Bush.

    Yes we know it wasn't McVeigh this time, but that's all we do know.

    Let's spare some innocent lives this time.

    1. Re:Get it right, W by 5foot2 · · Score: 1

      This Time? When was the last time?

    2. Re:Get it right, W by ergo98 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Afghanistan has been openly harbouring a known terrorist though, and while people worry about a US over-reaction, really the US has been INCREDIBLY restrained in the past couple of years: The USS Cole, the two US embassies, and the attempt to blow up some or all of the Las Angelas airport during the millenium celebrations. We have no idea what, if any, attacks have been thwarted by intelligence (which is the problem with them: The more successful they are the less they are appreciated).

    3. Re:Get it right, W by ColtCougar · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Your ashamed to be american? You should be shot...many people died so you CAN BE A F**** American, if we go to war I will fight for your freedom, even if you are non-loyal or a coward, or not physically able to fight. I do this because I am a soldier and I am proud.

      National Guardsman,
      1/118th Field Artillery
      Georgia

      --
      -There are only soldiers, and men who wish they were soldiers.
    4. Re:Get it right, W by thetechweenie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not sure how to take this comment. Bush hasn't done anything wrong yet. I don't really understand why anyone would be giving him a hard time. I happened to fully agree with his current game plan. Also, the White House is controlling everything that's going to the media right now. I think they're doing a great job so far. They have yet to officially blame anyone yet, and the FBI, ATF, MassPort, US Marshall Service, US Attorney General, and about every other know law enforcement agency has jumped on board to try and find out who exactly is to blame. I'm sure the majority of American's are convinced that it was a certian Saudi who's haggin out in Afganistan, but until they know for sure the White House hasn't made a statement about it.

      --


      Um, this is my sig.
    5. Re:Get it right, W by mskfisher · · Score: 1

      No.
      You should be proud not to be a moron.
      The great majority of Americans are NOT filled with aimless rage.
      It is, as President Bush described it, a lot closer to "quiet anger."

      There are always the kooks - they're just more visible at times like this.
      But you'll notice that even the trolls shut up, for large part, during the events of yesterday.

      --
      0x0D 0x0A
    6. Re:Get it right, W by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is an arrogant statement, he has yet to screw anything up and you act as if you expect him too. He's everyones leader in the US, I have more faith in him than I would clinton, at least he isnt going to do somthing out of getting the attention off of him..

    7. Re:Get it right, W by connorbd · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes, but just because they were guilty before doesn't mean they're guilty now.

      That said, I think the situation is something like this: the Taliban probably would never have signed off on something like this (they have their hands full oppressing their own people -- to those who didn't manage to pick out the news stories going on between the WTC/Pentagon coverage, Kabul is burning even as we speak), know they don't have what it takes to take on the US, and are probably wishing this whole mess just goes away. They are scared, and are probably seriously reconsidering the wisdom of harboring bin Laden.

      Osama bin Laden, on the other hand... well, he *claims* he had nothing to do with it, but certainly approved of what happened. I don't know if it is necessarily fair to *blame* him per se for what happened (it could be that it was just a handful of his followers doing something they think the boss would like -- this was not a particularly sophisticated attack by my estimation), but we've certainly got more than enough reason to haul his ass in for questioning.

      I think that the Taliban will turn him over eventually, especially if the little internal rebellion thing (could be CIA-inspired, you never know, but...) they're dealing with proves a bit too much for them. They're talking the talk right now, but I can guarandamntee you that they're scared shitless.

      People thinking we should start bombing now are missing the point. There are nuclear powers in the region, particularly Pakistan and Israel and very possibly Iraq. The people celebrating this act of terror in the streets of the Middle East are as much decieved about us (if not more so) as many of us are about them, for many of the same reasons, and can't be held culpable because their governments try to prevent them from knowing any better. The thing to do is to twist the arms of the Taliban without getting violent, have them turn over bin Laden by convincing them that he's a liability, and let the man rot for the rest of his life in solitary in Colorado.

      /Brian

    8. Re:Get it right, W by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      I dunno about that. Listening to O&A yesterday afternoon and the Stern show this morning, just about every caller was calling for blood. Those that didn't were ridiculed and not allowed to explain their side of it.

    9. Re:Get it right, W by Geekboy(Wizard) · · Score: 1

      when mcveigh bombed oaklahoma city.

    10. Re:Get it right, W by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Baghdad seems to be happy about things... maybe a little too happy...

    11. Re:Get it right, W by Nastard · · Score: 2

      As a citizen of Colorado, I think I speak for everyone here when I say that we don't want him.

    12. Re:Get it right, W by cavemanf16 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      As others have already said, you're way out of line here.

      Terrorists have been crying wolf for far too long now. Any country that turns its face away from the fact that they have known terrorists operating from their country, and don't ask for help from the USA now, should not expect any of their citizens to be safe from the wrath and coming justice of the US of A. I don't care what their religion is, or who in America believes that killing innocents to 'make a point' of our decadence is right. If you're going to cry wolf and try to distribute your FUD, you'd better be able to back it up with force and boldy stand in the light by your assumptions, instead of cower in the shadows, denying all involvement. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: "It's time to kick some ass."

    13. Re:Get it right, W by zachemlamka · · Score: 1

      Considering that Stern is likely to be looking for fanatics at all times, this is not too surprising.

    14. Re:Get it right, W by de+Selby · · Score: 1

      And Bush did something wrong then? Did ANYONE do more than suspect the usual?

    15. Re:Get it right, W by connorbd · · Score: 2

      Okay, fair, but how many other states have dank cement pits for holding people two nasty to be allowed to become martyrs?

      /Brian

    16. Re:Get it right, W by cvore · · Score: 1

      He is the perfect USA-president-steriotype. He as a person does not need to do errors for us to fear his actions.

    17. Re:Get it right, W by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      many people died so you CAN BE A F**** American

      Come on though, wouldn't it be nicer to fight and die as a free Englishman? Think what your country could have been if you lot hadn't been so fussy about tea prices...

    18. Re:Get it right, W by d3funct · · Score: 0, Troll

      So you're ashamed to be American? Well, I'm ashamed to have you in my country. Get out!

      --
      ASCII a stupid question, get a stupid ANSI!
    19. Re:Get it right, W by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      America is the land of the free and the home of the brave. Just like the song goes. And that soldier just said he would sacrifice himself to defend that freedom. At least he is proud of something. Proud enough to give his life for that. I would respect that.

      For it looks like it's whole lot more than what you have to be proud of.

      America will triumph of this tragedy. Cuz that is what America does best. Just look at our history.

    20. Re:Get it right, W by Rudeboy777 · · Score: 2

      I'm a strong believer in the silent majority. You're talking about outlets that encourage hotheads. I think a lot more people think like myself and the original poster that cool heads are in the majority and will prevail.

      --

      From hell's heart I fstab at /dev/hdc

    21. Re:Get it right, W by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that the same silent majority that let the DMCA into law?

      lameness avoidance lameness avoidance

    22. Re:Get it right, W by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bush wasn't president then genius.

    23. Re:Get it right, W by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      I've listened to him a long time; the policy they say is in place is to let anyone through. But who knows.

    24. Re:Get it right, W by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like you are brainwashed into thinking that we owe you something, like you're doing us a favor. Get real, fuckface, you live off of my tax dollars, and I don't owe you SHIT.

    25. Re:Get it right, W by ColtCougar · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the nice response. I have a regular job as a System Admin. I give up one weekend a month, and two weeks a year for this country, and get paid a SMALL amount for it.

      Point is, I do something for this country --- what do you do for this country? besides showing disrespect to the military that protects you? Do you hate your parents? doctors? police?

      Maybe you should move to a small island, where you would not have to rely on anyone.

      --
      -There are only soldiers, and men who wish they were soldiers.
    26. Re:Get it right, W by FatKidBoston · · Score: 1

      Listen, you hippie fuck, it's not about simply "nuke[ing] Afghanistan" or blowing up the entire Middle East. It's a basic human emotion that extreme situations call forth extreme emotions. There simply isn't anybody alive today in America who can recall a disaster of this level occuring in their country. While it may be true that simply bombing the hell out of every country with a "stan" at the end and a tyrannical government is a rash idea (I, for one, don't necessarily think the world would be that bad off if we did just that...) but dealing with grief. Some people have to blow off steam by venting. Let them do so, and keep your fucking trap shut. They'll be happier for it, and you won't be hurt by voicing your treasonous views.

      And saying that you're ashamed to be American (notice that I GOT THE FUCKING CAPITALIZATION RIGHT) is like saying "I'd rather live in an Islamic militant religious state." Feel free. You *won't* be missed.

      That said, it's time for a little more reasonable response. Why should the fact that your countrymen are outraged at this act of War insult or degrade you? The simple fact that you have a forum in which you can express your shame in your country is a founding facet of that country! If we were in Afghanistan, and you felt a little upset at the government, you wouldn't be able to say a word. However, despite the fact that I find your view reprehensible, I have to let you have them, simply because THAT is the beauty of this country. As long as you don't raise arms against your fellow man or the country, or break the laws of the land, you are free to do and say as you please. Just don't do it anywhere near me.

      "I hate hippies." --Eric Cartman

      --FKB

    27. Re:Get it right, W by CurtisLeeFulton · · Score: 1

      Yup. It's wartime. Americans know in their hearts that this is the first of many attacks. We need to get smart about the military and we need to crush the nations(s) that hold the terrorist that did this. For every act here, we atomize a nation there.

      1) Intell failed us. CIA, NSA and FBI need to be seriously overhauled and probobly more funding.

      2) Now is the time to forget about missle defense. Even if it worked, it wouldn't have been use yesterday and won't ever be for these kinds of attacks. We need to take that money and put it into stuff that we know works: neutron bombs, Tomahawk missles and Intell.

    28. Re:Get it right, W by DJerman · · Score: 2
      The thing to do is to twist the arms of the Taliban without getting violent, have them turn over bin Laden by convincing them that he's a liability, and let the man rot for the rest of his life in solitary in Colorado.

      Right! Then we can go bomb Iraq....

      OBL is already wanted for conspiracy in other events, but this amount of international ire is large enough to spread to more than one target.

      --
    29. Re:Get it right, W by cavemanf16 · · Score: 2
      Now is the time to forget about missle defense. Even if it worked, it wouldn't have been use yesterday and won't ever be for these kinds of attacks. We need to take that money and put it into stuff that we know works: neutron bombs, Tomahawk missles and Intell.

      I agree fully. I was, and still am, for a national missile shield, but that is definitely a 'nice to have' in this time of need-to-have. And right now, the USA, and the world, need to have retribution for all those who thought that even threatening terrorist action against the USA was a good plan of attack.

      I don't really care what the differences between you and I are at this point, it's just time to stand up together and tell the little boys of the world crying: "Wolf!" that it's time to stop. And the only message that's going to make sense at this point, is a message of force: swift and devestating. God bless you brother (or sister - whichever it is ;) ).

    30. Re:Get it right, W by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this was not a particularly sophisticated attack by my estimation)

      Uhmn..how could you even say this? I would say it had a level of sophistication beyond most other terrorists attacks we've seen.

      Allow me to school you, young jedi:
      1. Rumors say up to 10 terrorists per plane. That equals to at least 40 people involved to take over the plane. 40 people to coordinate the effort. Hell, my team of 10 sysadmins have problems in this aspect. Imagine if I had 40.
      2. Those 40 people actively involved, somehow thwarted US intelligence long enough to pull this off. Say what you like, but US intelligence is the best of the breed. Period.
      3. The terrorists had the ability to fly a commercial passenger jet. Sure you could practice with a simulator, but hell, even that takes a level of sophistication.
      4. They targeted the WTC buildings so they would definetely collapse. Luck? I think not. They did their homework. This probably involved some structural engineers.
      5. Time syncronization. All of this happened within short periods of time between each.

      Usual method of terroristic attack:
      1. make bomb.
      2. strap bomb to body, or leave close to target to detonate.
      3. approach target running and screaming with bomb attached to body, or silenty getting the hell out of there if left in box,car,etc.

      I think any 2 of first scheme of events would warrant a level of sophistication. Then again, it is all relative, right?

      -e

    31. Re:Get it right, W by monkeydo · · Score: 1
      1. More reliable estimates are 3-5, and they started killing immediately to prove their point. Pilots are trained that most hijakings end peacefully and would probably not offer much resistance since they didnt' know what the outcome would be.

      2. We don't know what the CIA knew, but basically if only 16 people knew about it and they didn't openly talk about it they probably would't find out. Most of our intelligence (way too much) today comes from electronic surveilance.

      3. There are arab airlines. I'm sure some of their (ex)pilots are militant. And once the plane was in the air the most difficult thing about flying is probably knowing where the controls are (hence the flight training manuals in the car)

      4. The planes did not cause the buildings to colapse. The fires actually melted the structural steel. Otherwise they would have collapsed more immediatly.

      5. The attacks were only as syncronized as the flights were. You can accomplish this "syncronization" with a tool as sophisticated as travelocity.

      As for the usuall terrorist M.O. do you really think it is less complicated to make a bomb (that works as designed) than it is to stick a razor in a toothbrush and make a knife?

      The reality is that the scariest thing about this attack is how easy it actually was. Once the terrorists walked through the metal detectors with thier toiletry case filled with knives there really wasn't anything that could be done to stop them.

      The media and at least one US Rep. have speculated that they had help at the airport, but if that were so I think it would be much more likely that they would use guns than knives.

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum
      The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
    32. Re:Get it right, W by tzanger · · Score: 2

      I dunno about that. Listening to O&A yesterday afternoon and the Stern show this morning, just about every caller was calling for blood. Those that didn't were ridiculed and not allowed to explain their side of it.

      I listened to Stern this morning on my way to a job (I'm in Canada, BTW) -- now I know that Howard Stern is actually quite intelligent; he knows how to work the crowd and how to stay on the air this long. A stupid man would not have the success he is having.

      But hearing him call for nukes and wiping out all Muslims... that sent chills down my spine. Not so much because he said it but because I know there are countless morons who believe he is right and help "spread his word" without thinking. While he may have been doing it for ratings and calls, there are too many people who'd take him seriously.

      Listen up, people: the Muslims are not to blame. Nor the Iraqi's, nor the Afghanistans. This is not an attack by a race or religion: this is an attack by a bunch of crazed psychopaths and extremists, and indirectly by the governments who support and/or harbour them. The Muslims are scared shitless and it's disgusting that even here in Canada, death threats have been called in to Mosques and Muslim high schools. I've heard that tens of thousands of callers are reporting their mid-eastern neighbours as suspects because they're different.

      Make no mistake: the people terrorizing the Muslim and other middle-eastern population are no better than the shit-eating scum who are terrorizing the United States.

      The solution is not to wipe Afghanistan off the earth, and it certainly is not a nuclear solution. Many people living in Afghanistan cannot afford to move or evacuate, and I am uncertain as to whether the Afganistan goverment can afford to evacuate them. Regardless, the majority of Afghans are innocent civilians and retailiating against them is barbaric and useless. Bombing innocent people is wrong no matter where they are, and a nation as wealthy and powerful as the United States should know that!

      What's the solution? I don't know. I would far prefer surgical strike(s) and occupation of the regions which are known to support these extremists. Cut them off at the source, but minimize the civilian casualties. That is honourable. That is noble. That is a civilized response. Not "Nuke the sand niggers off the face of the planet" as I have heard and read.

      Another solution (additional solution) would be to put a eight or even nine digit USD price tag on known terrorist's heads. Obviously this idea needs more fleshing out but I wonder how loyal their followers would be?

      Get it straight: Not all white people are card-carrying members of Aryan Nation or the KKK. Not all Americans are stupid white trash who can't see the world beyond their borders. Not all Muslims are terrorists and extremists. How would you like to be terrorized because of how you look or where you're from?

      -- tzanger, a 25-year-old white father in Canada, totally disgusted by the racism and knee-jerk reactions going on around him.

    33. Re:Get it right, W by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're wrong. Wiping out the Afghani's, Iraqi's and Palistinians probably would work. The good news is that I'm pretty sure that the US doesn't have the stomach for it. But if the reports come in that we lost 25,000 people, you'll see alot more damage than if the losses are only 2 or 3000.

    34. Re:Get it right, W by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lets just hope he deals with it better than his predecessor (remember the lives lost in the Sudan bombings?)

    35. Re:Get it right, W by RetsamYthgimla · · Score: 1

      I agree that this wasn't as sophisticated as the press makes it out to be. That only three or four organizations in the world have the level of sophistication necessary is ludicrous.

      Structural engineers? Let's see, they didn't hit it at the foundation, probably because flying a plane that is 156+ feet wide is a little hard to do at several hundred miles an hour on streets that aren't even that wide. Hmm, maybe they hit it at the 80th floor because that was the easiest place to hit it, to make sure they didn't go too high, or too low and hit the surrounding biuldings. And it doesn't take a structural engineer to know that the corners of a building are it's structural weak points (look at the middle ages, that's why they stopped using square guard towers).

      As for organizing 15-20 people, having two to four "cells" of five to ten people gives you a two-tiered structure that gives you better organization, and terrorists have had years to practice this system.

      As for the sophistication of their "synchronization", why didn't they run a simlutaneous op on the west coast? Now that would have been much more difficult, because that would have meant more electronic communication, which would have risked detection by intelligence agencies. Also, a strike on the west coast could have used "red-eye" trans-Pacific flights out of SF to cause similar or greater destruction to west Bay Area targets, including landmarks like the Golden Gate or Trans-America building, or high tech targets that could cripple our local economy. But alas, that would have required sophistication.

    36. Re:Get it right, W by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This has been done before, remember? Its insufficient! It exacerbates! So so so horribly sad. MORE, IN ADDITION, to this is needed...one thing that stands out is we Americans should IMMEDIATELY stop driving our cars. Dont tell me our desire to have it all did not effect 3rd world countries esp in our oil-centric policies in the Middle East! No that does not condone this behavior - Gandhi never went this route. But, shall we take care of one terrorist only to create
      another?

      Its not an easy or simple-Rambo-minded time. Pray and reel for folks who are on the power keys.

    37. Re:Get it right, W by big_hairy_mama · · Score: 1

      Part of the problem is that no one respects an Arab who is also willing to give his life for his cause.

      It's not like America didn't do anything to provoke the attack (although I'm certainly not saying it was justified). I keep hearing young kids on the local news saying, "What did we do to them? Why do we deserve this?"

      But it's war now. Everyone has a cause. So you are a hypocrit in a way... it's too bad that 99% of people (including me) will never hear the full story from all sides.

    38. Re:Get it right, W by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, we should use our damn nukes, thats what they are for!

    39. Re:Get it right, W by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, thanks for the Terrorist 101 course. If you would actually take a minute to read the post, instead of automatically flaming it, you would have read that I mentioned something about the sophistication being relative. Compared to other draconian terrorist attack approaches, this attack had a level of sophistication. Oh wait...I forget, you know everything and you can do everything better , after the fact.

      And to say that once a plane is in the air, it is only a matter of knowing where the controls are is bogus. Those guys HIT THEIR TARGETS. They obviously knew what they were doing. Recent reports link them to flight schools. THEY PREPARED FOR THIS ATTACK WAY AHEAD OF TIME.

      You also argue about the area of impact from the planes. They knew to hit the buildings high enough that the firefighters had no way of controlling the fire.

      Why am I even arguing this....

    40. Re:Get it right, W by monkeydo · · Score: 1
      You also argue about the area of impact from the planes. They knew to hit the buildings high enough that the firefighters had no way of controlling the fire.

      It is quite a lot easier to hit a building high up than at ground level. I repeat: the most difficult task for these terrorists was finding pilots. As for the other tasks, the weapons they used could have been LEGALLY carried on board the planes, the pilots are trained to comply with hijackers, and all of the timing was done with a readily available flight schedule. Some of the suspected terrorist have been linked to Saudi Airlines so any real pilots could have easily trained the others. 90% of flight training is landing and dealing with emergencies. En-route flying is nearly trivial relative to the other tasks of flying.

      It is understandable that no one wants to talk about how easy this really was, just don't be suprised when it happens agin next week.

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum
      The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
  3. Ob Poliglut by rw2 · · Score: 2

    And also the obligatory plug for Poliglut.

    Thanks for all who have sent in news and emailed their thanks during the crush yesterday.

    Several stories, a diary of the events and many links available from the .sig

  4. Donate money to the red cross by Libertius · · Score: 4, Informative

    Link available on amazons frontpage. So far, $481,726 has been collected. Please help, most of us can spare a dollar...

    1. Re:Donate money to the red cross by Accipiter · · Score: 4, Informative

      As I pointed out on Slashnet yesterday, PayPal has a similar service if you have a paypal account:

      http://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=p/gen/rel ief-outside

      --

      -- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
      (If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't. :P)

    2. Re:Donate money to the red cross by yellowjacket03 · · Score: 1

      I just donated $50, and I suggest that everyone spare what they can.

    3. Re:Donate money to the red cross by eries · · Score: 2

      Mod this up. I just gave my $50. It's the least we can do.

    4. Re:Donate money to the red cross by b0r1s · · Score: 2

      a little over 541,000 as of right now ...

      --
      Mooniacs for iOS and Android
    5. Re:Donate money to the red cross by Magumbo · · Score: 1
      your sig: "Why pay retail?...

      Well, I don't think now is the time to pay wholesale on any Red Cross donations. Come on gang... if you're going to donate, dig deep and pay the full retail price. I thank you. The Civilized World thanks you. God thanks you. Allah thanks you. The fans of Frasier thank you.

    6. Re:Donate money to the red cross by Fesh · · Score: 2

      I went to try that and it wouldn't let me try to contribute more than a dollar. Gotta find another way of doing it, I guess.

      --
      --Fesh
      Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
    7. Re:Donate money to the red cross by cvore · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yeah, the US needs every dollar it can get.. The US has had a very tight century and currently has a very bad economy. I think all the African countries should support the US with some serious $$. The Africans are responsible for their starvation anyway, why not just give it to the Ùber Menchen?
      (For those of you that dont understand irony: you are probably a girl or a child)

    8. Re:Donate money to the red cross by MarkGriz · · Score: 1

      I just donated using Paypal. Just think, if each of Paypal's 10 million members donated just $10, well... do the math.

      --
      Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
    9. Re:Donate money to the red cross by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These people are giving money to the Red Cross, not the American Government, you fool.

    10. Re:Donate money to the red cross by Cplus · · Score: 1

      Actually that was sarcasm, although misplaced and very tactlessly used. You understand irony about as depply as Alanis Morrisette. Oh, and ease up on the female bashing too.

      --
      "Share your knowledge. It's a way to achieve immortality." -- Dalai Lama
  5. Suspects by dopplex · · Score: 3, Interesting

    MSNBC (The TC channel) was saying that two suspects had apparantly attended flight school in Florida last summer. It didn't have any more information on WHO the suspects were however. Here is a related story there.

    --
    "You can take our lives, but you can never take our Flerbage!!!!"
    1. Re:Suspects by dopplex · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As an adjunct... It seems a bit odd to me that there is some very obvious evidence in some cases pointing to a Middle Eastern influence. (There was an arabic language flight manual for flying large planes found in a car near Boston's Logan airport)
      Given the degree of organization evident in the act, it seems very unlinkely to me that the terrorists would simply leave something like that in plain view. It seems quite possible to me (I am very cautious about using the word "likely") that whoever was responsible for this is doing their best to point us towards Bin Laden as the culprit here...

      What really scares me about this is the fact that there could be a large well organized group out there that we've never heard of, and who are our enemies...

      If there is an effort to implicate a Middle Eastern group in this, who did it? It seems that the objective of terrorism is to scare people into giving in... But by implicating another group what is the aim of whoever is behind this?

      It seems like things may be a good deal more complicated than they have seemed earlier. If a Middle Eastern terrorist group isn't behind this, then WHO wants us to believe that one is? Is it as simple as the group wanting to avoid reprisals, or is it something more sinister... Some reason why they would want the U.S. to strike out at the Middle East again...

      --
      "You can take our lives, but you can never take our Flerbage!!!!"
    2. Re:Suspects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Saying that the current evidence pointing toward Arab fanatics may have been planted reveals you as a naive conspiracy theorist.

      There are only a couple groups that promote suicide attacks OUTSIDE of their own countries. Don't drag conspiracy into this. It'll soon be very well known who did this... without a doubt.

    3. Re:Suspects by mokyar · · Score: 0

      Be very careful with what you read on the media about it! Of course, there will be suspects and because of the bias and prejudies, they will be Middle Easterners and/or Muslims. But the evidence found like Quran, fuel consuption calculator etc. can not be considered as serious. Since when is a text, which is considered as holly by a community, is an evidence? Fuel consuption calculator? What kind of a terrorist group, which arranges well planned attacks, would leave such a trace. Another source (I think Boston Globe, but not sure) wrote that in the rental car of the 5 Arab 'suspects' (one of them trained pilot), a pilot training manual was found. Give me a break! So just blowing WTC with a huge passanger plane, the trained pilot will go over the training manual! Also one should always remember such 'evidence' (if any) would be left behind only to distract! For more info, see the tactics of previuos terror attacs.

    4. Re:Suspects by Dragoness+Eclectic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      IF this was done by Bin Laden's guys, they showed in the 1993 WTC bombing that they are very sloppy about leaving a back trail of clues. Not every fanatical terrorist is also a genius criminal...

      The really skilled (at avoiding detection and capture) terrorists were the ones trained by the Soviets in the old days. A lot of those guys are gone now, and I suspect the current crop of Middle Eastern terrorists does not have the same level of training and skill.

      --
      ---dragoness
    5. Re:Suspects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Came across this comment which I think is so close to the truth wanted to know what others though.

      Source was http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&threadm=3B9F 32AA.323D39E2%40worldnet.att.net&prev=/groups%3Fhl %3Den%26group%3Dalt.consciousness

      --------
      People are shocked and they are reacting in each one's individual way.
      What seems to be common with all is, that they find the cause and the
      guilty one, in this case the 'terrorists'. If they find out who it
      was, they will punish them or they will just use any of the various
      suspicious groups which have shown before to be against the
      'democratic system'.

      An attack gives the right to use revenge. Right? The whole tradition
      supports it, Christian or not. Every thing serves as a reason to
      react, to strengthen one's own position. And the side effect is, that
      every body involved (who is not involved in such a dramatic
      happening?) will react and so feel one's own existence, making this
      feeling stronger by putting out energy towards an 'enemy'. United with
      others who are suffering, being justified by the obvious facts.

      Reacting with violence to violence will produce a chain reaction,
      which might even cause an uncontrolled world wide war. There is so
      much accumulated aggression every where, waiting under the surface to
      explode... Who wants to be a victim of a world wide explosion? Is this
      real action because it allows to have real reactions? What has
      happened is the same we can see every day in all these action movies,
      we were consuming since quite some time and which were lately more and
      more boring in spite of the more and more spectacular actions. In
      horror movies there are always the bad ones, so every thing is clear.
      Nobody needs to engage themselves and so it becomes boring after a
      while. Are we engaged now in the real happening seeing it in TV? It is
      so easy to give the fault to someone: To the terrorists, to the
      government or whatever. But who asks for the cause?

      It is said that the attack goes against the system. That's obvious and
      it doesn't really matter from where the attack comes. Doesn't it make
      sense to ask 'why' this happens? Isn't the fact that there exists an
      established system (which maybe is not open for growing beyond the
      established limitations), that this produces and causes resistance
      from inside the system? And when this resistance is suppressed and the
      system reacts also to the outside and other different systems in a
      defensive way, that this inflexibility causes violent reactions?

      Wasn't there 2000 years ago a kind of hippy, a guy who tried to tell
      people that the old way of reacting with violence to violence wouldn't
      be the right way? (He was even talking about 'love', what seems to be
      far out of daily reality...) This obviously was against the
      established system, which then reacted in a defensive way by
      eliminating this attack. Isn't it still the same today? Who is
      reflecting about what is happening?
      Can we do something about it, which is not violent but would make a
      difference? Or is it all, feeling as a victim, suffering and finding
      the cause outside?

      Probably it is too much to ask that each of us should look inside. To
      discover that the outside happening is just an accumulated reaction of
      the same what happens (daily!) within each of us. We are holding on to
      what we believe we are: To our belief system, our property, to all
      what we have established in the long years of our individual life.
      What we defend by reacting to all influences coming from outside. Each
      of us in one's own way and also if necessary (?) with violence.

      Who wants to reflect about it? Who wants to talk about it? Who wants
      to use this forum in a creative way with the risk to show oneself
      admitting that we are all vulnerable...? etc. etc.

      InkyPinkie
      ---------

    6. Re:Suspects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First make a list of countries that America has screwed and lorded over in the last 50 years.

      Hmm... that might take too long. First make a list of countries that America *hasn't* screwed and lorded over in the last 50 years.

      ...

      any offers? I can't offhand think of any reason why Monaco should hate you. It's only a principality, but it's a start.

    7. Re:Suspects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If a Middle Eastern terrorist group isn't behind this, then WHO wants us to believe that one is? Is it as simple as the group wanting to avoid reprisals, or is it something more sinister... Some reason why they would want the U.S. to strike out at the Middle East again...

      The problem arises when there are clear reports that the car w/ the arabic manual belonged to someone who's also been described by people who apparently knew him long before yesterday. Seems he stayed w/ a couple who later kicked him out for being rude.

    8. Re:Suspects by Heem · · Score: 1

      This is claimed to be from a Canadian Newspaper. Whether or not it really is, I can't prove yet, but its still a nice write-up

      THE UNITED STATES

      This, from a Canadian newspaper, is worth sharing.

      America: The Good Neighbor.

      Widespread but only partial news coverage was given
      recently to a remarkable editorial broadcast from
      Toronto by Gordon Sinclair, a Canadian television
      commentator. What follows is the full text of his
      trenchant remarks as printed in the Congressional Record:

      "This Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the
      Americans as the most generous and possibly the least
      appreciated people on all the earth.

      Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and
      Italy were lifted out of the debris of war by the
      Americans who poured in billions of dollars and
      forgave other billions in debts. None of these
      countries is today paying even the interest on its
      remaining debts to the United States.

      When France was in danger of collapsing in 1956,
      it was the Americans who propped it up, and their
      reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets
      of Paris. I was there. I saw it.

      When earthquakes hit distant cities, it is the
      United States that hurries in to help. This spring, 59
      American communities were flattened by tornadoes.
      Nobody helped.

      The Marshall Plan and the Truman Policy pumped
      billions of dollars! into discouraged countries. Now
      newspapers in those countries are writing about the
      decadent, warmongering Americans.

      I'd like to see just one of those countries that
      is gloating over the erosion of the United States
      dollar build its own airplane. Does any other country
      in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo
      Jet, the Lockheed Tri-Star, or the Douglas DC10?
      If so, why don't they fly them? Why do all the
      International lines except Russia fly American Planes?

      Why does no other land on earth even consider putting
      a man or woman on the moon? You talk about Japanese
      technocracy, and you get radios. You talk about German
      technocracy, and you get automobiles.

      You talk about American technocracy, and you find
      men on the moon -! not once, but several times -
      and safely home again.

      You talk about scandals, and the Americans put theirs
      right in the store window for everybody to look at.
      Even their draft-dodgers are not pursued and hounded.
      They are here on our streets, and most of them, unless
      they are breaking Canadian laws, are getting American
      dollars from ma and pa at home to spend here.

      When the railways of France, Germany and India
      were breaking down through age, it was the Americans
      who rebuilt them. When the Pennsylvania Railroad and
      the New York Central went broke, nobody loaned them an
      old caboose. Both are still broke.

      I can name you 5000 times when the Americans raced
      to the help of other people in trouble. Can you name
      me even one time when someone else raced to the
      Americans in trouble? I don't think there was outside
      help even during the San Francisco earthquake.

      Our neighbors have faced it alone, and I'm one
      Canadian who is damned tired of hearing them get
      kicked around. They will come out of this thing with
      their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled
      to thumb their nose at the lands that are gloating
      over their present troubles. I hope Canada is not one of
      those."

      Stand proud, America!

      --
      Don't Tread on Me
    9. Re:Suspects by cheezedawg · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is true- Gordon Sinclair actually did deliver this commentary over the radio, but he did it almost 30 years ago in 1973. No wonder "recent" coverage has been so spotty...

      Snopes has more info

      --
      "The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
    10. Re:Suspects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ho-hum i love the moderation on this site. the same comment, posted at 3:08 gets modded up, but yet this one, posted at 2:45 does not.

    11. Re:Suspects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very superficial view. Some glaring inaccuracies. This guy is pretty narrow minded. Thanks for coming out.

    12. Re:Suspects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He also got in a fight with someone at the airport when he parked that car. The person subsequently called the police which is why the found the manual. He doesn't seem very good at keeping a low profile does he?

    13. Re:Suspects by Rivabem · · Score: 1

      When it was Pinochet in Chile it were the USA that help him to put him as dictator.

      When it was [any latin dictator] in [any latin country] it was USA who helped him and financied his govt.

      When The Zulu started to ask for help (even food) for the USSR it was the USA that had the genius idea of introducing and carrying the APARTHEID for so many years.

      When Israel invaded arabian areas the USA were there to protect the real owners of that areas...OOPS!! not that, they helped the invaders? why? Oh yes..petroleum nearby...

      When Afhganistan decided to fight the soviets it was USA who financed them..

      And when Saddam decided to fight IRAN it were the USA also who helped him..

      Do i Need to talk about who help Osama Bin Laden till last decade?

  6. Iraq theory creditable by nanojath · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Media and others are jumping on the Osama Bin Laden theory a bit too eagerly for my comfort. I've had my eye on Iraq since yesterday night. People keep saying it wouldn't be that hard to do this - this is bull. While the armchair commandos and flight-simulator captains blow smoke about how anyone could do this, veteran pilots and intelligence and terrorism experts keep telling us it was a highly sophisticated and intricately planned attack. Noone can deny it is leaps and bounds above what Bin-Laden's organization has accomplished thus far.


    Note Iraq's basically unique reaction at http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/09/12/mideast .reaction/ and judge for yourself. I can't help thinking about unfinished business, and the sins of the father... But please remember: NOONE except those responsible know for sure who the culprits are. Rash action will rightfully incite more hatred from people not responsible for the action. If we act cooly, rationally, carefully but implacably it will be better for everyone.

    --

    It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries

    1. Re:Iraq theory creditable by hswoolve · · Score: 3, Informative

      the correct url is:
      http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/09/12/mideast .reaction/

      although my paranoia is saying homegrown.

    2. Re:Iraq theory creditable by DA_MAN_DA_MYTH · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Media and others are jumping on the Osama Bin Laden theory a bit too eagerly for my comfort.

      True, but Bin Laden is a known terrorist. He has been guilty of several past crimes as well as being the major suspect in this one. Elimination of him is necessary. I also think they really should do, is throw out the Constitution for just an hour. Take the guys who are supposed to go on trial this week (it's this week right) for the '93 bombing of the WTC and hang them right in front of the WTC remains. Send a message out to all terroists that we ain't fscking around. That all crimes of terror will not go unpunished. Then explain to any country harboring potential terroists they will be considered enemies of the state. Also in case you didn't notice, a lot of countries and people already do hate us no matter our reaction / or counteraction will be.

      Most of these countries have been trained to hate us through mass propaganda. Palestinians passing out candy in the streets? Afganis' shooting their guns in celebrations? Confetti being thrown? What's going to happen now is there is going to be an accordance, we will find out what countries are with us, and everyone else is basically against us, and if they get in the way of our slashing blade of swift justice, so be it.

      One pissed of American.

      By the way Israel, this is your chance to wipe out the Palestinians, no one here (probably anywhere) will care.

      --
      "It takes many nails to build a crib, but one screw to fill it."
    3. Re:Iraq theory creditable by gwallen3141 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think it's interesting that bin Laden is disclaiming responsibility. In the past terrorist groups have always been aggressive about taking 'credit' for their efforts. In fact, this seems to me to be a requirement for their actions to be effective. The goal of terrorism is to affect some political, social or other change desired by the terrorist. If a group doesn't take credit then no one will get the point, so to speak.

    4. Re:Iraq theory creditable by big_cat79 · · Score: 1

      One thing that bin Laden has going for him is millions of dollars. He is the heir of a wealthy Saudi construction magnate, and his worth is somewhere in the millions. He has enough resources to recruit people trained in flying.

      --

      BigCat79

      "The dead have risen and are voting Republican!" --Bart Simpson
    5. Re:Iraq theory creditable by TheRain · · Score: 1

      I am betting it was an alliance of several parties against the US. If that is true, this is probably not the end of what will be done to us.

      --
      Please help! I'm stuck inside my virtual reality headset!
    6. Re:Iraq theory creditable by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 5, Informative
      Anybody who's been in the military can figure out how to time something like this. "Move at 0x00 hours". OK, synchronize your watches and there you go.

      The idea of dropping 4 planes at once and deciding that it was feasible is the hard part. Stuff like this has been tried before, but failed, because it wasn't planned well enough.

      I don't care if I am a 'flight-simulator captain' for saying this, but the hardest part of flying a plane is doing so safely. There's a reason why it was possible during WWII to give pilots 6 weeks of flight training then put them up against the enemy - it just isn't THAT HARD to fly an airplane (yes, even modern jets - prop planes are often more complex to keep up) once you learn the concepts behind it. If you're a lunatic that wants to crash into the WTC, then you don't have to follow FAA regs, get the plan safely on a runway, or follow military ROE/procedure. You don't have to do anything but point it at the building and make sure it hits it. The worst part of flight training is learning all the regulations. Pilots in the WWI (that's ONE, not two) would learn enough flight dynamics to take off, fly, and land safely within a WEEK.

      Ever been in an auto accident? Tell me how hard that was compared to getting to/from work safely.

    7. Re:Iraq theory creditable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep: George Bush Sr pretty much officially opened the conflict with Iraq on 9/11/1990 when he addressed the joint houses of congress. As far as I can find, this was the first public indication that the US actually would get into the middle of the conflict.

    8. Re:Iraq theory creditable by rampant+poodle · · Score: 1

      Certainly can't count Iraq out. Hussein has the money required for a major operation. He loves provoking the US to gain sympathy in the Arab world. That said, it is hard to believe that the Hussein government could have actually put this together. The planning, training, and magnatude of the attack indeed surpassed the actions of any terrorist group. However, Iraqi "attacks" and other provocations have generally resulted in the death of more Iraquis than "enemy" personnel. Reasonable speculation would be Iraqi funding of a mission contracted out to someone more professional.

    9. Re:Iraq theory creditable by toast0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If we ignore our constitution for even one hour, we have lost. Scaring the shit out of terrorists, is an act of terror. We must not break our rules because the terrorists have broken them.

    10. Re:Iraq theory creditable by Trekologer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If Iraq was responsible in any way, they have secured their own distruction. As in our entire military simultaneously attacking Iraq.

      This is why I doubt that it was the work of a government. The Cold War never escillated into a real war becasue the US/Nato and USSR/Eastern Bloc all had nuclear weapons. A nuclear attack by one group would assure a full retaliation and therefore their own destruction. It was a standoff, but that was a Good Thing. There is no way to win a nuclear war.

      I believe that this had to be the work of a private group. Now, you have to take a look at who could finance this. All signs point to Osama bin Laden. He's got the hatred of the US and the money to finance an attack of this kind. The attackers knew right where to hit the buildings and had to know how to fly the planes. There is no way that the real pilots would have flown them into those buidlings. If the had to, they would have ditched in the river.

      Word is now coming out (ABC, AP, and CNN) that the hijackers were Egyptian and Saudi Arabian with tied to bin Laden.

      I guess that this requires a new disclaimer... IANAIPE: I Am Not An Intelligence or Political Expert.

    11. Re:Iraq theory creditable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a horrible thing to say, and horribly untrue! I think the mass of Americans continue to want all groups to find a way to live together peacefully in Israel/Palestine. If you read the article, it definitely looks like Iraq and a few militant minority groups are the only ones celebrating this. God only knows how we'll get ourselves out of this mess over there. Abandoning peace efforts doesn't seem likely to stop terrorism, but how peace will ever succeed when peoples keep terrorzing each other like this is a mystery. Somebody has to stop the cycle of violence, and frankly, I think it behooves Israel to be that somebody.

    12. Re:Iraq theory creditable by Oztun · · Score: 2

      I have a friend who is a commericial pilot. After asking him how hard would it be to do this his reponse, "simple".

      There is plenty of resources available on how to fly a commericial plane. Anyone can by a ticket. Ceramic knives will not set off metal detectors and can be hidden in a shoe.

      As for how they got in a cockpit his guess was kill a stewardess and another one will trick the pilot into letting them in. With another terrorist at the front of the plane he slits the unknowing pilots throat when the door opens.

      Then with coordinates already known the autopilot is set to crash the plane into the building.

      Lets not forget Bin Laden stated last year he would like to destroy the WTC's. I believe it was his terrorist group that bombed it in 93`. Then add in the fact that he has millions of dollars to fund this type of operation.

      I think those saying this was highly sopisticated just want to reassure the American public. Regardless of how sophisticated it was, it happened and we should all be more concerned about terrorism in the future.

    13. Re:Iraq theory creditable by 4iedBandit · · Score: 5, Insightful

      While the armchair commandos and flight-simulator captains blow smoke about how anyone could do this, veteran pilots and intelligence and terrorism experts keep telling us it was a highly sophisticated and intricately planned attack. Think about this carefully. While there had to have been a good deal of planing involved in the attack, especially to coordinate several planes at once, it is very easy for this to happen. All it requires is that people get over the mindset that criminals require guns and explosives to do bad things. Appart from coordination, which could have been setup months ago outside the US before the terrorists even got here, and a little bit of pilot training, this attack did not require extraordinary resources. Only extraordinary individuals willing to sacrifice their lives. Getting plastic or ceramic blades past security would be a piece of cake. Often times I myself travel with two steel blades. One on the Swiss army knife I carry on my keychain, which security sees as I hand it to them with my keys, and a Leatherman I keep in my briefcase which is exrayed. I have never once been stopped or questioned about them, even on international flights. Any blade made of non-metallic substances would not even have to be disclosed at the security points. You just walk right through with it. As to flying the planes, another Slashdotter (sorry don't remember who) pointed out that take off and landing constitue 99% of the difficulty in flying a jet. While that might be exagerating a little, it's only a little. Once that plane is in the air it is very easy to fly. Point the nose where you want to go essentially. Am I 'arm chair quarterbacking?' Sure. But I've also had the fortune to fly in one of Uniteds simulators at their training facility in Denver a number of years ago. They let me sit in the pilots seat, take off, fly, and land a simulated 737. At that point I had never even flown a simulator on a PC, let alone a big, honkin' full motion simulator. The only time I sweat was durring landing. Everything else was a breeze. You have to consider that the terrorists had no intention of landing, or even surviving. All they had to do was line up with the buildings, that's it. Ask some real pilots how hard it is to fly if you don't have to take off or land. It's even easier if you don't plan to survive. Everyone needs to keep in mind that everything you see and hear about this disaster is going to be tainted with an agenda of some kind. The media will play it up, they already have. They reported that the attack in Kabul may have been American before they had any kind of proof for or against. The Polititians are going to play it up for their own agenda's, namely not getting blamed for allowing this to happen. What we as citizens of the US need to do is keep our heads on straight, and don't let this be used as an excuse to relieve us of any more liberties. Was this really a sophisticated attack? No. It was unsophisticated to the degree that our reliance on spy technology failed to see it comming. If 12 men willing to give their lives, sit down in a house, plan an attack and then go their seperate ways till the designated time, there is very little you can do about it unless one of them talks and you happen to overhear it. Am I saying that this was the result of 12 angry men with no ties to any organization? No. Although it's possible, it's not probable. The attack was simply well planned, brutal, and effective. There will never be peace as long as people hate each other enough to kill.

      --
      "The avalanch has already started, it is too late for the pebbles to vote." -Kosh
    14. Re:Iraq theory creditable by allism · · Score: 1

      This seems to have been overlooked, but Iraq shot down an unmanned American surveillance plane on Tuesday.

      Osama Bin Ladin also denied involvement in the bombings of the African embassies.

      I'd like to be angry at the people dancing in the streets over this tragedy, but I can easily see Americans doing the same thing if something like this had happened to Afghanistan or Iraq.

    15. Re:Iraq theory creditable by wass · · Score: 1
      I'd like to be angry at the people dancing in the streets over this tragedy, but I can easily see Americans doing the same
      thing if something like this had happened to Afghanistan or Iraq.


      You're forgetting it was innocent people that died in the World Trade Center attack. Most Americans that I know of dislike the Taliban, the rogue government of Afghanistan, but also have pity and sympathy of the actual Afghani residents, who have been forced to scrape a semblence of a life in tattered tents in the desert. If a bunch of them were wiped out, I don't know of anyone that would rejoice.


      There's (usually) a difference between the government and the civilians. Especially when you're talking about tightly-controlled iron-fist regimes.

      --

      make world, not war

    16. Re:Iraq theory creditable by kisrael · · Score: 3, Informative

      Slate.com's 'Explainer' had a pretty level-headed take on How Good Were the World Trade Center Pilots?

      --
      SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
    17. Re:Iraq theory creditable by Syberghost · · Score: 2

      Media and others are jumping on the Osama Bin Laden theory a bit too eagerly for my comfort. I've had my eye on Iraq since yesterday night. People keep saying it wouldn't be that hard to do this - this is bull.

      However, whether Osama Bin Laden did it on his own, or did it because Iraq hired him to, doesn't really change how we respond to him and Afghanistan, does it?

      Whether you think we should arrest Bin Laden, or bomb Kabul flat with him in it, who hired him only matters for what we do about THEM, not him.

    18. Re:Iraq theory creditable by Merk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I somewhat agree. Training to fly the plane is a lot easier if you don't care about safety regulations and don't care about learning to land or take off. But it's not that easy.

      Big planes have *lots* of momentum. Any change in altitude or direction has to be planned long in advance. Turns also have to be smooth. The roll-rate of a jumbo-jet isn't all that great.

      The one part of this that really indicates training to me is the navigation. The planes that hit the World Trade Center took off from Boston headed for California. Sometime in the flight they successfully found the right bearing to NYC, then found the world trade centre buildings in NYC. Even though they're a prominent landmark in Manhattan, finding Manhattan itself would require some real navigation skills.

    19. Re:Iraq theory creditable by Unknown+Poltroon · · Score: 2

      Map and compass? You can see the dam towers from 100 miles away.

      --
      All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
    20. Re:Iraq theory creditable by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, it might have been done so successfully that those responsible said "uh oh, we can't take credit for this now - they're not going to stop until the score is settled."

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    21. Re:Iraq theory creditable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The one part of this that really indicates training to me is the navigation. The planes that hit the World Trade Center took off from Boston headed for California. Sometime in the flight they successfully found the right bearing to NYC, then found the world trade centre buildings in NYC. Even though they're a prominent landmark in Manhattan, finding Manhattan itself would require some real navigation skills.

      Yeah, but one theory suggests that the original pilot flew everything except the last few miles. Tell him your going to land somewhere near NY. As soon as the towers can be seen, shoot him, and take over. Now it's easy, you can navigate by sight.

    22. Re:Iraq theory creditable by GypC · · Score: 2

      "Go east till you hit the coast, take a right and head south until you see the 2 big buildings. Crash into one."

      Seems pretty simple to me...

    23. Re:Iraq theory creditable by allism · · Score: 1

      I can think of at least five people I work with (and I work at a small company, about 50 people in 5 divisions) who wouldn't care that innocents died. I've heard many comments about bombing the whole country (but no one can seem to tell me WHICH country with absolute certainty), and about bombing the entire Middle East.

      I'm not advocating being happy about deaths, and I'm not saying it's perfectly OK for people to rejoice about this incident, but I think we need to consider that if the tables were turned, a small portion (hopefully only a small portion) would react in the same way, and you can bet those reactions would make it on TV.

    24. Re:Iraq theory creditable by leviramsey · · Score: 2

      The US has had no shortage of opportunities to get rid of Saddam. We (the US) have chosen to keep him around because he serves a purpose.



      There are two bogeymen in that region: Iran and Iraq. They don't get along (witness an eight-year war and many skirmishes since 1980). They are barriers to each other's control of the MidEast. If one experiences a major reduction in power, the other will fill the vacuum.

    25. Re:Iraq theory creditable by AnalogBoy · · Score: 1

      How do you win against people who don't mind dying for their cause? Perhaps finding a way to instill terror in them is our only viable weapon in the quest for vengence. Which is what a LOT of america is calling for right now, my views aside.

      Granted, if you go after justice, not vengence, we're stuck with the slow cogs of the US Judicial System.

    26. Re:Iraq theory creditable by Jburkholder · · Score: 1

      The Boston Herald story says they asked for a heading to JFK just before their transponders were deactivated.

      I do think a fairly high level of sophistication and training is in evidence here. Granted, they were probably not as well trained as commercial pilots, but I don't think skimming a flight manual in arabic 20 minutes before boarding the aircraft would really be enough to pull off what they did.

      Landing a plane on a runway at reduced approach speed with a VFR beacon and everything else to assist navigation seems relatively straightforward. Flying into a (relatively narrow) building at the right altitude at what appeared to be pretty high speed with only visual navigation indicates to me a pretty high skill level.

    27. Re:Iraq theory creditable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      While Iraq is certainly a prime suspect, I would hope that the President would not act without hard evidence. If you're basing this on reports of the Israeli cabinet briefings, keep in mind that the reported statements were extremely tentative.


      Now should we obtain hard evidence that Iraq was involved, I would hope that the President would finish the job that his father walked away from halfway through. But based on the information available to the general public it would be premature to do anything yet.

    28. Re:Iraq theory creditable by alcmena · · Score: 1

      As big as the towers were, do you really think it is that easy maneuvering an enormous flying brick into the center of the building, while going a few hundred miles an hour, and manage to not hit anything else by accident? The towers are big, but not that big. The planes had to hit in the center, or they would not have been nearly as effective.

    29. Re:Iraq theory creditable by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 2

      12 men? You'd need four willing to die. The others would be told that you were going to land, hold the passengers hostage, and negotiate. Only the pilots actually NEEDED to know that the were going kamikazi. But then again, take a look at how many kamikazi pilots Japan fielded during the second World War...

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    30. Re:Iraq theory creditable by AnalogBoy · · Score: 1

      Maybe they saw that the entire world was rallying behind America, that instead of kicking America and hurting them, they awoke and angered a sleeping giant. They may have assumed the US's response would be similar to those of "Country X" - A quiet, sulking period in which everyone tries to ignore the shame that was incurred.

      My only fear is that now that one group has been so massively successful, others may be encouraged. I'm all for justice - However, i'm more for safeguarding our shores against terrorists. There really hasn't been a disaster movie to parellel what happened yesterday. Nobody dared dream that horrible. Between "Executive Decision" and "The Seige", we see other ways that terrorists could attack us. Granted, they could be much, much more successful than these fictional stories show.

      Thats why I agree with the government - This is an act of war, not of splinter terrorism. And we should retaliate, quickly and harshly, in a way that will make an impact on those responsible - and its an Islamic minority on a holy war - Simple death would not suffice. We have to find some way to injure their culture. Convential weapons just won't have any impact besides the instant bloodlust gratification that the US is screaming for.

    31. Re:Iraq theory creditable by Adam+Schumacher · · Score: 1

      It's not about throwing out the rules.

      When you get into terrorism, all the rules change. You can't defend against terrorist attacks. To steal a line from the movie "Swordfish", we have to make the consequences of terrorism so horriffic that no one dares to attempt it. (Yeah, I know the movie was a bit hokey, but they got that part right.)

      The response to this incident has to be carefully directed, but it must be brutal. Try to minimize civillian casualties, but make sure those responsible are totally and completely devastated.

      Although I'm a pacifist by nature, there comes a time in every nation's life when she's just gotta kick some ass.

      - Adam

    32. Re:Iraq theory creditable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      s/and its an Islamic minority on a holy war/and if it's an Islamic minority on a holy war/]

      -AnalogBoy

    33. Re:Iraq theory creditable by Danse · · Score: 1

      Only one plane hit near the center. The first plane hit near the top of the building. The building still came down though.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    34. Re:Iraq theory creditable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Also, the video of the second plane shows that it was banked at an angle so that the plane hit diagonally. From watching it, it seemed to me that if the plane had been level, there wouldn't have been as much damage, since more floors were hit and every part of the plane hit the building directly.


      So if this wasn't a trained pilot, they got really lucky because I think they managed to create the greatest possible damage.

    35. Re:Iraq theory creditable by torpor · · Score: 2

      It was the fireball that created the most damage to both buildings. As long as the plane was *in* and the gas was on fire, the building was going to come down ... like a bundle of sticks, tied together, burned in the middle...

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    36. Re:Iraq theory creditable by magic+chef · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but you _do_ have to navigate successfully to a relatively small target and fly precisely enough to strike it squarely. You can't convince me that it didn't take serious planning and training to accomplish that... especially in light of the fact that the attacks were so successful.

    37. Re:Iraq theory creditable by Syberghost · · Score: 2

      We know for a fact that some of the guys on the planes were Arabs who have learned to fly in the US, whose examiners think they could have flown a 757 or 767 (after it was airborne) well enough to do this, and who are BELIEVED to be connected to Osama Bin Laden.

    38. Re:Iraq theory creditable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      How do you win against people who don't mind dying for their cause?
      You let them...
    39. Re:Iraq theory creditable by NecroPuppy · · Score: 2

      That was when we had the Ayatollah Khomeini to worry about. Now, Iran has slightly destabilized, what with the 'fight' over power by the secular and religious leaders of that country.

      Honestly, I don't think they could get their shit together if we took out Saddam.

      And even if they did/could, there isn't anything stopping us (the US/NATO/whatever) from telling them not to cross the border.

      --
      I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
    40. Re:Iraq theory creditable by GoofyBoy · · Score: 2

      But what can the US do that they wouldn't do before?

      He already attacked US military and the embassy. He has nothing to lose by admitting to this, the world was already against him. In fact, by putting his name to this act he gains more infamy.

      Then again, the Taban government did come immediately out against this act...

      --
      The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
    41. Re:Iraq theory creditable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think it's possible to instill terror in someone that would die for his beliefs anyway. They're not afraid of dieing, or anything really.

      Maybe improving security a lot to somehow show the terrorists that anything they try WILL be stopped, and they're just wasting their time. Although that might just prompt more suicide attacks. Can't really tell how these guys think.

    42. Re:Iraq theory creditable by LinuxHam · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This got me too. When it first happened, I said to a friend that it's hard to hit those buildings.. at least when flying the 737 in flight simulator. You have to be lined up solid to hit them. I have tried many many times either successfully or unsuccessfully to plow into the towers over the years. Most of the time, I ended up missing one of the towers by about fifty feet and plowing into the smaller buildings nearby or the Hudson River. They only had one shot and they hit dead on. I was amazed at their accuracy.

      The flight paths were so complex that I was truly amazed they were able to find the buildings. The 2nd WTC-bound flight turned very sharply northeastbound almost directly over my house. About the only way to line up the WTC from the Trenton area is to depart the Robbinsville VOR on 040 which feeds directly into the Newark VOR also on 040, having runways 4R and 4L.

      Perhaps they rode the Newark VOR to get to the general area and knew when to make that right turn away from the Newark runways towards Lower Manhattan. I would be surprised if they were that skilled. I guess its more likely that since it was such a clear day they really could see the towers all the way from Trenton. It was definitely a VFR day yesterday.

      --
      Intelligent Life on Earth
    43. Re:Iraq theory creditable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By the way Israel, this is your chance to wipe out the Palestinians, no one here (probably anywhere) will care

      And if we later find out that it was someone else (an insane American, for example) and the Palestinians weren't the cause, everyone's going to be mad at Israel.

    44. Re:Iraq theory creditable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My top 3 targets for nukes/fuel-air explosives:

      >Bagdhad

      >Kabul and the other main Talmud city/town in Afghanistan

      Somewhere convenient on the West Bank.

      We would need to do this with B-52s, F-111s or F15Es. not cruise missiles. It makes a point: You have the balls to do it and die, we have the much bigger balls to do it and stay alive, and live with the consequences.

      Innocent lives? There are no more innocent lives.

    45. Re:Iraq theory creditable by Nerftoe · · Score: 1

      Take the guys who are supposed to go on trial this week (it's this week right) for the '93 bombing of the WTC and hang them right in front of the WTC remains.

      That's the problem... these guys don't care if they die.

    46. Re:Iraq theory creditable by zhensel · · Score: 2

      Looking at the latest video of the second impact, you see that the plane took a pretty steep curve swooping down into the WTC. This was at least a moderately well-trained pilot as can be seen in the more recent evidence.

    47. Re:Iraq theory creditable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      although my paranoia is saying homegrown.

      That was my first thought too. You'd have to have observed the flight schedules of the airports involved (Logan, etc.) to know which planes will fly by the targets at certain times to be able to have TWO PLANES collide into the WTC within ~20 minutes. Going to the airport everyday w/out boarding a flight will likely get security interested in you.

    48. Re:Iraq theory creditable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      How do you win against people who don't mind dying for their cause?

      Simple. By living long enough that they end up killing every last member of their own group.

    49. Re:Iraq theory creditable by saintlupus · · Score: 1

      I'd like to be angry at the people dancing in the streets over this tragedy, but I can easily see Americans doing the same thing if something like this had happened to Afghanistan or Iraq.


      Glad I'm not the only one who thought of this. The footage I saw looked like downtown Rochester during the Gulf War. Change the flags and its virtually identical.

      --saint

    50. Re:Iraq theory creditable by ReidMaynard · · Score: 1

      I've heard billions (1,000,000,000's) but that could be "on paper" not what he has access to.

      --
      -- www.globaltics.net

      Political discussion for a new world

    51. Re:Iraq theory creditable by Trekologer · · Score: 2

      I think it's interesting that bin Laden is disclaiming responsibility. In the past terrorist groups have always been aggressive about taking 'credit' for their efforts.

      No one is taking responsibility. This is very intresting. I suspect that the person(s) responsible are now scared shitless of the US. Note that the second plane hitting the WTC was seen by a lot of people live and even more on tape (over and over again) on television. Maybe this was a coincidence, most likely it was on purpose to showcase the terrorists' "power" agaist us. The purpose of terrorism is to strike terror and fear of further attacks in the minds of those targeted. That goal has backfired. Government leaders are calling for retribution, the public is clamoring for blood... Don't get me wrong, the deaths of thousands of Americans is nothing to be taken lightly, but, after getting over the initial shock and grief of what happened, Americans haven't been scared out of their minds.

    52. Re:Iraq theory creditable by otterhai · · Score: 1

      No, we would not have danced in the streets, we wouldn't have cared enough. I know that in a typical day I and the people I work with give very little thought to the rest of the world, they just don't matter in our day to day lives. Perhaps that is what we expect from the rest of the world. Why would they spend so much time and energy thinking about us, hating us, when we spend little or no time thinking about them. We don't hate them, we don't like them, we don't know them, how can they have any meaning whatsoever to us? Perhaps this is naive and isolationist, but isn't necessarily wrong or bad.

      sorry for the rant

    53. Re:Iraq theory creditable by seann · · Score: 0

      or stab him franticaly with a card board cutter.

      --
      I'm a big retard who forgot to log out of Slashdot on Mike's computer! LOOK AT ME.
    54. Re:Iraq theory creditable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can easily see Americans doing the same thing if something like this had happened to Afghanistan or Iraq.

      That's a crock. The last time the US has military conflict in Baghdad, I and all my friends and family did the same thing we did on 9-11. Sit and watch horribly glued to the TV screen as NBC gave us a view into hell.

      We will never forget the look of tracer bullets over Baghdad at night or the quesy feeling we got when they showed lone stragglers desperately trying to reach safety in the eerily empty city as US war planes bombed nearby. The sick feeling and horrifying imagery of 9-11 are indelibly burned into my memory in much the same way. Of course I feel a hundred times worse about NYC and DC, but only because it is *my* country.

      I guarantee that most Americans don't dance in the streets when bad things happen to others. We actually believe we are one of the good guys.

    55. Re:Iraq theory creditable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No more innocent lives? What the fuck is it with you people? And what happens when any government stupid enough to carry out this policy has to deal with chemical/biological/nuclear incidents on US soil afterwards?

      Push yourself off the cliff, mister. I'm no fucking lemming.

    56. Re:Iraq theory creditable by seann · · Score: 0

      I guess that's kind of like red necks rejoicing if a bunch of black people died.

      We (america) are the black people, and those particular afghans are the white people.

      Where as other Afghans are open minded rednecks.

      tah dah.

      --
      I'm a big retard who forgot to log out of Slashdot on Mike's computer! LOOK AT ME.
    57. Re:Iraq theory creditable by sbetree · · Score: 1

      The purpose of terrorism is to strike terror and fear of further attacks in the minds of those targeted. That goal has backfired. Government leaders are calling for retribution, the public is clamoring for blood...

      Having spent some time last year visiting my brother who was living in Israel,I would have to disagree.

      First off, there are many reasons for terrorism, and who knows exactly what these people wanted as an outcome.

      Secondly, people usually clamor for blood when they are afraid of what might happen if they don't (that's often the point of war, our justice system, and all retribution in general).

      Third, look again at Israel - a country that deals all the time with terrorism. On their TV and other media they constantly replay the footage and latest attack news, and they constantly clamor for more blood, and they are constantly afraid of more terror and further attacks. How does this point to the terror attack here having backfired? Just because our leaders are calling for retribution, and the people want to kill those who did it, does not mean we are doing anything unexpected from those who masterminded this tragedy.

      True, I think most Americans are now clamoring for blood along with the politicians, but how in any way does that make us unafraid of more attacks? How does that make their intent a backfired one?

    58. Re:Iraq theory creditable by caesar-auf-nihil · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I fully agree that we should not just jump to conclusions that it was Islamic militants or Osama bin-Laden. Yes, both groups hate us and would love to do such a thing, but there are plenty others who would, and if so motivated, do the same thing. Iraq is a good possibility, especially since they do have some revenue from oil sales, even if it does have to go into supposed controlled humanitarian accounts. So it could be well-funded enough to pull this off. However, there are other sources to consider here.

      If you want symbolism for the attacks, look at the Ecoterrorists. By blowing up the towers, they destroy symbols of capitalist greed. By hitting the Pentagon, they strike out at the military-industrial complex which pollutes the environment. Further, they are well-educated, internet and information savvy, are financially well off due to donations, and they view the earth as more important than human life. What better way to help Earth recover than to wipe out the businesses which provide financing to the organizations which pollute the environment?

      Also, we may be forgetting other now out of work terrorist groups from the 70s and 80s. Many of these groups were communist-sponsored, and many of them were never caught. They were well-trained by the KGB and were absolutely ruthless. Just as some now out-of-work KGB agents have been spotted doing private investigator work, who's to say these human predators haven't sold their services in the name of the causes they were brainwashed to believe in? What better way to support your communist cause than to hit the US where it hurts?

      We could say all terrorists are guilty by profession, and all of them should be wiped out. That would solve some problems, but as long as humans exist who would give up their own life for a cause they believe so strongly in, its unlikely that terrorism will ever go away.

      Certainly, the perpetrators of this should be punished, severly, and with malice. However, if we hit the wrong group and create collatoral damage, we've just created yet another group of terrorists who view their lives as second to their cause of causing us pain.

      I'm willing to wait for justice and proof on this one. I admit, waiting will hurt, but if we don't do this right, we'll be setting ourselves up for more pain later.

      --
      -When going for broke, go for Ithaca!
    59. Re:Iraq theory creditable by Foochar · · Score: 2

      Israel is constrained in its response by the nature of the region in which they live in. Israel has the military power to roll over every bit of Palastinian controlled land. However the rest of the region would react in revulsion, and it would quite possibly boil over into a war encompasing the entire mid-east. Israel would probably lose that war.

      In the case of the recent attacks on the U.S. many nations have condemed these attacks. NATO is talking about invoking Article 5, which is one of the main planks of the NATO accord, that an attack on any member nation is an attack on all member nations. In other words whoever did this would not have just the U.S. to deal with but, all of NATO. There isn't a group, nation, or alliance on this planet that has a chance against the combined military might of a determined NATO.

      When Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor they thought they would break our resolve, and make incapacitate us until there was nothing we could do about the problem. In reality all they did was give us a bloody nose. Yes, it hurt, it hurt a lot, but once we had stoped the bleeding we weren't broken, if anything our resolve was strengthend. Once again someone thinks that they can strike terror into the hearts of Americans, and I am confident that once again they are going to discover that they have awakened a sleeping giant!

      --
      "You can't fight in here! This is the war room" --Dr. Stra
    60. Re:Iraq theory creditable by fprintf · · Score: 1

      You must not be even passably good on the simulator then. I have no idea how this relates to actually flying a 757 or whatever, but anyone with a few days in a simulator should be able to hit those buildings based on my experience. In MS's simulator I can roll the 737 right between the radio towers on top of the Sears tower - and that is only with a few weeks of practice.

      So, if they had that much practice and the 757 is truly as easy to fly in real life as in the simulator, then hitting the WTC is easy. I am told by an experienced pilot, however, that disabling the autopilot and getting the planes on an exact heading for NYCity would have been the most problematic part.

      --
      This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
    61. Re:Iraq theory creditable by micje · · Score: 1
      Ummm, Independence Day? Mars Attacks? Deep Impact? Armageddon? Planet of the Apes? Dr. Strangelove? Day of the Triffids?

      In a halfway decent disaster movie at least 80% of the world population dies. Yesterday's attack killed 1% more people than die on a normal day.

      --

      The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from. - ast

    62. Re:Iraq theory creditable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >

      Maybe the Israeli's did it to frame the palestinians so they can justify a genocidal
      action against the palestinians.

    63. Re:Iraq theory creditable by Storm+Damage · · Score: 1
      and if its an Islamic minority on a holy war - Simple death would not suffice. We have to find some way to injure their culture.


      Can't injure their culture much more than we have already. And if we try, we'll alienate the moderates and U.S. sympathizers among them, acquiring more enemies and guaranteeing another round of attacks.

    64. Re:Iraq theory creditable by TWR · · Score: 2
      Israel's problem is that assholes in the US keep calling for "restraint."

      These same assholes are now calling for blood when the same thing was done to the US.

      Hopefully, Sharon will be given the green light to exterminate Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the PA, and all their supporters.

      -jon

      --

      Remember Amalek.

    65. Re:Iraq theory creditable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kill yourself, and many innocents who represent what you think you hate. Take no personal responcibility for the sad accuse you call a "life". You know your a worthless fuckwit, so why not die?

    66. Re:Iraq theory creditable by fitten · · Score: 1

      Who said the pilots pilotted the aircraft all the way from Boston? It could have been they hijacked the plane, then ordered the pilots to fly to New York and to within sight of the towers, then killed the pilots and flew it the rest of the way in. The pilot, probably thinking that this was a "normal" hijacking, may have suspected that he/she would then be ordered to land at one of the airports to NYC so complied with the hijackers' demands.

    67. Re:Iraq theory creditable by Dino-Bob · · Score: 1

      One of the problems was that is is(was) legal to carry knives under 4" onto a plane. This is one law that is going to change.

      --
      "There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts." -- Cecil Adams
    68. Re:Iraq theory creditable by LinuxHam · · Score: 1

      No I guess I'm not any good in the 737. I'm definitely a lot more nimble with the LearJet. I've been able to put it in between the support strings of the Golden Gate Bridge while pitched precisly on its side in a wingover. The dad-gummed 737 keeps doggin me tho..

      --
      Intelligent Life on Earth
    69. Re:Iraq theory creditable by 4mn0t1337 · · Score: 1
      I think it's interesting that bin Laden is disclaiming responsibility.

      He usually doesn't take credit.

      Maybe it has something to do with the Islamic Shariah??
      But whatever it is, it has the added bonus of allowing people to credit *anything* to him. Something bad happens to the West, and bin Laden must have struck a blow for Islam.

      This has the effect of making him larger than life and an inspiration that feeds thousands of new recruits.

      --

      ______
      Once: you're a philosopher. Twice: a pervert.

    70. Re:Iraq theory creditable by Clowning · · Score: 1

      The middle east has been home to nearly constant death by way of various means. Terrorism and military actions cost civilian life nearly every day. I have yet to witness any celebration on the part of American. Those caught on tape in the west bank represent the bottom rung of humanity. Barely possesing intelligence that qualifies as human, they are incapable of understanding the few feet that make up their immediate surroundings, much less the direction that humaninty is heading in. They will be the next "victims" of the newest form of natural selection. They do not fit in to the environment and will cease to be. The fact that the Arab world even exists still is due to an act of consideration on the part of the western world. The western world has endured repeated violations of the trust that such a consideration assumes. It is clear now, however, the conditions such consideration permits are tantamount to the proverbial loose cannon. After yesterday's events, they entire Arab world is nothing more than an inconvient topigraphical feature that will be razed to all the further progress in the construction of modern society.

    71. Re:Iraq theory creditable by commodoresloat · · Score: 1
      Perhaps you forget the gulf war, it wasn't that long ago; many Americans rejoiced publicly at the spectacle of American warplanes dropping load after load of explosives on Iraq. While there may have been attempts to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties, only a fool could have thought that the US wasn't killing innocent people in the bombing. Many innocents died in the war against Iraq; probably 10x more than will have died in the WTC once all the bodies are counted. Americans rejoiced and flew flags and yellow ribbons and many openly expressed a lack of concern for civilian casualties. US leaders encouraged the celebrations, attacking protestors as misguided (and anti-American at worst), and blaming Saddam Hussein for civilian casualties. I imagine seeing these celebrations on television was demoralizing and humiliating for Iraqis whose friends and relatives were dying.

      I'm not supporting anybody celebrating the death of innocents, and this tragedy is horrible beyond dimension. But don't be naive. Americans are just as likely to engage in bloodthirsty displays of naked power as anyone else.

    72. Re:Iraq theory creditable by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

      It's naive but not isolationist - the problem is that the US is involved militarily all over the world. I imagine much of the world would be pleased if the US government showed the same apathy as you do in your post. I heard a radical Islamic Egyptian speak once about his beliefs and about American military power. He said quite simply and plainly that he didn't hate America or Americans but that he just wished this country would leave his people alone.

    73. Re:Iraq theory creditable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      they entire Arab world is nothing more than an inconvient topigraphical feature that will be razed

      Learn to spell before you advocate genocide, you fucking nazi.

    74. Re:Iraq theory creditable by nathanm · · Score: 2

      The media are now reporting that at least 2 of the hijackers started flight training in Florida in July 2000, and completed it in January of this year.

      This has obviously been carefully planned for a long time, finding people that had the aptitude to complete flight training and were willing to commit suicide while murdering thousands of innocent civilians.

    75. Re:Iraq theory creditable by nihilogos · · Score: 2

      Take the guys who are supposed to go on trial this week (it's this week right) for the '93 bombing of the WTC and hang them right in front of the WTC remains. Send a message out to all terroists that we ain't fscking around.

      I think it's unlikely that anyone who's prepared to fly a plane into a skyscraper is going to be deterred by a hanging.

      --
      :wq
    76. Re:Iraq theory creditable by nathanm · · Score: 2
      I think it's interesting that bin Laden is disclaiming responsibility. In the past terrorist groups have always been aggressive about taking 'credit' for their efforts.
      No, this is Osama Bin Laden's usual modus operandi. A few weeks ago though, he said there would be attack against America of unprecendented scale (not an exact quote).

      This has happened in many of the other previous attacks linked to him:
      1993 - World Trade Center bombed, denied responsibility
      1996 - Khobar Towers bombed, pre-warned, denied responsibility
      1998 - Embassies in Kenya & Tanzania bombed, pre-warned, denied responsibility
      1999 - Terrorists caught smuggling explosives into US through Canada, pre-warned, denied responsibility
      2000 - USS Cole bombed, pre-warned, denied responsibility
      2001 - Attack on America, pre-warned, denied responsibility
    77. Re:Iraq theory creditable by Rivabem · · Score: 1

      Maybe US let the Vietnam for a similar reason...chances for win the war happened every day, right?

      prepotencia pouca eh bobagem

    78. Re:Iraq theory creditable by armb · · Score: 1

      > While the armchair commandos and flight-simulator captains blow smoke about how anyone could do this

      I think finding enough well-trained people to do it, all of whom are prepared to commit suicide for their cause without even getting their names published as heros/martyrs, all capable of keeping quiet about it, and getting them into the country without triggering suspicion, is the hard bit.
      The actual "learn to fly well enough to crash into a large target" bit is relatively easy. (The "take over the plane while the crew don't realize this is a suicide mission yet" bit isn't so easy, but no harder than past hijacks).

      --
      rant
    79. Re:Iraq theory creditable by BluesMoon · · Score: 1

      I'd like to point to a story at rediff.com by Reeta Sinha http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/sep/12reeta.htm

      In short, what it says is that the US was hit simply because their leaders are too arrogant to have considered this possible. They aren't attacking the US, their attacking their arrogance. The US shouts lout "We're the best, we're the smartest", and that tends to piss off some people. They may be within the US, or outside, but they aren't really attacking the US.

      This definitely had a good brain behind it. How else could it have been so perfectly synchronised, and yet no evidence be available afterwards. Why is it that not a single US media outlet was affected? How is it that the CIA had no idea that this was even possible. How come Air traffic controllers had no idea that the planes were going the wrong way. How come they didn't notice the proximity to the WTC (surely a no-fly-zone).

      --
      Do not underestimate the value of print statements for debugging.
    80. Re:Iraq theory creditable by Ben+Hutchings · · Score: 2

      Israel is occupying foreign territory. Don't the residents of that territory have the right to fight that occupation?

    81. Re:Iraq theory creditable by TWR · · Score: 2
      Jews have returned to their home after 2,000 years of exile and found squatters there. Based on their actions since the Jews started returning, they should be evicted. To pretend that Israel is not Jewish land and to say that Jews are "occupying" Israel is vile and disgusting. Why the hell does every other group in the world have right to its homeland except the Jews?

      -jon

      --

      Remember Amalek.

    82. Re:Iraq theory creditable by Ben+Hutchings · · Score: 2

      I'm not arguing the right of the state of Israel to exist. I'm speaking of the territories of the Gaza Strip and West Bank which have remained occupied following a war over 30 years ago.

    83. Re:Iraq theory creditable by TWR · · Score: 2
      The West Bank contains many of the holiest sites in Judaism. Hebron is where Abraham and Sarah lived and it is where they are buried, along with Isaac, Rebeccah and Jacob. It is mentioned explictly in the Torah as the inheritance of Caleb, one of the two spies who was not afraid of entering Canaan.

      There had been a Jewish community there for 3,000 years. In 1929, when Arabs rioted and killed dozens of innocent Jews (mostly students), the British evacuated the remaining Jews. The first "settlers" who came to Hebron in 1967 were descendants of those who had been killed or driven out in 1929.

      So, oh he who knows all, do you give Jews your official permission to live in their city? How Mighty White of you.

      -jon

      --

      Remember Amalek.

    84. Re:Iraq theory creditable by Ben+Hutchings · · Score: 2

      There were Arabs living there for thousands of years too. The book you refer to details some of the atrocities done to them when the Israelites first moved into that area.

    85. Re:Iraq theory creditable by TWR · · Score: 2
      The Koran states that Israel is Jewish land, and Moslems are to stand by the Jews to protect this land. The Arabs have not obeyed their own religion, because they have decided they hate Jews (as a symbol of the West) more than they love God.

      Furthermore, the Cananites who were marked for destruction were not marked because of a whim. It's because of their foul practices. One of the nicer was Moloch worship, where parents would smash the skulls of their infant children against an altar so they would have good crops.

      As a nice modern variation on this theme, we now have Arabs busing children to war zones, using them as cover while Arab snipers shoot at troops. The only difference I see is that the Moloch worshipers didn't try to push the job of killing their children off on someone else, and then blame them for doing so.

      You can keep on defending them. But you are defending evil. What does that make you?

      You never answered my question about the West Bank being "foreign territory." Or are you just going to not admit that you are wrong?

      -jon

      --

      Remember Amalek.

    86. Re:Iraq theory creditable by Ben+Hutchings · · Score: 2
      The Koran states that Israel is Jewish land, and Moslems are to stand by the Jews to protect this land.

      That's interesting, if true - which I won't dispute, as am not in the least bit familiar with the Koran. I still don't believe it justifies occupation by force if the people currently living in that land don't go along with this. Of course Jews should be allowed to live in peace throughout the historical area of Israel, or wherever else they wish to.

      The Arabs have not obeyed their own religion, because they have decided they hate Jews (as a symbol of the West) more than they love God.

      You're conflating race and religion there - some Arabs are Christian, and some of them probably aren't religious at all. You're also ascribing beliefs to a large group of people who are unlikely all to share them. It is probably true that most people in the occupied terrorists hate the occupying forces, and they have good reason to. If their hatred extends to all Jews then they are quite wrong, but they are only falling into the same trap you just did.

      Furthermore, the Cananites who were marked for destruction were not marked because of a whim. It's because of their foul practices. One of the nicer was Moloch worship, where parents would smash the skulls of their infant children against an altar so they would have good crops.

      If this was a universal practice among the Canaanites, it would surely cause the tribe to dwindle and disappear. So I don't believe it ever was. It strikes me that this is probably wartime propaganda. Why not kill only those people who committed such crimes (as the book of Leviticus commands)?

      As a nice modern variation on this theme, we now have Arabs busing children to war zones, using them as cover while Arab snipers shoot at troops. The only difference I see is that the Moloch worshipers didn't try to push the job of killing their children off on someone else, and then blame them for doing so.

      That is sickening behaviour, but I don't believe it is something that Arabs in general, or Palestinians in general, will do.

      You can keep on defending them. But you are defending evil. What does that make you?

      Tell me, what evil am I defending? If you think I'm defending murder by anyone, you are wrong.

      You never answered my question about the West Bank being "foreign territory." Or are you just going to not admit that you are wrong?

      UN Security Council resolution 242 called the withdrawal from all occupied territory following the Six Day War. So far as I am aware, no country has accepted the legitimacy of Israel's acquisition of this territory. I do not see why I should.

      Let's go back to what you said:

      Jews have returned to their home after 2,000 years of exile and found squatters there.

      I find this analogy absurd. Is Germany, or Ireland, the home of Americans whose ancestors came from there a few hundred years ago? No. What makes Israel the home of all Jews, then? The UN did establish a Jewish state in 1948, but that did not include those occupied territories.

      Based on their actions since the Jews started returning, they should be evicted.

      It was their home too. I don't believe that anyone has more or less of a right to live in Israel/Palestine, as long as they don't want to kill other people or steal their land. And I don't believe that anyone should be condemned on the basis of what people of the same race or religion have done.

      To pretend that Israel is not Jewish land and to say that Jews are "occupying" Israel is vile and disgusting. Why the hell does every other group in the world have right to its homeland except the Jews?

      As I said, I wasn't disputing the legitimacy of the state. However, I do dispute any claim that people should be ejected from their homes because they became part of another country, or because another country wishes to enlarge its territory, or because they belong to the same racial or religious group as criminals.

    87. Re:Iraq theory creditable by TWR · · Score: 2
      Of course Jews should be allowed to live in peace throughout the historical area of Israel, or wherever else they wish to.

      But the fact is, they aren't safe. You'd have to be on crack to think that Jews are safe in most parts of the world. And before you start chalking it up to "Israeli agression" or other nonsense, look at the reasons for the founding of the Zionist movement. I'm talking 50 years before the Holocaust occured. 2,000 years of being kicked in the ass was enough.

      If this was a universal practice among the Canaanites, it would surely cause the tribe to dwindle and disappear.

      Sacrificing the first born son or daughter to one of your dieties was a common practice. Look it up.

      That is sickening behaviour, but I don't believe it is something that Arabs in general, or Palestinians in general, will do.

      I don't think that (many) Palestinian parents are sending their kids out as cannon fodder on purpose. But I have no doubt that the Palestinian Authority is. Their parents may love them, but Yassar Arafat sees children as propaganda weapons.

      Why not kill only those people who committed such crimes (as the book of Leviticus commands)?

      Keep on reading. Other parts of the Torah and Prophets (can't look up right now) command the destruction of entire tribes.

      Is Germany, or Ireland, the home of Americans whose ancestors came from there a few hundred years ago? No.

      As an American Indian that question. If you can find one.

      However, I do dispute any claim that people should be ejected from their homes because they became part of another country

      So where would you put all of the Jews from Arab countries who were thrown out when Israel was founded in 1948?

      UN Security Council resolution 242 called the withdrawal from all occupied territory following the Six Day War.

      The UN has Uganda, Cuba, and Sudan on its Human Rights committee. I take anything the UN says or does with a serious grain of salt.

      What makes Israel the home of all Jews, then?

      God does. The UN can take it up with Him.

      -jon

      --

      Remember Amalek.

    88. Re:Iraq theory creditable by Ben+Hutchings · · Score: 2
      Keep on reading. Other parts of the Torah and Prophets (can't look up right now) command the destruction of entire tribes.

      Do you think that this was right?

      So where would you put all of the Jews from Arab countries who were thrown out when Israel was founded in 1948?

      Good question, but I don't think that it justifies retaliation against a different group of Arabs.

      The UN has Uganda, Cuba, and Sudan on its Human Rights committee. I take anything the UN says or does with a serious grain of salt.

      The UN certainly has its flaws - but the Security Council includes a number of countries that don't tend to agree, and yet they were able to agree on this.

      God does. The UN can take it up with Him.

      I find the existence and power of the UN a whole lot more credible.

    89. Re:Iraq theory creditable by TWR · · Score: 2
      Do you think that this was right?

      Yup. I think some people and some civilizations are worthy of destruction.

      Good question, but I don't think that it justifies retaliation against a different group of Arabs.

      When Pakistan was founded, there was a huge displacement as Muslims moved north and Hindus moved south. Tit for tat. Same thing happened in Cyprus. Jews look after their own. Always have, always will. So far, Arabs have used the Palestinians for political reasons and given them virtually nothing, not even citizenship. Whose fault is that? Whether or not you like collectivist behavior, it exists.

      The UN certainly has its flaws - but the Security Council includes a number of countries that don't tend to agree, and yet they were able to agree on this.

      That's because it was politically convenient. There are hundreds of UN resolutions that are ignored. Like the one which calls for Syria to pull its troops out of Lebanon. Don't hear much Arab complaints about that one, eh?

      The UN is a useless, hate-filled organization. It should be disbanded.

      I find the existence and power of the UN a whole lot more credible.

      I pity you.

      -jon

      --

      Remember Amalek.

  7. Cowards by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 2, Troll

    You know, I have to speak up about something: I am sickened by the cowardice I saw yesterday on Slashdot. There were many that were calling for appeasing the terrorists. Many called for just "moving on", and not making a response. Still more said that we shouldn't "make them mad" by striking back, which would invite more terrorism. Many even said that we should try and "understand" the terrorists.

    Hogwash.

    Tens of thousands of people have died. These are not freedom fighters, these are mentally disturbed people with great resources. Should we have tried to understand Kaczinsky when he sent mail bombs? Or do we remove him from society?

    The perpetrators must be punished, and the countries that give safe harbor to these countries must be punished. As an American, I believe the response must be overwhelming force. Terrorism on American soil? This must not be tolerated.

    You people who think that we are inviting more terrorism have it exactly backwards. That is how the terrorists want you to feel! The want you to feel fear, to give in to whatever demands they make. We must NEVER do that. Once they find out that we will do nothing to their attacks, particularly on this scale, it will invite every crazy to cause more damage.

    It's time for Sheriff Uncle Same to ride into town, and kick some bad-guy ass. The cowards who wring their hands over what needs to be done make me sick. Go hide under your bed, and allow the grown-ups to do what needs to be done.

    --
    Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    1. Re:Cowards by Libertius · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Perhaps your right... but i would appreciate if you make sure you don't take the life of innocent civilians while doing so. I don't believe the civilians in the middle east (or where ever the guilty are found) deserve to die any more than the civilians in USA.

    2. Re:Cowards by ScumBiker · · Score: 1

      Thank you, sir. You took the words out of my mouth.

      Fuck terrorism. Kill 'em all. I can't even think of an epitaph that describes my feelings towards these things.

      --
      --- Think of it as evolution in action ---
    3. Re:Cowards by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 2

      but i would appreciate if you make sure you don't take the life of innocent civilians while doing so. I don't believe the civilians in the middle east (or where ever the guilty are found) deserve to die any more than the civilians in USA.

      I don't know. Are civilians in, say, Afghanistan as innocent as the ones in New York? I don't think they are. They know they have a radical government. They know they have one of the worst terrorists living in their country. What responsibility do the citizens have to overthrow a government of that sort?

      Now, I don't think we are going to go out of our way to hit civilian targets. But I don't think it's correct to call them "innocents", either. The cancer must be removed, however.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    4. Re:Cowards by Libertius · · Score: 1

      And your goverment is innocent?

    5. Re:Cowards by leviramsey · · Score: 2

      I agree with you that the people behind this need to have their ass/collective ass kicked, but at the same time I think that the smartest thing to do is to re-examine every aspect of the US relationship with the Middle East (specifically wrt our support of an Israeli regime that has been in violation of many treaties since 1948).

    6. Re:Cowards by krek · · Score: 1

      "Tens of thousands of people have died. These are not freedom fighters, these are mentally disturbed people with great resources. Should we have tried to understand Kaczinsky when he sent mail bombs? Or do we remove him from society?"

      If you never try to understand, then you will always fail to prevent!

      We do not want to prevent terrorists from blowing up own buildings and lives.... we want to prevent terrorists!

    7. Re:Cowards by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 2

      Depends on how you define "innocent". Have me made mistakes? Yes. Do we, on balance, do good in the world? Yes. Do we promote -- and fund -- democracy and freedom over dictatorships? Yes.

      The world is so damn ungrateful. Who rebuilt the world after WW/II? Who immediately sends aid to every country -- even our enemies -- when there is a natural disaster? Who does the rest of the country run to when something hard needs to be done (Iraq, Bosnia)?

      The thing is, the US can't win. If we don't act, then we are accused of "not caring about anything that doesn't happen in the US". If we do act, then we are accused of imperialism.

      Damn it, YES, on balance we are innocent.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    8. Re:Cowards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you not know that American Apache Helocopters and M-16 Rifles are used to kill Palesinians?

    9. Re:Cowards by linzeal · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I don't know. Are civilians in, say, Afghanistan as innocent as the ones in New York? I don't think they are.

      Yeah, that is the spirit, those dirty savages that cannot do anything but hate/kill/terrorize and are only worth maybe what half of an american, or less?

      You sick bastard, hang your head in dehumanizing shame !!

    10. Re:Cowards by FFFish · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'd be surprised if anyone is advocating rolling over and playing dead.

      Rather, I suspect you're misinterpreting what is being said: be coldly rational and thorough. Identify the guilty and destroy them and, if at all possible, them alone.

      This advice is given based on past hysteria:

      - The panic after Pearl Harbour resulted in tens of thousands of innocent American and Canadian citizens being imprisoned in internment camps, and the loss of all their possessions. These weren't Japs that were mistreated: they were second- and third-generation Americans.

      - The panic after the JFK assasination resulted in immediate finger-pointing against Cuba and Russia. It was a truly nasty time to have Cuban skin in the US.

      - The panic after the Oklahoma bombing resulted in many American citizens being mistreated: there was plenty of bullying, name-calling, and threats. All because these citizens had Arab looks and skin.

      The public's reaction to the WTC terrorist attack can -- and probably will -- turn just as ugly as before: there are people clamouring to kick out American citizens based on their religion ("Muslims out") and people calling for the complete destruction of the mid-East, even though the mid-East isn't a homogenous society and even though most of the citizens over there aren't guilty.

      It's time for Sheriff Uncle Sam to get some fucking serious about destroying the terrorist groups and those who support them

      *AND*

      to get serious about figuring out why the USA is so thoroughly hated and then figuring out how to gain, if not friendly terms, neutral terms with other nations/cultures/peoples.

      *Both* steps are needed to fix the problems. Neither one alone will work.

      --

      --
      Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
    11. Re:Cowards by unitron · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Considering that Afghanistan hasn't had anything like a free press since at least the days of occupation by the Soviet Union, if ever, the average Afghan civilian probably gets very little information, correct or otherwise, that hasn't been spoon-fed to them by the the people in charge.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    12. Re: Cowards by Zappa · · Score: 3, Funny

      It would not be bad to find out, what organisation / country / people are behind this before shouting out and asking for war. Fighting fire with fire meens bringing other families / people / countries in the same situation you are now - and noone profits anything from it.

    13. Re:Cowards by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 2

      Read what I said. I asked a question: What responsibility do the citizens have when their government is determined to do great evil?

      Does a german soldier working at Auschwitz have any responsibility, even if he just "follows orders"? Most would say he does. What about citizens who live in the area who give aid and comfort to that soldier? What about other citizens who know what's going on?

      I would say the responsibility goes down as you get farther away, but none of them are "innocent".

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    14. Re:Cowards by Libertius · · Score: 1

      That's the glory of politics... it doesn't matter what you do, someone always thinks you should have done something else. I'm not saying your evil, I certainly don't think you are. But I don't think the civilian population in Afghanistan is either. Whatever... I guess someone that doesn't really deserve it is going to die, regardless of what happens...

    15. Re:Cowards by why-is-it · · Score: 1

      Terrorism on American soil? This must not be tolerated.

      What are you willing to do about terrorism that is not on American soil? Is terrorism okay if it happens somewhere else?

      --
      *** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
    16. Re:Cowards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the question is: which reality are you claiming to be the master of???

    17. Re:Cowards by Mr.+Punch · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >You people who think that we are inviting more terrorism have it exactly backwards. That is how the terrorists want you to feel! The want you to feel fear, to give in to whatever demands they make.

      No. They want terror. They want disruption. They want us to be so twisted by rage and fear that we can no longer function as a nation.

      These are people who believe that America is an evil and terrible nation. I believe they are wrong. But if we go charging into the Middle East without a proper investigation, without being sure that we're going after the right man or group, we WILL be PROVING ourselves to be as bad as they claim.

      I'm not saying we shouldn't react to this terrible offense. I'm saying we shouldn't lash out blindly at the first target to present itself.

    18. Re:Cowards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      What a load of bullshit. The people in Afghanistan are starving and delapidated. They are being oppressed by a regime that would rather spend resources convicting preachers than helping their own dying people. Your attitude is part of the exact reason why SO many people around the world hate the USA with such a passion.


      You make me sick.

    19. Re:Cowards by tester13 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes the citizens are as innocent. Many people are starving to death, being confined to their homes, beaten by government officials, and denied basic human rights.

      Most people would consider the plight of the Afghani people to be terribly sad. I do not think bombing a bunch of civilians would improve matters much (for them).

      Are you trolling with this extremely hawkish angle or are you being genuine? Just asking I will continue to respond if you assure me that this isn't a joke.

    20. Re:Cowards by AshPattern · · Score: 1
      I'll tell you why the USA is so thoroughly hated...

      The success of the powerful awakens the fear, avarice, and greed of the covetous and weak. That's why.

      Before I get marked -1, Flamebait, consider that everyone else has the same opportunity to become a superpower, but they just can't get it together long enough. If the middle east would stop fighting each other and unite, that would be a force to fear.

    21. Re:Cowards by jiheison · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You people who think that we are inviting more terrorism have it exactly backwards.

      The freedom, prosperity and security that Americans have come to believe they are entitled to is built on the backs of the rest of the world. We are seen as bullies who care nothing for the plight of those who suffer at the hands of our government, our corporations and the tyrant regimes that we prop up to further our selfish interests.

      Yes, the few criminals that perpetrated this crime need to be found and prosecuted. However, until we face up to our role in this world as a spectacle of self-absorbtion and arroganance in the face of poverty and suffering, we will always have enemies that are angry enough and desperate enough to lash out this way.

      This talk about this being a strike against freedom and democracy is the real hogwash. This was a strike against the militarism, capitalism and globalism that have been allowed to supercede the ideals that this country was founded on.

      We need to reach out to oppressed people and re-establish ourselves as defenders of freedom instead of defenders of capital. Ending the desperation from which these threats are born is the only way to prevent this from happening again.

    22. Re:Cowards by Ami+Ganguli · · Score: 5, Insightful
      It's time for Sheriff Uncle Same to ride into town, and kick some bad-guy ass. The cowards who wring their hands over what needs to be done make me sick. Go hide under your bed, and allow the grown-ups to do what needs to be done.

      Unfortunately it's that attitude on both sides that caused this mess. The American government regularly "kicks ass" all over the world and creates a lot of resentment among the poor people who suffer because of it.

      Now some of those bitter angry people have found a way to strike back. They probably feel exactly the way you do - eager to "kick some ass".

      I'm neither American nor Arabic, so I suppose I can't really understand the anger that these groups feel for each other, but I am sad at what looks like an escalation of needless killing. So now you want to bomb some more Arabs. More angry people will join terrorist organizations, and more Americans will be killed. So when does it end? Does one side have to be totally anihilated? That's crazy.

      If the U.S. wants justice the answer is to support international organizations like the international court. Give them the mandate and the resources to pursue international criminals. Unfortunately the current administration is following the opposite policy: witholding money from the U.N., and refusing to support the international court. Sad, but that's what happens when you let cowboys into the Whitehouse.

      --
      It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
    23. Re:Cowards by joss · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh wow, you're a true patriot are you ?

      I don't think many people would argue with killing those responsible, just make sure you can identify who they are first.

      However, if you think the bombing of civilians is going to fix anything, I don't know whether I am more impressed by your hypocracy or your stupidity.

      As for saying it is foolish to try and "understand" the terrorists, have you ever heard the phrase "know your enemy" ?

      While we're on the subject of "Cowards" every news story calls the terrorists' attacks "Cowardly". Does anyone else find this absurd ? They may be crazed fanatics, but facing certain death in order to further your cause is not how I understand the term. Advocating the use of long-range missiles on civilian center's on the other side of the world seems a little closer to my understanding of the word.

      Since when was ignorance a point of view ?

      --
      http://rareformnewmedia.com/
    24. Re:Cowards by why-is-it · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't know. Are civilians in, say, Afghanistan as innocent as the ones in New York? I don't think they are.

      Civilians are civilians, and it does not matter where they live.

      If you advocate or permit attacks against non-military targets, then there is very little difference between you and the terrorists.

      --
      *** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
    25. Re:Cowards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry but that's the sort of thinking that has failed to stop the paramilitaries in Northern Ireland (where I'm from) for the last 30 years. Striking at terrorism with brute force is like punching fog.

    26. Re:Cowards by krek · · Score: 1

      What do you think the US government would think about the Middle East uniting and becoming a superpower? What do you think they would do about it?

    27. Re:Cowards by jayhawk88 · · Score: 1

      You don't write down "Over throw evil government" on a To-Do list along with "Pick up bread and milk". It's not an easy thing to do. It takes weapons, manpower, money, luck, and time. Particularly when your government is a hard line one.

      Ordinary people in Afghanistan are struggling just to survive every day. They might be shot if their wife doesn't hide her face in the right way. Their entire homes might be burned to the ground, while their government sits back and does nothing about it.

      These people did not ask for an oppressive, evil government, it was thrust upon them. It's wrong to punish them for not having the resources to do something about it.

    28. Re:Cowards by jrboynton · · Score: 1

      Terrorism's first goal is to provoke indiscriminate retaliation.

    29. Re:Cowards by super-flex-o-matic · · Score: 1
      get out your nazi flags and fight for a clean, christian and american world. don't think about who this terrorists are and what made them, it needn't to concern america.

      america is great, it's a country where everyone lives in peace, prosperity and freedom.
      america is a gift for our world. wherever america intervenes, flowers and birds grow out of dirty desert sand. happiness to all people thats the true american spirit - if someone doesn't want that, he should be punished.
      America brings prosperity to those 3rd world countries, where real work is done, america rewards it.

      go fight - the american way of live

      punish now - learn nothing
      _____________ may peace come over israel

    30. Re:Cowards by captaincucumber · · Score: 1

      I think it's strange that people keep saying this, re-evalutate our support of Israel, etc. I think it's time to re-evalutate the existence of the Arab countries whose citizens are celebrating this.

    31. Re:Cowards by why-is-it · · Score: 1

      Do we, on balance, do good in the world? Yes. Do we promote -- and fund -- democracy and freedom over dictatorships? Yes.

      Non-US citizens might have a different opinion.
      Let us not forget that the US has also backed a number of military dictatorships in South America.

      The world is so damn ungrateful. Who rebuilt the world after WW/II? Who immediately sends aid to every country -- even our enemies -- when there is a natural disaster? Who does the rest of the country run to when something hard needs to be done (Iraq, Bosnia)?

      Give me a break. The US waited a good three years before joining in for WWII. What did the US do to stop the genocides in the USSR under Stalin. What did the US do to stop the genocides in Cambodia? What did the US do to stop the genocide in Rawanda? What did the US do to stop the multiple genocides in Bosnia/Serbia?

      Certainly the US has a role to play in the world, but the sometimes you have yo get your hands dirty, and sometimes the US has been reluctant to do so.

      --
      *** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
    32. Re:Cowards by Hard_Code · · Score: 2

      punish, punish, punish Is that the only thing you know how to do? Yes we need to catch who did this, and yes they need to face justice, hopefully put to death. But at most we will get a handful of people. Please tell me how killing a handful of people will possibly make up for thousands of deaths? You can only kill a person once you know. Lashing out at others in a blind rage is just stupid, unjust, an act of terrorism itself, and does NOTHING save making people hate us even more. Violence does not solve violence. We have to recognize that around the world people have legitimate reasons to hate us (no, it's not because they "hate democracy" or "hate freedom"). We can't just go around killing everybody we think doesn't like us. It's impossible, immature, and will just continue the vicious cycle. We DO have to re-analyze our policies and behavior. The only way to combat terrorism is to avoid generating lots of intense hate towards yourself. And no, we shouldn't do this just to "appease" terrorists, or just because some terrorist act occurred. We should do this, and we should already have done this, because it is the RIGHT thing. Terrorists will terrorize whether or not we "fight back". Violence is just not the way out of this cycle.

      --

      It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
    33. Re:Cowards by Dexx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The public's reaction to the WTC terrorist attack can -- and probably will -- turn just as ugly as before: there are people clamouring to kick out American citizens based on their religion ("Muslims out") and people calling for the complete destruction of the mid-East, even though the mid-East isn't a homogenous society and even though most of the citizens over there aren't guilty.

      Related to this, a coworker of mine was telling us about the talk he had with his young daughter last night. She felt that she was being persecuted already just because of her beliefs.

      People on /. have been saying that terrorism against the US doesn't work and will never work, that the US should stike back and leave a glass crater behind. This is evidence that terrorism not only works, but it works well. The US is afriad and angry and lashing out. People are afraid to admit their heritage or religion.

      I can't condone what has happened, but it was very effective in doing what it was intended to do - create terror.

      --
      Feel the fear and do it anyway.
    34. Re:Cowards by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree.

      After the First World War the US, pulled back into it's shell and let France and the UK pummel a devistated Germany with reperations that lead to the Second World War, and during the Second World War we gave Free France, the UK, Soviets all the tools they needed to fight and survive. Like the 13.5 million pairs of boots the Soviets used to march into Germany on.

      And after the war we rebuilt Europe and Asia. We gave money, training and arms to Afganistan so they could beat off the Soviets.

      Instead of letting Europe fall into a hole of it's own making in 1945 the United States made it so they could rebuild...and what do we get in return? Insults and utter disrespect for our system of Government and the punishments that the American people wish to hand out to killers. While Germans, French and British killed millions of people in two World Wars, it's the Americans whom are barbarians for still executing murders. It's Americans that are called on to pull Europe out of the messes it makes (Bosnia, Kosovo). And for alot of people, when the United States rains fire or Special Forces troopers on the monsters that attacked America on 9/11/01...WE will be the bad guys again.

      My Grandfather's Generation helped free Europe and Europe doesn't seem to care that America threw billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of men into freeing Europe. And now the Taliban forgets whom helped pull thier fat out of the Soviet fire.

      Many in the UK remeber and stand by the US, as do many Israelis, Koreans and even the Vietnamese and Japanese respect America. But for some reason many, many other people's have either forgotten what American did for them...or are too prideful to admit it.

      People that don't understand why America becomes isolationist...look at how you act after we save you. It's your fault that Americans would rather leave you alone than help you, because for the most part you'd bite the hand that helps you.

    35. Re:Cowards by xonker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As my parents taught me when I was quite young, two wrongs do not make a right. (Though three lefts do...)

      What is going on in Israel is horrible, no doubt. Our support of Israel isn't synonymous with persecution of Palestinians, though it is convenient and tempting for some to make that connection. Those weapons may be used against Palestinians, but they were not supplied for that purpose -- they were supplied for the purpose of protecting Israel from other Middle Eastern countries.

      We're idealistic fools to believe that we can actually introduce peace in an area of the world that is so fundamentally unstable. But that doesn't mean we deserve to have our country attacked by terrorists. America as a country for the last fifty or sixty years has been the equivalent of a man in his teens and twenties, bright-eyed, idealistic and convinced that he can make a difference. Smart, strong and eager to help, but sometimes wrong-headed and certainly inexperienced. I believe the events yesterday are going to be our coming of age and disillusionment. I hope that we will find the organization(s) responsible, destroy them utterly and then learn not to get involved in others' battles.

      Honestly, I believe we should simply write the entire Middle East off as unsalvageable and withdraw any support or relations with countries in that area altogether. If they want to kill one another and extract revenge until there are no survivors, fine. It's a cultural, not religious, thing that no amount of intervention will solve. If it weren't for the fact that we're so damn dependant on oil from that region I suspect we would have washed our hands of it long ago.

      I've gotten so sick of seeing so-called news about Israelis killing Palestinians or vice-versa. It's not news, it's the status quo. They don't want peace, they don't want to settle their differences. It's age-old hatred and humanity at its worst. It's sickening from both sides, neither side is righteous. I suspect that if there is a God in Heaven he will be harsh indeed on leaders of both factions for the atrocities that they have carried out in His name.

    36. Re:Cowards by Dexx · · Score: 1

      Today's superosity sums it up nicely, I think.

      --
      Feel the fear and do it anyway.
    37. Re:Cowards by DCowern · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're missing the point!!! They're all terrorists! If we bomb the hell out of Osama Bin Laden's camps and he isn't responsible, is that wrong?

      NO!!

      Why? Because he already has ordered the deaths of Americans in other circumstance (e.g. the embassies in Africa and possibly the U.S.S. Cole, to name two examples) and he is probably training men as we speak to do it again. This man is a murderer. Why does ANYONE see anything wrong with making him pay for the things he's done?

    38. Re:Cowards by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 1

      These are people who believe that America is an evil and terrible nation.

      Maybe we should be an evil and terrible nation for a few weeks and show these people who *think* we are what an evil U.S. can do.

    39. Re:Cowards by Sklivvz · · Score: 1

      I am appalled by your post. The crime perpetuated yesterday is against the world, not the US. Why should you limit yourself to what happens on US territory? How blind can you be?

      As for the thousands dead being innocent civilians, well, you are right. But NATO forces did not discriminate between civilans and army people in their "international police" actions, either...

      You really think that Americans have any more right than terrorists to kill innocent people?
      If you think so, you put yourself at the same level of the terrorists. And this is really sad.

      Killing innocent people in the name of self proclaimed justice is a cowardly act. It's not justice, it's stupid, unfulfilling vengeance.

      Everything IMHO.

    40. Re:Cowards by toast0 · · Score: 1

      on the subject of calling the terrorists cowardly, i think it may stem from the (assumed) death upon impact. I personally don't think a plane vs. building attack out of nowhere is brave, especially if you aren't planning on living to tell about it.

      Maybe in an ongoing conflict with a defended building, where taking out the building could change the face of the conflict.

      Also I think the idea is that using violence to voice your opinion is a cowardly way to do it.

    41. Re:Cowards by mjh · · Score: 2
      The public's reaction to the WTC terrorist attack can -- and probably will -- turn just as ugly as before: there are people clamouring to kick out American citizens based on their religion ("Muslims out") and people calling for the complete destruction of the mid-East, even though the mid-East isn't a homogenous society and even though most of the citizens over there aren't guilty.

      Of course, you're correct. It's not a good reaction to this to assume that all muslims are guilty by association. Still, I have not yet seen any reaction on /. anything close to what you're suggesting. But I have seen a *LOT* of reaction that the previous poster pointed out. Specifically, that we should *not* retaliate because of fear of the escalation.

      You've put up a nice strawman, and then knocked it down, but you haven't given a single argument about what the previous poster was saying. His or her argument was that a response is called for, and that we as a nation can no longer tolerate the actions of terrorism. And not only that we can no longer tolerate the rogue nations who harbor and encourage terrorism. They are contributing to the problem.

      Yes it'd be nice to figure out why the US is so thoroughly hated. But there are some things that you're ignoring.

      1. Some people are irrational and hate you for no good reason. No amount of discussion with them will ever change that. And if they hate you, that's fine. Discuss with them all you want... up until they act out that hate. Then response is not only justified, it's demanded.
      2. Some people will not discuss with you why they hate you. Or they won't use the standard mechanisms for airing their grievances. Terrorism falls squarely in this category, and countries and groups that make use of it have been given ample oppurtunity to communicate. Terroristic acts are done either because the terrorist hasn't tried to communicate, or hasn't been successful at convincing others of his point of view. Neither are justification for this type of violence.
      3. You don't go up to a guy who's actively threatening you with a knife and ask him how he's feeling. You either pull out larger weaponry and defend yourself, or run and let him win.

      I think that there is value in establishing communications with these countries. I'm sure that the US would welcome legitimate diplomacy. But recognize that there's only so far that diplomacy can go and there is a time to fight. And since they pulled out the knife, and already used it, it's time to fight.

      --
      Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
    42. Re:Cowards by greenrd · · Score: 1
      everyone else has the same opportunity to become a superpower

      Why is it that Slashdot seems to be crawling with right-wing crazies these days?

    43. Re:Cowards by Quixote · · Score: 1

      It's time for Sheriff Uncle Sam to get some fucking serious about destroying the terrorist groups and those who
      support them


      The problem is, there are many in the US establishment who have supported such people in the past.

      The US has a history of creating a monster to destroy another, only to end up with their creation becoming a bigger pain in the ass.

      For example: Saddam Hussein. Was propped up by the US to fight Iran. Today, is a much bigger problem than Iran.

      Another example: Taliban. Yes, the same Taliban who are harboring Osama Bin Laden today. They were created by the CIA and the Pakistani Intelligence to fight the Soviets. The Soviets are gone, but the Taliban are the main enemy now.

      I could go on.

      The US has often turned a blind eye to such criminals, because in the short term these guys were helping take out some other bad guys.

      Take the state of Pakistan. If you look at the geography of Afghanistan, you will realise that the only way in/out of Afghanistan is through Pakistan. If tomorrow the Pakistanis were to stop supplying the Taliban with oil, money, weapons, food, etc. then the Taliban would roll over in no time. But the Pakistani military is all cosy with the Taliban, and doesn't want to sour the friendship (not to mention the heroin trade).

      If you want to take out this scourge, you have to take out all of the roots also. This includes taking out the supporters of Bin Laden, like Afghanistan and Pakistan.

    44. Re:Cowards by oenone01 · · Score: 1

      I agree that a terorist action of this magnitude demands a retaliatory strike. The problem is that Americans are quick to say things like "Lets go kick some @$$" or "Kill them all." but I ask you to think back to the Gulf war. What happened when CNN showed pictures of the "road of death"? We stopped pushing on the ground. Once we saw what thosw phrases really mean in terms of lives lost many people lost the will to fight.

      We are a powerful nation. If we choose we have the ability to wipe small countries out of existance. Do you really think that be devastating an entire country or race of people that any of us would feel any better. We would be the ones bringing this kind of devestation on innocent people. Should those responsible feel our wrath? Absolutely!

      IMHO the only way to stop terrorist attack is to send the message that if you use terrorism against us we will wipe your cause from the planet. That way they gain nothing from attacking. Do you really think that future suicide bombers fear for their lives and that an attack on their country will stop them?
      Let the military handle this. They are good at their job, and I am confident that we will find out who was responsible and they will be brought before a judge. I am just not sure if that judge will be mortal.

    45. Re:Cowards by Sklivvz · · Score: 1

      The world is so damn ungrateful. Who rebuilt the world after WW/II? Who immediately sends aid to every country -- even our enemies -- when there is a natural disaster? Who does the rest of the country run to when something hard needs to be done (Iraq, Bosnia)?

      This is simply ridiculous. Having the cash doesn't mean being innocent. You think the US are the only country helping other countries? This is false. The world is not only the US. You have to understand this.

      Also, may I remember that the US are still keeping Iraq on embargo while Iraqi children die of illnesses which could be cured? Is that caring for your enemies?

      Unbelievable.

    46. Re:Cowards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reminder: Pakistan has The Bomb. How do u suggest dealing with that one?

    47. Re:Cowards by dinivin · · Score: 1


      I've decided that you're not as innocent as anyone the citizens of Afghanistan (just as you've decided they're not as innocent as the citizens of New York). Based on your logic, I can put a bullet through your brain, right?

      Since when are you the God damn judge of who is and isn't innocent, asshole?

      Dinivin

    48. Re:Cowards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with you. Most Americans have been hugged into politcal correctness and have an unrealistic view of how the world really works.

      There are still very bad people in the world and sometimes a bearded professor from Liberal U bringing milk and cookies to the debate won't do much.

      This isn't about the US propping up a dictator somewhere and the revolutionaries fighting back. This is about one group quoting their religion as moral ground for killing all that oppose them. You can go to their debate with a copy of "Understanding Islam" under your arm. Meanwhile, I'll protect you, your family, and your kids by blowing those assholes off the planet.

      If you still think you can negotiate with terrorists, try selling that line of naive crap down at the local fire or police station. Losing over 250 co-workers won't make them to eager to agree with you.

    49. Re:Cowards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why Canadians are well received in europe, except for Germany.

      In a recent trip around europe, my friends caught 3 Americans posing as Canadians with the flag on thier backpack.

    50. Re:Cowards by platypus · · Score: 1

      Let my first say that my thoughts are by the victims and their families and I'm still shocked by this inhumanity which were done there yesterday.

      But:

      Sorry, you are talking out of your ass. Do you have any idea about the terror such a regime like the taliban does to their people?
      They are the only one having weapons, they are the only one having cars. The country has essentially no infrastructure and no industry.

      What should the people do?

      And really, they would have much stronger reasons to get rid of their government than the fact that it lets terrorists in their country. Check out www.rawa.org
      These taliban terrorize their own people in ways we cannot imagine (or have seen in history, try http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2001-05-22-tali banids.htm)

      Go, read something about the history of of Afghanistan. They are in war since USSR occupied them in _1979_. 6 Million people (1/3 of the population) fled the country to Iran or Pakistan. About 2 Million still are in Iran(!) today. That people flee to Iran might give you a picture how nice it has to be to live in Afghanistan.

      And let's not forget that the taliban were supported by the USA, back before 1998, but when their totalitarean, women-repressing politic was still crystal clear. Sultan Amir, Pakistans chief of secret service, trained by green berets in Fort Brag, is said to be the founder of the the taliban. Even bin laden is said to have been supported by the usa back in his fight against the USSR in afghanistan.

    51. Re:Cowards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gassing and cremating an ethnic group is not right no matter where you are in the chain of command "following orders", which is why shit like that will never be tolerated again.

    52. Re:Cowards by aratas · · Score: 1

      Your first point is right on. The second point is a pile of steaming crap. We don't need to try to "feel their pain" or "understand" them. We understand them completely, and hate what they are. We should not be "playing nice" with people whose very ideals include our destruction, the slaughter of our people. That is what is referred to as EVIL. And as such they should be removed from the planet. They not only do evil acts, but they encourage others to do the same things! It's outrageous to think that we should bow to such perverted thinking! It is disgusting to think that anyone can entertain such thoughts with any seriousness.

    53. Re:Cowards by Glock27 · · Score: 1
      I agree both that the US needs to find and eradicate the responsible groups (interestingly possibly including the government of Iraq), and that blanket condemnation of Arabs (and Muslims) is wrong, so no more on that...

      *and* to get serious about figuring out why the USA is so thoroughly hated and then figuring out how to gain, if not friendly terms, neutral terms with other nations/cultures/peoples.

      I can't agree that the US is "thoroughly hated". There are many nations that respect and like us. There are many more that respect and envy us. It is impossible to please everyone in the world, and personally I'm fairly happy with the way the US has positioned itself. It is certainly a champion of democracy and personal opportunity, and has made itself a symbol of those ideals.

      It also seems that the vast majority of the world is on our side at the moment...

      186,282 mi/s...not just a good idea, its the law!

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
    54. Re:Cowards by simpl3x · · Score: 1

      great, just what we need another "sheriff" to run around thinking with "his" penis. strike at who? and, how? an intelligent attack needs to be responded to in an intelligent and powerful way,, or terrorism wins.

    55. Re:Cowards by dinivin · · Score: 1


      And, quite frankly, the terrorists didn't view the individuals they killed yesterday as "innocent" either. That's the problem... People like you and the terrorists going around deciding who it's OK to kill.

      Dinivin

    56. Re:Cowards by unitron · · Score: 2

      Exactly. What's the point of bombing them back to the stone age? The Taliban has already taken them there.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    57. Re:Cowards by zulux · · Score: 1, Troll
      The American government regularly "kicks ass" all over the world and creates a lot of resentment



      You're welcome. I hope you enjoy the peace, security, and prosparity that the suffering-of-souls of many American, Canadians, Austrailians, British, French, Soviet, Chinese have bought for you.


      You live in privlage of not being in a Nazi conventration camp, not working in an Italian slave-factory and not walking in Imperial death-march, and I hope you enjoy it.


      Evil is not to delt with, it is to be destroyed. I hope we have the mercy to rebuild the Middle East like we did with Japan, Italy and Germany when this is all over.

      --

      Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

    58. Re:Cowards by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 2
      Please tell me how killing a handful of people will possibly make up for thousands of deaths?
      Obviously it won't. But it will prevent them from taking any more innocent lives.
      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    59. Re:Cowards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If you advocate or permit attacks against non-military targets, then there is very little difference between you and the terrorists.


      Exactly! And that's precisely why the civilians of Palestine and other Middle Eastern states are to blame. Did you see them celebrating on TV, giving shouts of joy, and throwing candy to little kids? These people celebrate death, and for that reason I find them no less guilty than the perpetrators themselves. It is the attitudes of these citizens that gives birth to so many terrorists. Unless this attitude is stopped, there will continue to be Islamic terrorism.

      Certainly, there are Muslims who do not celebrate this event. But this is akin to saying that there were Southern whites who did not sympathize with the KKK. The racism and hatred within the Muslim countries is systemic, and the main reason why so many are willing to sacrifice their lives in jihad. If we are to protect ourselves, we must take steps against this very attitude. Otherwise, we can do no more than brace for the next attack.
    60. Re:Cowards by mokyar · · Score: 0

      Aggresive retaliation, like burning down Kabul (since we 'know!' that it was done by Bin Laden, and we don't even need an evidence) is not a solution. I am sure US is capable of doing it, but it is not going to remove the terrorists or the responsible ones from the society, but it will kill more civilians and will make the remaining ones hate US. Isn't it the same thing, which made us angry and filled with hate yesterday?

      I don't think most of the comments on /. was coward and I don't think people said 'let's move on without doing anything'. Of course the terrorists want to scare us, mess with our lives. And they did it. However, I still can not see how fighting back in the same way the terrorists did, would help anybody? Why do we have international laws? Why do we have or fighting for a justice system at all? Something happens, and respond with the same cruelity! Isn't it a part of the fundamentalist islamic social system, that many criticize? Isn't it the capital punishment, which doesn't work at all. If you kill, as the state I kill you and this will stop any wrong doing and correct everything. Does it stop? Does it correct?

    61. Re:Cowards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've decided that you're not as innocent as anyone the citizens of Afghanistan (just as you've decided they're not as innocent as the citizens of New York). Based on your logic, I can put a bullet through your brain, right?

      Since when are you the God damn judge of who is and isn't innocent, asshole?


      You have the ability to do that, but you'll face the consequences. Just like terrorists and the nations that support them will now face the consequences of their actions.

      By the way, I AM the judge of who is innocent. And, you have NO idea how to deal with these real world issues. This isn't Teletubbies, thousands have died.

    62. Re:Cowards by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 2
      And now the Taliban forgets whom helped pull thier fat out of the Soviet fire.
      And here I thought that all the US did for Afghanistan was give them weapons on the sly, so they could get performance data, and demand choice bits of technology, documentation and intelligence from downed Soviet troop carriers and soldiers. Gods forbid they send in the troops or something.
      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    63. Re:Cowards by geekopus · · Score: 1
      I would mod you up if I could.


      I would also like to add this:

      The Palestinians were making good headway in this country to try to drum up support and assistance. Assuming that Bin Laden had a hand in this, you have now lost any hope of making yourselves credible victims of an oppressive Israeli government. Think on this.


      We have tried and tried to help you people make peace, and this is the thanks we get?


      Next time, it won't be some piss-ant Israeli helicopters that you and your friends can run off. It will be a fucking carrier battle group with 20,000 sailors, soldiers and marines that are out to pound you into the fucking dirt.


      It's the end of the world as you know it (and we feel fine...)

    64. Re:Cowards by marxist · · Score: 1

      Why not enlist? America is full of people like you who will terrorize the world at any cost, except at the cost of their own lives.

    65. Re:Cowards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *Ordinary people in Afghanistan are struggling just to survive every day. They might be shot if their wife doesn't hide her face in the right way. Their entire homes might be burned to the ground, while their government sits back and does nothing about it.*

      Yet , their children and old woman are jumping in the middle of the streets throwing candy out and burning US flags and celebrating ........

      and you phukin gutless kommies call that "Opression"

    66. Re:Cowards by Mr.+Foogle · · Score: 1

      to get serious about figuring out why the USA is so thoroughly hated and then figuring out how to gain, if not friendly terms, neutral terms with other nations/cultures/peoples.

      Why are we hated? Envy.

      The culture(s) that attack Western society (with the US as the icon for all) are backwards, insular cultures that cannot compete with the free open society of the West.

      I'm not putting the culture's themselves down. Nor the people that live there. It's not a religion thing, either. Heck, there are places in America that, culturally speaking, cannot compete.

      These places/cultures feel their grip slipping, and lash out.

      The cure? There isn't one, short of the grave. The insular society will continue to lash out like a blind-drunk fool with a gun.

      --
      Display some adaptability.
    67. Re:Cowards by ScumBiker · · Score: 1

      I'd say it's a form of punishment to keep the embargo of Iraq going. They should have cooperated early to avoid it. Thus, it's the Iraqy gov that is killing their own children.

      --
      --- Think of it as evolution in action ---
    68. Re:Cowards by ZoneGray · · Score: 2

      The urge to seek revenge is healthy, natural and understandabale. But thankfully, we won't actually go on some sort of killing spress just becasue we can. The very fact that we both feel that urge and can resist it is the sign that we're a great people.

      More likely, we'll take some action to dismantle these organizations, which can be done without bombs and rockets or civilian casualties. We may have to kill some people, but not many, and mostly just the responsible ones. And the rest of the world will be safer for our having eliminated some of these groups. That won't stop them from complaining about us, of course.

      What has hamstrung us up until now was that we've tried to do it through the criminal justice system, which in America requires a higher level of proof than is available in most terrorist bombings.

      Personally, I advocate using a devastating American weapon that doesn't require such conclusive proof. A class-action lawsuit against the governments that "marketed terrorism to children".

      They'll WISH they were nuked.

      Actually, I'm not kidding about this.... this is New York, remember, loaded with lawyers. I think it would be easy to convince a civil jury to seize all of a foreign nation's assets, and I'm CERTAIN that somebody will try.

    69. Re:Cowards by jonathan_ingram · · Score: 1

      Who rebuilt the world after WW/II?

      Well, the USSR did quite a good job. Of course, you Americans didn't like that...

      Who immediately sends aid to every country

      The Marshall Plan is widely credited with being the single biggest reason that the UK could no longer afford to be an Empire after WW2. Your 'aid' in that case destroyed a 200 year old infrastructure. But hey, I guess you were still pissed off at us.

      I'd be interested how your sketch of America as a benevolent loving friend ties in with (to take three random examples) Cuba, Grenada and Palestine.

      (Oh, and don't think I'm holding the UK up as a shining light of freedom -- we're just as worse, if not more, than the US. The only reason we don't screw up more lives is that we don't have the influence we used to).

    70. Re:Cowards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, may I remember that the US are still keeping Iraq on embargo while Iraqi children die of illnesses which could be cured? Is that caring for your enemies?

      Um, except for the tons of medical supplies and food we send, which for the most part are intercepted by the Iraqi military.

      Dumb-ass.

    71. Re:Cowards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does an Israeli soldier or citizen building 'settlements' and invading other countries have any responsibility, even if he's just 'following orders'? Most would say he does. What about citizens who live in the area who give aid and comfort to that soldier? What about other citizens who know what's going on?

      Does an American soldier stopping drugs and food from getting into Iraq have any responsibility, even if he just 'follows orders'? Most would say he does. What about citizens who live in the area who give aid and comfort to that soldier? What about other citizens who know what's going on?

    72. Re:Cowards by JokerBoy3 · · Score: 0

      I disagree completely. Israel has been the victim of many terror attacks because the Islamics hate them. This is not Israel's fault. Those who celebrate this attack (the Palestinians, Iraquis, etc.) are the enemies of the american people.

    73. Re:Cowards by RetroGeek · · Score: 1

      Don't you know that oil from the Middle East was used as fuel in those helicopters, and might even hve been used in the plastic stock on the M-16's?

      --

      - - - - - - - - - - -
      I am a programmer. I am paid to produce syntax not grammar. Deal with it.
    74. Re:Cowards by Zoop · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The American government regularly "kicks ass" all over the world and creates a lot of resentment among the poor people who suffer because of it.

      Actually, we go to more lengths than anyone to avoid hitting poor people while still actually doing something about predatory governments such as Serbia's previously. Yes, sometimes civilians get harmed in these attacks, but it is the exception now more than the rule.

      Most of the people rebelling against America's involvement overseas are not poor. Bin Laden is a multi-millionaire, as is Saddam, as is Khaddafi. Quite frankly, they are upset that our policies undermine their anti-human and anti-democratic regimes.

      The UN court is a nice idea, but it is useless without enforcement. Right now, the only truly effective enforcement is through the US and its allies.

      But let's be realistic, even if we were as nice and amoral in our international dealings as Sweden, it would continue to happen to us. We're the biggest, and the symbol of power that those who covet power wish to hurt to make themselves feel better. Fundamentally, that is what it is all about.

    75. Re:Cowards by quartz · · Score: 2
      People that don't understand why America becomes isolationist...look at how you act after we save you.

      Har har. Go tell that to survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Kosovo. See how thankful they are to you for saving them.

      I personally have had American bombers fly over my head on their way to Kosovo for a month, and every day I've had the shit scared out of me hearing reports of civilians killed by the bombs. But hey, I guess American innocent civilians are somehow more important than the innocent civilians in the rest of the world...

    76. Re:Cowards by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Americans gave the Afgani groups money, training, and weapons.

      Americans were on the ground in Afganistan and Pakistan to give assistance and training. Much like the Soviets did for the Vietnamese and the Cubans did in Central America.

      Stinger missiles, Redeyes, British Blowpipes, vehicles, small arms, medical equipment and hard cash were all turned over.

      Yep we go intel back from them, but alot of the equipment in use there in Afganistan had already been captured by Israel in '67 and '73 as well as taken from Syria in '82.

      The United States and Britan and to a lesser extent NATO are the reason that the Soviets were driven from Afganistan. And I will say again, that the Taliban forgets whome helped pull thier fat out of the Soviet fire.

    77. Re:Cowards by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 2

      What are you willing to do about terrorism that is not on American soil? Is terrorism okay if it happens somewhere else?

      As an American, I will not tolerate terrorism on American soil. What you do on your soil is your business.

      Or, if you are a non-American, are you actually advocating that we should be the world's policemen?

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    78. Re:Cowards by JimFromJersey · · Score: 1

      >Who didnt get into the war until AFTER they where attacked?
      We were keeping England fed, fueled, and armed well before Pearl Harbor.

      As for who didn't get involved ... well England, France and the rest of Europe sure didn't mind serving up parts of Europe to Hitler on a silver platter. "Peace in out time" what a joke.

      > Canada comes to mind here
      Wasn't Canada still part of the Commonwealth at this time? I think the Aussies were involved to for he same reason.

      > They might have helped with some things
      !!might!! have helped???. The Marshal Plan rebuilt Europe. It did for post-war Europe what FDR did for war-time England. Who risked a war to keep Berlin alive? I suggest reading up on the Berlin Airlift. So who else could have been rebuilding Europe? The French? NO! They were trying to regain their colonial holdings. England? Wrong again, they were just plain exhausted and on an unfortunate downward socialist spiral that would eventually crater their economy. Spain? Nope, Denmark? No, Belgium? Holland? Sweden? How about none of the above.

      > You pussies in the states dont do anything until something you hold is under threat
      Well, I suppose we could act against any potential threat. Nuke Canada and Mexico, since they are geographically positioned for invasion. Bomb England, France, and Spain just in case they ever think about think about becomeing empires again. Ditto for Germany since history tells us they are a bunch war-mongers, best put them down before they can get us. That is a brilliant idea.

      >its only my oppinion anyway and you cant change that.
      A poorly reasoned opinion.

      --
      between the greater and lesser infinities sleep the dreams undreamt
    79. Re:Cowards by TheZalm · · Score: 1

      Um, these people arent neccesarily mentally disturbed.
      Thats a typical "American" way of thinking,
      that anyone who doesnt think the way we do must be disturbed some how. Please. I'm an American, and I don't think that way. Look at what we do to other countries - think of the countries we support and what they do to their enemies (Isreal and Palistine come to mind) I mean there is some vicious stuff going on that we SUPPORT! We Americans support some really hurrendous stuff if you look at our past. It's not hard to imagine being angry at a country that does things like that, so lets not jump to calling people mentally disturbed just because they have another view point.

    80. Re:Cowards by linzeal · · Score: 1
      I've gotten so sick of seeing so-called news about Israelis killing Palestinians or vice-versa. It's not news, it's the status quo.

      God Forbid! Someone would want to change the bloody status quo, god forbid!!!

    81. Re:Cowards by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 2

      I'm not sure who said it, but I think the quote is apt: "Without economic freedom, all other freedoms are just an intellectual exercise."

      The US is not responsible for lack of opportunity in other countries. If they want to be prosperous, then they should change their government, not envy ours.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    82. Re:Cowards by Mike1024 · · Score: 2

      Hey,

      It's time for Sheriff Uncle Same to ride into town, and kick some bad-guy ass.

      Well, clearly there must be justice; the guilty must be identified, and punished. But what we don't need is a wounded government, thier pride hurt, bombing a country because they suspect said country was somehow responsible for this terrible act.

      War ain't the sort of thing you rush into. We mush investigate, identify the guilty, arrange thier presence in the United States for trial, try them, and if thier guilt is proven beyond all reasonable doubt, they can be executed.

      That would be far more reasonable than a knee-jerk 'no-one pushes us around' air strike on Iraq or Iran or Palestein or wherever TV pundits think the attack originated from. The US has great military power, but with that power comes responsibility to see it is used rightly and justly.

      Crying out 'It mush have been saddam hussein, let's lart the pinhead' and attacking a map of Iraq with a red crayon in a fit of anger is not the solution. If we want him dead, there are better ways than that, and in the end, he's just as dead.

      Mob logic and racism are not the answer. Investigation, trial and punishment is, as with any other crimes. And this is what there muust be.

      Michael

      (Also, I would encourage you not to describe people with more moderate opinions than yours as 'cowards'. Most of us aren't cowards; We simply don't want something brash and shortsighted done. Insults and bickering help no-one.)

      --
      "Goodness me, how unlike the FBI to abuse the trust of the American public." -- The Onion
    83. Re:Cowards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice envy, dude.

      Your comment violated the postercomment compression filter. Comment aborted

    84. Re:Cowards by dinivin · · Score: 1

      By the way, I AM the judge of who is innocent. And, you have NO idea how to deal with these real world issues. This isn't Teletubbies, thousands have died.


      No shit. And the answer isn't to kill thousands more innocent people.

      Dinivin

    85. Re:Cowards by do!omite · · Score: 0

      You just proved them right. I say steamroll whoever did this, and whoever might have done this.

      US needs to set an example, and the example is that countries everywhere must kill terrorists before they get out of hand.

      Forget about jail. It's war. Bin Ladin is the menace behind that horror yesterday. If not, who cares. He has been spouting anti-americanism since day one and he should die for his crimes and so should anyone else to spout such evil.

      ~dolo

      --
      **********
      If it says "Troll" on this post,
      I successfully annoyed a nerd herd! :)
    86. Re:Cowards by xonker · · Score: 1

      Did I say I didn't want that to change? No, I didn't. I simply said I'm sick of hearing about it, since it never changes and it's bloody depressing to see the stupid waste of human life over and over and over and over again.

      If they want to report something that's news, any day where no Israeli or Palestinian is killed should be on the evening news. "Peace broke out in Israel today as both the Israelis and Palestinians put down their weapons and learned to just get along and tolerate one another." That would be news, and I would be beside myself with joy to hear it.

    87. Re:Cowards by theghost · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The desire for peace and justice is not the same as cowardice.

      Cowardice is to be afraid to act. Violence is preferable to cowardice, but it requires much more bravery to remain non-violent in the face of violence. (Gandhi said that.)

      Slaughtering innocents in Afghanistan, Palestine or Iraq is no better than slaughtering innocents in New York, nor is it justified by what happened yesterday.

      The US should respond, but not with indiscriminate violence. It's too easy for us to be deluded by racist undercurrents and nationalistic propaganda that seeks to restore America's tough image instead of her ideals of freedom and justice.

      Those who advise caution want to make sure that the situation does not happen again. We want to make sure that justice is served on the correct parties, not on a scapegoat. We want to ensure that we don't spark fear and hatred in the nations who were not responsible for yesterday's attacks.

      If we act in a heavy-handed and indiscriminate manner we will only make more enemies and provoke more attacks. We don't care about angering the terrorists who are responsible for yesterday, we just don't want to create more terrorists by overreacting. By all means prevent those who are responsible for yesterday's attacks from ever doing it again, but let's not strike out prematurely and blindly.

      Do not confuse vengeance with justice. Vengeance heals wounded pride but causes more problems. Justice heals wounded spirits and prevents more problems.

      As an American, i believe that we must show that we can be strong without being tyrannical to other nations. We must show other countries that we will defend our citizens but we will not indiscriminately harm theirs.

      Grown-ups know that an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth leaves us all blind and toothless. (Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi said that.)

      Let's take care of our wounded and grieving first and defend ourselves from a repeat as well. When we know who is responsible then we can talk about what to do about it.

      --
      The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
    88. Re:Cowards by Danse · · Score: 2

      Aren't we just as evil for training and supporting such groups and people around the world to serve our own interests. Aren't we responsible for the actions of our government, in this case via the CIA?

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    89. Re:Cowards by why-is-it · · Score: 2

      As an American, I will not tolerate terrorism on American soil. What you do on your soil is your business.

      If I understand you correctly, you are not particularly concerned about terrorist acts, so long as it happens to someone else??

      The way I see it, terrorism is unacceptable, and it does not matter where it happens, or who it happens to. The suffering is just as real if it happens across the street or around the world.

      --
      *** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
    90. Re:Cowards by gklyber · · Score: 1

      Fitting that such a comment comes from an Anonymous Coward....

    91. Re:Cowards by localman · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The perpetrators must be punished, and the countries that give safe harbor to these countries must be punished.


      Good idea. Now let's blow up Timothy McVeigh's country too.

    92. Re:Cowards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We don't need to try to "feel their pain" or "understand" them. We understand them completely, and hate what they are. We should not be "playing nice" with people whose very ideals include our destruction, the slaughter of our people. That is what is referred to as EVIL. And as such they should be removed from the planet. They not only do evil acts, but they encourage others to do the same things!

      BINGBINGBING!!! You win the Slashdot Raving Hypocrite of the Day(tm) award!

    93. Re:Cowards by Rudeboy777 · · Score: 1

      This is exactly the kind of post that the more militant types here will ignore because it hurts so much to admit. I'd encourage everyone to linger for a second and reread the above, as it's one of the first I've seen that stresses causes and prevention instead of reaction.

      --

      From hell's heart I fstab at /dev/hdc

    94. Re:Cowards by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 2

      I am concerned about terrorism everywhere. But it's a different sort of concern when it's on American soil, because when it's directed against us, we have the justification to do something about it. If it's a totally different country, there's nothing I can do about it.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    95. Re:Cowards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And your argument? None, I'm afraid. You probably didn't understand what I was saying anyway. I said we have to fight the attitude that perpetuates these acts. I didn't say nuke the Middle East. But we do need to do whatever it takes to end the Islamic jihad against America. That will likely involve a combination of swift retaliation, but not forgetting diplomacy and civil solutions.

      We have to be reasonably certain who the perpetrators are before we start obliterating any cities or complexes. But to be absolutely certain is not only not possible given the time frame we must act within, it is downright stupid in a time of war. And, unfortunately, this is a time of war. America did not choose to be a part of this war, it was sucked in.

      This war very much resembles the war on civil rights in the South. Just as obliterating all Southern whites was not the correct solution back then, obliterating Middle Eastern states is not the correct solution now. But we must take actions to end this attitude. And given the type of people we are dealing with, this will likely involve decisive, pinpoint force against those responsible or harboring those responsible.

      In the end, you must use force. Had we just sat back during the 1950's and said, "Gee, Alabama, you really shouldn't hang blacks on trees and shit," I really don't think that anyone would have noticed. But by marching in and forcing integration, the racial conflict was eventually abated (though it still exists to a level today, it is much less than what it used to be.)

      In the Middle East, there is no "integration" to be forced, so in this way the situation is dissimiliar. But it is very similiar in that there is an attitude that must be fought, or we will continue to lose lives.

      If you disagree so, what is your solution?

      And I stand by my statement that the sickest part of this is the civilians in the Middle East celebrating the death of thousands. This reminds me of Germans celebrating the death of Jews. Make no doubt about it, this is about systemic hatred seeded deep in the Middle East. And it must be stopped.

    96. Re:Cowards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called war, moron! One which we didn't start, in case you didn't know.

      Oh, by the way, I'm working with several Japanese here in the U.S. who struggled to come here and enjoy the freedoms and priveledges we take for granted.

    97. Re:Cowards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cuba - how many cubans risk their lives to leave cuba?

      Grenads - Easy enough. Take a frickin poll of the popluation and see what they think.

      Palestine - Oh, you mean the group that's started and LOST how many wars?

    98. Re:Cowards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Less.

      I'm sorry if this is a shock to your pretty little worldview where everyone is "special" and holding hands and singing is considered a solution to aggression.

      Thankfully we have adults in charge and children like yourself can go back to their fantasyland.

    99. Re:Cowards by jiheison · · Score: 1

      When we protect repressive regimes because it contributes to the bottom lines of our corporations, it is we who are responsible for the denial of economic freedom abroad. The luxuries that we enjoy could not be achieved in a truly free world. It is time for us to either give up a little by giving it back to those who's sweat and blood go into building it, or have it taken away by the desperation that it creates.

      It is a pure conceit to dismiss the world's hatred of us as mere envy. The world hates us for our arrogance, ignorance and obsessive consumerism. There is a lot to love about this country, but we have a lot learn, and a lot of work to do to right our wrongs. Until we acknowledge this, we will be a target.

    100. Re:Cowards by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 2

      Ok, I can accept that. In that case, yes, the Taliban really does need a lesson in biting the hand that fed you, and might otherwise have fed you again.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    101. Re:Cowards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Saying that taking out "innocent civilians" in a country like Afghanistan, which for the most part, accepts its government with little resistance is a misinterpretation of the situation. I am aware of the small rebel movement there, but the majority of the citizens are themselves guilty of inaction. Frankly, whatever country is behind this, either by harboring terrorists or implementing this plan, should reap what they sow.

      What a lot of you people apparently fail to realize is that these people place no value on life. Do a little search about human rights in Afghanistan under Taliban rule. What we're dealing with here are barbarians, not civilians.

    102. Re:Cowards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, we need to give Israel MORE support.

      Unlike the doves in the US who think that everyone is as peace-loving as they are (hello!), the Israelies have had to deal with this bullshit for decades.

      The most effective way seems to be acting PROACTIVELY-- use targetted killings to eliminate these scumbags before they can wipe out thousands of innocent civilians.

    103. Re:Cowards by FatKidBoston · · Score: 1

      What about the fact that the people that think we're evil are not too likely to change their mind, no matter what we do? They don't care who did this, and they really don't care about what we do back. All they care about is that the "evil" Americans finally got their comeuppance. It makes no difference how much of an investigation we make, the Taliban (if they still exist), the Iraqis, Al Quaied, the Hamas, and the Hesbollah are all going to still going to denounce the Americans as evil. Their hatred of America is such an ingrained part of their culture and identity that, whether or not they're responsible for this, they are *capable* of this kind of action. Do you really think that someone like that is going to change their mind about America, their declared target of Jihad, simply because we jump through the right hoops in terms of investigation? I don't. I think that what has to happen is that there has to be a clearly defined enemy, who all the American people can either believe, or even better, *know* perpetrated this crime. Then, there needs to be swift, final justice done against them. No questions can or should remain when we are finished. Not "Did they do this?" nor "Can they do it again?" We need to find out the right answer, and then give them the *final* answer. "I hate hippies." --Eric Cartman --FKB

    104. Re:Cowards by Danse · · Score: 2

      And, unfortunately, this is a time of war. America did not choose to be a part of this war, it was sucked in.


      I think you're wrong. I believe we are now seeing the effects of our actions in supporting other wars and funding and training groups to fight where we cannot due to polital ramifications (i.e. if Americans in general realized what was going on, they would probably be pissed). That doesn't mean that the people on the receiving end of the weapons and support we provide don't know who's behind it. They do, and I don't see any reason that they wouldn't be just as pissed off as Americans are now. Maybe you should look into the role that our CIA had in Bin Laden's past too.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    105. Re:Cowards by Mr.+Punch · · Score: 1

      That's exactly the type of lashing out I'm talking about. If we become a villianous monster, we will have lowered ourselves to the level of the terrorists who attacked us. And if we become evil, good people will be justified in retaliating against us.

    106. Re:Cowards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They think they're entitled to voice their opinions on everything. Funny, that they're in the majority who are pro-censorship (anti-Christian references, etc.). Or maybe they're trying to recruit, knowing how bitter most geeks are (what w/ Columbine and everything) towards "the establishment" (liberalism, which "replaced" conservatism).

    107. Re:Cowards by why-is-it · · Score: 2

      But it's a different sort of concern when it's on American soil

      Translation: It's different because this time it affected us directly.

      when it's directed against us, we have the justification to do something about it.

      It is always justified to oppose tyranny and injustice. The problem is that in the past, self-interest has trumped other concerns and decided if there was "justification" to take action.

      --
      *** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
    108. Re:Cowards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Idiot! I'd explain the differences in the situation but I'd be wasting my time.

    109. Re:Cowards by Redline · · Score: 1

      They probably feel exactly the way you do - eager to "kick some ass".

      That is not what he said. He said:

      It's time for Sheriff Uncle Same to ride into town, and kick some bad-guy ass.

      And there is the difference. We fight the bad guys. Those "poor suffering bitter angry people" (whatever!) just killed hundreds of rescue workers in New York City. And hundreds of secretaries. And hundreds of parents. Etc.

      To liken military action to terrorist action is absurd. I am sure that whatever the US response is, it will likely *not* include destroying the 6th tallest building in the world and every innocent person inside it, then denying responsibility.

      Your attitude towards Americans is part of the problem. You are just as prejudiced as the ones you accuse. The first part of your post says "You suck!" and then the last part says "Give us money!" I think you are ungrateful to the part America plays in the world.

    110. Re:Cowards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I believe we are now seeing the effects of our actions in supporting other wars...


      While the American government may be indirectly responsible for helping to generate hatred in other parts of the world, the American civilian attitude is totally asymmetrical to the Muslim civilian attitude.

      An American civilian may think that our involvement in the Middle East is primarily about keeping peace. There is no way that those celebrating in the Middle East over these terrorist attacks could possible mistake them for being missions of "peace". Those civilians were celebrating death, something America hasn't done since WWII.

      I don't see how our policies could have been much different. Sure, it sounds reasonable to let the Israelis fight their own wars. But had we not helped them, they would have been mowed down by every Islamic group in the region. We had a choice between allowing Israel to undergo Genocide (again!), or giving them power that they would naturally be inclined to abuse against the Palestinians. I think we made the right choice.

      As for the other conflicts, supplying one of two enemies to ensure mutual annihilation, I agree that this is bad policy. I think we have been smarter about this in the recent past, but we must remain smart, and realize that we may be building up another future enemy.

      But right now there is a war going on. The current war America is fighting is against hatred. We must make those who celebrate death in this way realize the error of their ways. bin Laden and those like him seek to divide the Muslim nations into two groups: one that supports a full on war against anything but Taliban level intolerance, and one that is willing to be more reasonable about interaction with the US.

      This has been something of a success for these groups. They have captured the imagination and the hearts of Muslims throughout the Middle East who want to be the Islamic "Robin Hood". I guarantee you that there are probably hundreds who are signing up to be the first to fly a plane into the Sears Tower.

      They may not have vocal support of the governments, because no government wants to take responsibility for what happened yesterday. But they have support of the people. Eventually, they may get the support of enough people to form another Taliban somewhere else in the Middle East.

      This attitude of hatred is what we must fight. We must do something to obliterate this attitude, or this violence will continue.
    111. Re:Cowards by Ars-Fartsica · · Score: 2

      This has nothing to do with right or wrong. This has everything to do with which side you are on. Both sides have justifiable gripes - the US has made its own bed by meddling in the Middle East for decades, but the Islamic nations have gone over the edge and its likely in twenty years we will see an Islamic genocide on a mass scale.

    112. Re:Cowards by mimbleton · · Score: 1

      Don't despair.
      Hell, looks like for every "right-wing crazie" there is a left wing pussy here.

    113. Re:Cowards by Ami+Ganguli · · Score: 3, Insightful
      And there is the difference. We fight the bad guys.

      That's largely a matter of perception. I think it's more accurate to say that the U.S. fights those who are perceived as a threat its interests. Often they're "bad guys", sometimes they aren't. On the other hand the U.S. often supports bad guys.

      To liken military action to terrorist action is absurd. I am sure that whatever the US response is, it will likely *not* include destroying the 6th tallest building in the world and every innocent person inside it, then denying responsibility.

      I'm not likening anything to anything and I'm not condoning either. I'm saying that that the motivations are similar. The U.S. uses aircraft carriers and hits military targets because it has the ability to do so. Terrorists hijack planes because it works. I didn't say it was right.

      Your attitude towards Americans is part of the problem. You are just as prejudiced as the ones you accuse. The first part of your post says "You suck!" and then the last part says "Give us money!" I think you are ungrateful to the part America plays in the world.

      I have no beef with Americans. I've been to New York and I love the city. It's horrible to think what's going on there. Yet somehow you've managed to elect some pretty awful leaders. I didn't say the U.S. should give me (or "us") money - I wouldn't see any of it. I said that if you want to see a proper peace you should contribute to an effective international court instead of trying to police the world unilaterally. If you don't want peace then that's really sad. It means wonderful cities like New York are going to keep being hit.

      --
      It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
    114. Re:Cowards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We were keeping England fed, fueled, and armed well before Pearl Harbor.

      Uh yes. It was called "cash and carry", meaning "you give us your cash first, then you get fuel/arms etc."

    115. Re:Cowards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does anyone believe these terrorists wouldn't use any weapon, no matter how destructive? So let's say that it was a nuclear bomb, or biological weapon in NYC instead of planes blowing up the world trade center. Instead of taking down 10,000 people, the terrorists take down 200,000 people, maybe more. Often.

      The U.S. has to make it so there is no haven for terrorists. It has to root out all support for terrorism, and stomp it out, regardless of complicity with this attack. What else can it do? Wait for something really disastrous?

      The terrorists have proven they will stop at nothing. They will do the inconcievable, and they are resourseful, cunning, even brilliant. Eventually they will get their nuclear bomb, or their biological cocktail.

      This is why the US is at war. And in war, justice takes on a very different meaning. The US will kill innocent people. It's tragic, but it's unavoidable.

    116. Re:Cowards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, but oil has more uses than to kill people, unlike Apaches and M-16s.

    117. Re:Cowards by Ami+Ganguli · · Score: 2
      Most of the people rebelling against America's involvement overseas are not poor . Bin Laden is a multi-millionaire, as is Saddam, as is Khaddafi. Quite frankly, they are upset that our policies undermine their anti-human and anti-democratic regimes.

      The people in these countries are poor, and it's them you have to worry about. That's where the suicide bombers come from.

      The UN court is a nice idea, but it is useless without enforcement. Right now, the only truly effective enforcement is through the US and its allies.

      You're right. That's why the world court needs the support of the Americans. Without the support of an international body with rules that are followed (even by the U.S.) you can't achieve fairness or even the perception of fairness. It will always be the U.S. making enemies around the world. Of course that means that occasionally the U.S. will have to accept judgements it doesn't like - the law works that way sometimes.

      --
      It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
    118. Re:Cowards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get your facts straight (or at least not spoon-fed from the media). Ask any Middle East expert - this thing is not age-old. Arabs and Jews have been living in peace UP TILL the partition of Palestine (which was in the mid 20th century).

    119. Re:Cowards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is really braindead dude. You want to start a world war in which they could bomb your house and kill your mommy and daddy. Testosterone-crazed.

    120. Re:Cowards by Danse · · Score: 2

      Look, we took sides in a war. We involved ourselves in a war. We've done it many times, against countries much weaker than we are. We helped to create Bin Laden thanks to our CIA. We've helped to create many people like him because it served our purposes at the time. When you involve yourself in a war, you make yourself a target. Simple as that. I don't happen to agree with our foreign policy. That may or may not be because I don't have enough information to make a better judgement call, but that is mainly because our government doesn't really give us the information we need. It remains locked up and classified for decades usually.


      Regardless of why we did what we did, we are at war and have been for years. We just happen to have the luxury of being fairly well isolated from our enemies geographically, and a infinitely stronger militarily. How do we expect them to fight us? Are they going to parachute in and attack us? Storm our beaches? Hell no. They'll fight a guerilla war to destroy as much as they can to demoralize us and hurt us financially so that we will be less able and less willing to try to impose our will on the rest of the world. Just like people here say that we need to strike back hard and wipe out Afganistan and Pakistan, they're trying to do just that to us. When we bombed Japan, we killed thousands of civilians because it was in our own best interests. Why do we now condemn others for doing the same?

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    121. Re:Cowards by hellsnail · · Score: 1

      The US is largely responsible for lack of opportunity in other countries. I think we should all take a good look at what Canadian linguist Noam Chomsky has been saying for years. There's plenty of his lectures available on mp3 via your favorite file sharing program.

    122. Re:Cowards by Dirtside · · Score: 2

      Re the "status quo"... there was a mini-headline on The Onion a few months ago:

      "Mideast Conflict Redefined As Mideast Culture"

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    123. Re:Cowards by hellsnail · · Score: 1

      Excellent point, friend.

    124. Re:Cowards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You people who think that we are inviting more terrorism have it exactly backwards.

      The freedom, prosperity and security that Americans have come to believe they are entitled to is built on the backs of the rest of the world.



      I'm sick of people making comments like that without backing them up. It is my beief that the prosperity of the American people has come in large part by virtue of their hard work AND innovation, ingenuity and the spirit of freedom that prevails here.

      I am anxious to hear some real hard facts from those who beieve otherwise.


      We are seen as bullies who care nothing for the plight of those who suffer at the hands of our government, our corporations and the tyrant regimes that we prop up to further our selfish interests.

      Yes, the few criminals that perpetrated this crime need to be found and prosecuted. However, until we face up to our role in this world as a spectacle of self-absorbtion and arroganance in the face of poverty and suffering, we will always have enemies that are angry enough and desperate enough to lash out this way.

      This talk about this being a strike against freedom and democracy is the real hogwash. This was a strike against the militarism, capitalism and globalism that have been allowed to supercede the ideals that this country was founded on.

      We need to reach out to oppressed people and re-establish ourselves as defenders of freedom instead of defenders of capital. Ending the desperation from which these threats are born is the only way to prevent this from happening again.


      I don't think this has as much to do with oppression as it does culture and religion.

    125. Re:Cowards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You people who think that we are inviting more terrorism have it exactly backwards.

      The freedom, prosperity and security that Americans have come to believe they are entitled to is built on the backs of the rest of the world.

      I'm sick of people making comments like that without backing them up. It is my beief that the prosperity of the American people has come in large part by virtue of their hard work AND innovation, ingenuity and the spirit of freedom that prevails here.

      I am anxious to hear some real hard facts from those who beieve otherwise.


      We are seen as bullies who care nothing for the plight of those who suffer at the hands of our government, our corporations and the tyrant regimes that we prop up to further our selfish interests.

      Yes, the few criminals that perpetrated this crime need to be found and prosecuted. However, until we face up to our role in this world as a spectacle of self-absorbtion and arroganance in the face of poverty and suffering, we will always have enemies that are angry enough and desperate enough to lash out this way.

      This talk about this being a strike against freedom and democracy is the real hogwash. This was a strike against the militarism, capitalism and globalism that have been allowed to supercede the ideals that this country was founded on.

      We need to reach out to oppressed people and re-establish ourselves as defenders of freedom instead of defenders of capital. Ending the desperation from which these threats are born is the only way to prevent this from happening again.


      I don't think this has as much to do with oppression as it does culture and religion.

    126. Re:Cowards by localman · · Score: 1

      Okay then, let's just kill his family and friends and people who look like him.

      There are more similarities than differences.

    127. Re:Cowards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jihneison is right (at least partially)...

      We need a dual prong approach: A carrot for those who are are Allies (and neutral) and a BIG-ASS STICK for our enemies.

      And if you choose to be our enemy, that's your problem.

    128. Re:Cowards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great thinking... terrorists murder thousands because they don't like our foreign policy and your "solution" is to change our foreign policy so we don't make them mad?

      Although in the current Politically Correct world we live in you might believe that violence is never the solution, those of use who know a bit about history and world politics realize that that's a bunch of BS.

      If you want to discourage terrorism, you do not negotiate with them and hit them back so hard that they will not or cannot attack you again.

    129. Re:Cowards by linzeal · · Score: 1

      The first thing you would have to hear is that sanctions are going on against israel and that an international task force is there to take israeli leaders former and present to geneva for war crimes against humanity.

    130. Re:Cowards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The terrorists have proven they will stop at nothing. They will do the inconcievable, and they are resourseful, cunning, even brilliant. Eventually they will get their nuclear bomb, or their biological cocktail

      Yes .. that is one of the scariest things about this .. it has demonstrated that there are people who ARE willing to go as far as the madmen terrorists depicted in the movies. No more of that pissy little suicide bomber stuff that only kills a few dozen innocents, no, these people will go to any length. And sooner or later, these people will get their nuclear bomb or whatever.

      It does indeed need to be made so that there is no safe haven for terrorists anywhere in the world. Giving a terrorist safe sanctuary is akin to being a terrorist. Innocent people need to die, but to make the world a better place. The BIGGEST DIFFERENCE is that the US and allies will at least make a definite effort to AVOID killing innocent civilians (those who will get killed will be unfortunate accidents), while bin Laden and co. make every effort to SPECIFICALLY kill innocent civilians. This is a difference that a frighteningly large portion of /.ers seem to be unable to see (??)

      Everyone I know in the military (and due to my work, quite a lot) make a huge amount of effort to avoid killing innocent civilians, and regard it as tragic when it happens. Billions and billions are currently being poured into researching new weapons that will specifically prevent loss of civilians, so-called "high precision" weapons. For example, Polyphem (www.polyphem.com) has man-in-the-loop operator that has real-time image from front of the missile, allowing the mission to be aborted at ANY TIME, up until the last moment (and a focused part of the training will be to teach operators to spot and avoid targets that may have civilians). Its designed to be very precise - you can take out a very specific target in a very controlled way, even if a busload of schoolkids is sitting 50 meters from your target, no problem. These ideas are a large part of a lot of current weapons research.

    131. Re:Cowards by error0x100 · · Score: 1

      But if we go charging into the Middle East without a proper investigation, without being sure that we're going after the right man or group, we WILL be PROVING ourselves to be as bad as they claim

      I'm afraid it does not matter who the US lashes out against, even if they ONLY go after the guilty parties, the anti-US propaganda machine will MAKE SURE that US still looks like the bad guys. To think that such actions from the US will somehow "make them realise how wrong they are about the US" is very naive. The propaganda machine will turn any US response into yet another reason to hate the US, and there is nothing that can be done about that. Obviously the US can't do *nothing* in response though. Its a difficult situation, I don't see a solution, not until the day that all countries have democracies and freedom of speech will these problems even come close to being eradicated.

    132. Re:Cowards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Does anyone believe these terrorists wouldn't use any weapon, no matter how destructive? So let's say that it was a nuclear bomb, or biological weapon in NYC instead of planes blowing up the world trade center. Instead of taking down 10,000 people, the terrorists take down 200,000 people, maybe more. Often.

      The U.S. has to make it so there is no haven for terrorists. It has to root out all support for terrorism, and stomp it out, regardless of complicity with this attack. What else can it do? Wait for something really disastrous?

      The terrorists have proven they will stop at nothing. They will do the inconcievable, and they are resourseful, cunning, even brilliant. Eventually they will get their nuclear bomb, or their biological cocktail.

      This is why the US is at war. And in war, justice takes on a very different meaning. The US will kill innocent people. It's tragic, but it's unavoidable.

    133. Re:Cowards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Terrorism on American soil? This must not be
      >tolerated.

      How is that different from terrorism on Israeli soil? Irish soil? Afghani soil? Are you saying it's OK to tolerate terrorism elsewhere?

      Just because the US is the biggest, richest, best-armed nation in the world you think it's a worse crime to terrorise it than anywhere else? It's exactly this sort of attitude which contributes to the rabid anti-US sentiment that pervades much of the rest of the world. Get some perspective.

    134. Re:Cowards by JimFromJersey · · Score: 1

      It was lend-lease.

      Here is a quote I found at http://www.uboat.net/allies/documents/lend-lease.h tm:

      When the war had ended the Lend-Lease programme had extended over $41 billion in aid to more than 40 nations (some sources say the aid was as high as $50 billion). Britiain got the biggest share or roughly $30 billion and the Soviets about $11 billion. China got $1 billion.

      Less than $10 billion of that aid was ever repaid, making this appear more like the donation and support it really was.

      --
      between the greater and lesser infinities sleep the dreams undreamt
    135. Re:Cowards by thrasymachus · · Score: 1

      Wait a sec buddy....

      The United States isn't an empire that goes around the world "kicking ass" indiscriminately. We are primarily a financial/commercial/cultural power, and there are legitimate mechanisms by which people with grievances can get there message out.

      You seem to imply some kind of moral equality in your post...

      Let me give it to you straight. There is no moral justification for what occurred on tuesday.

      Moreover, American's don't hate Arabs--- that's not a general rule... we do hate terrorists...

      There are two sides here. The terrorists and the good guys, and yes, one side must be totally annihilated. Or preferably imprisoned, and then annihilated.

      The US can't rely on the UN and ICJ to bring these pigs to justice. The UN is a heavily corrupt, nonfunctional bureaucracy... for which we already pay a disproportionate amount money...

      Its ridiculous to suggest that the United States not use all of its resources to bring the pigs to justice... instead handing the job over to some defunct, near powerless bureaucracy...

    136. Re:Cowards by Anthony+Boyd · · Score: 2
      I'm saying that that the motivations are similar. The U.S. uses aircraft carriers and hits military targets because it has the ability to do so. Terrorists hijack planes because it works.

      That is such an oversimplification that it no longer rings true. A kidnapper may imprison people, and the government may imprison the kidnapper -- yet even though both "imprision" people, one is clearly viewed differently in the eyes of the world. You may suggest that they are not any different, but that viewpoint is in such a minority that you can see, for all practical purposes, the entire world has rejected it as a legitimate notion. Free countries are built based on the idea that there is such a thing as "just" treatment, and people deliberately migrate to countries that, in their view, implement such principles most fairly. You can say that the motivations of a government and a terrorist group are similar, but I would submit that in reality, it is almost solely their motivations that differentiate them. Why tolerate the Canadian government imprisoning people? I should move to the US! Or, in reverse, I should abandon the USA, which imprisions thousands of its own citizens every day, and head for Canada! But of course, I don't. And this is because I see a massive difference in intentions. Canada, USA, UK, France, a huge number of countries that are free or at least closely resemble free, do not see a massive outflux of the citizenry because those citizens find their government is typically acting (not always) to ensure safety and stability of the majority. Very, very few people would view the kidnapper, who also imprisons people, as acting to secure the majority. In fact, knowing that kidnapping is an illegal act, such a person would be deliberately choosing to create instability.

      So you can suggest that the USA "hitting military targets" and terrorists "hijacking planes" are somehow similar -- but even in your own words, you give away the true difference in motivations, the differences that cause the citizens of these countries to believe what they do: the USA hits military targets. For any free country, images of children dying due to bombing runs are the last, last thing that a government official wants. Because if the citizens can vote, they can vote him or her out of office! On the other hand, these terrorists, by your own words, have hijacked planes with civilians, and targeted buildings full of innocent people for destruction. That is vastly different in my mind. These murderers have no citizenry to hold them accountable, they hide so that other nations cannot hold them accountable, and they undertake actions which they know cannot be condoned.

    137. Re:Cowards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their methods of deployment are not nearly as advanced as that of the US/NATO countries.

      I could be very wrong but I don't think they have intercontinental missile technology, I believe they've developed the nuclear weapons simply to be on even ground with India.

      Even if they do have the capabilities to launch an attack on the US, I think that all their systems of delivery would be very quickly wiped out by a US staged attack.

      I don't think the US is really willing to attack Pakistan at this time though...

    138. Re:Cowards by Rivabem · · Score: 1

      I should say american civilians are less civilians than those on Afghanistan... why?

      I doubt if any american tv ever showed day-by-day in Afghanistan, but a brazilian TV did that, they sent 2 women there after 18 months of negotiation for visas and interview with TALEBAN reprensetatives and spokesmen (don't imagine how hard to convince them to just talk with women). They showed children without any school opened in the city, women 100% clothed and without any rights, and other terrible things to our western countries.

      In my vision it's not a wrong thing to live in this conditions, but since it were a personnal choose.(remember our culture may seen as outrageous as this in their vision).

      The so said "democracy" give the american civilians the whole guilty for all wrong USA acts while those afghans ruled by an ARMED GUERRILA (ask 99% of them if they like those people..NO!!) are not even listened, and any complaint just result in their deaths.

      Have they the chance to run away they would do.

      There is no right or wrong way to live, i mean, the right manner, FOR ME, is the way i live, your way is different, and life goes on.

      Aside from hating this talk about democracy and freedom, as if just USA had those (some countries have even more than USA), but i base all my thought in the complete freedom, the freedom to even give away my freedom if i wish to.

      What i'm trying to show is that it will never be solved this way, the only possible way is talk. Not with the radical _minority_ but with true representants chosen by most of people. That really solves.

      U$60,000,000,000 to put a shield in the space? Why not to put food, water and redistribute land in the earth?

    139. Re:Cowards by NecroMancer · · Score: 1

      I am from Portugal, that, for those of you who don't know, is on the far West side of Europe, in the Iberian Peninsula. I was shoked Tuesday, when, after lunch about 1:43pm (8:45am New York Time) I saw a "Breaking news report" on Canal 1 (channel 1 of the national TV, RTP), which showed the North tower of the World Trade Center in flames. I was just tring to hear what they were saying, when suddenly, coming out of nowhere, anothe plane crashed into the South tower. I was stunned... I thought to myself: "This is a hoax. It cannot be real!!!" But it was. I thought it was the beginning of World War III... Some of are are saying that the US should not retaliate. I SAY: "WIPE THOSE MOTHER FUCKERS OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH. THIS PLANET IS NOT BIG ENOUGH FOR TERRORISTS AND DECENT PEOPLE." And you can quote me on that!!!

    140. Re:Cowards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's funny! usa won the second world war, eh? just like in some hollywood movie, "private ryan" or whatever that shit was? yes yes, you know, usa saves the world, we love you

    141. Re:Cowards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Americans don't have any anger directed towards 'Arabs', you moron, just terrorists, whether they are bin Laden or Timothy McVeigh.

      Name one instance of the US 'kicking ass'(?). When we stopped Iraq from stealing the country of Kuwait? When we go to places like Kosovo or Somolia and try to straighten out horrible messes? When we saved the world from tyranny in WWII? If any 'poor people' are suffering (Iraq perhaps?), it's the fault of their horrible dictator leaders, not US actions.

      "I'm neither American nor Arabic" ... or very intelligent.

  8. My Speculation by UltraBot2K1 · · Score: 1, Troll

    All you "patriots" who were arguing that technology like Carnivore and facial recognition cameras were a violation of privacy had better get used terrorism, because if we don't do something, it's going to get a lot worse in the coming months.

    I would GLADLY have my communications monitored rather than having 50,000 innocent civilians slaughtered like this.

    I hope you privacy activists are happy now. Because of your whining about "rights", the terrorists were able to walk right under our noses. The blood of the innocent is on YOUR hands!

    --

    Slashdot: Open Source, Closed Minds.

    1. Re:My Speculation by Dr.+Prakash+Kothari · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Hear, hear! I couldn't have put it better myself. If we want to live in a safe, civilized nation, we need to give up some of our lesser freedoms. I would be more than willing to let the FBI or CIA read my correspondence if it will prevent something like this from happening in the future. I've got nothing to hide.

      On a related note, Britain has been doing this for years, and they've never had any problems with terrorism on this scale. I think most Britians would agree that sacrificing a few minor liberties in exchange for increased personal security is quite a fair trade!

      --

      "Technically, a cat locked in a box may be alive or dead." -Kurt Cobain

    2. Re:My Speculation by Ed+Avis · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If the passengers on those planes had been armed and able to defend themselves, the disaster would never have happened.

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    3. Re:My Speculation by mrscorpio · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Those who are willing to give up freedom for safety, deserve neither safety nor freedom.

      Chris

    4. Re:My Speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please post evidence that domestic surveillance would have helped in any way prevent this attack.

    5. Re:My Speculation by technos · · Score: 2

      and they've never had any problems with terrorism on this scale

      Yeah, but for the Brits, one car bomb and a dozen dead a week in downtown London is an acceptable loss. Who are you trying to kid?

      --
      .sig: Now legally binding!
    6. Re:My Speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Terrorism exists in police states.

      How can you expect to purge it wholly from a democratic free state?

      The former is the level of control that the latter can never achieve. And still it is insufficient.

      It's all a matter of who's outsmarting who, and just because you monitor every cellphone, landline and internet connection in the world doesn't mean that a group of people cannot discuss something without eavesdropping.

    7. Re:My Speculation by Fixer · · Score: 1
      Bullshit. Point me to the evidence that said that cryptographic tools enabled the terrorists to do what they did.

      And irrelevant. Even if such tools directly enabled that tradgedy, it is still a great wrong to give up our freedom to the government. Because the government is filled with people just as fallible as we are. They have, they are and they will continue to abuse such power as we choose to give them.

      --
      "Avast! Prepare for the rodgering!" THWACK! "Arrr.. me nards.."
    8. Re:My Speculation by Russ+Nelson · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It comes down to completely disarmed passengers. If the government has mandated that nobody has a weapon, and you've got something sharp, you're more powerful than everyone else. If guns are allowed on airplanes, brandishing a gun doesn't make you powerful. It makes you a target. Given a sample size of several dozen people, it's very likely that one of them is a better shot than you are. Worse, she knows to shoot you, and you don't know who she is to shoot her.
      -russ

      --
      Don't piss off The Angry Economist
    9. Re:My Speculation by linzeal · · Score: 1
      How would you of stopped these people? They were lo-tek meaning they could of used codewords for everything, "Lets go get an anchovie pizza"---*Codeword Decryption in progress---*"Lets go fly a plane into a building together and meet in heaven".

      Unless you can tell me how in the hell you are going to know that when a particular individual calls another individual and asks for something or mentions something in passing that they really mean something else entirely than you sir, are a loon. There was no bomb making materials, it is not illegal to learn to fly (even if you are arab in the United States), and they used 4 inch knives and box cutters to take over planes. How would monitoring all the transmissions nocturnal, extraterrestrial or otherwise prevented this?

    10. Re:My Speculation by mrscorpio · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Why is this modded as flamebait? I happen to agree, going to mod me down?

      Chris

    11. Re:My Speculation by Skyshadow · · Score: 2

      Hey, I'd settle for stationing a Marine in the cockpit of each plane... At least it'd force potential hijackers to smuggle on guns or bombs (which is much more difficult).

      --
      Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
    12. Re:My Speculation by FooDog · · Score: 1

      Ummm...ummmm....please explain to me how letting people carry weapons onto an airplane would have prevented anything?? If the passengers can bring guns (which I assume you mean), then doesn't it stand to reason that the TERRORISTS would bring guns on as well? A little forethought please....

    13. Re:My Speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

    14. Re:My Speculation by weslocke · · Score: 1

      My what an odd thing to say.

      Hmm... in an enclosed vehicle highly prone to terrorism and hijacking, which also happens to be very highly susceptible to depressurization from any loss of structural integrity... hey, let's give everyone on it guns! Luckily everyone on board will also be a crack shot in a turbulent environment, and you won't have to worry about someone shooting out a window. Oh and luckily everyone there will be totally sane, and you wouldn't have anyone just 'freaking out' and starting shooting... possibly because they didn't realize they were afraid of flying until they got up there.

      Or let them all carry knives. Let's get older business guys up there being sliced apart by people used to handling them... or beter yet shot by better armed attackers.

      Though the gun idea is neat. That way, if anything, when the passengers get mad at delays they can just shoot crewmembers until they actually take off.

      There's a big grey blob between your ears. Use it _before_ hitting the Post button.

      --

      'Life is like a spoonful of Drain-O, it feels good on the way down but leaves you feeling hollow inside'
    15. Re:My Speculation by Villain · · Score: 1

      As a society, we have always been taught by authorities to sit tight and not try to "be a hero" in a terrorist situation. Whether it is on an airplane or someone robbing a bank, the terrorist is almost always outnumbered. Imagine if the passengers on board the planes had retalliated and the loss of life was minimal (Only a few per plane). We never would have known the masssive destruction that could have occured, and the people that rose up against the terrorists should have been considered heroes. But do you think that most people would have considered them heroes without having known of the tragedy they helped avert? They would probobly be chastised for causing the death of a few people and not letting the authorities deal with the situation. I hope that at least we will learn something from these disasters so the victims will not have died in vain.

    16. Re:My Speculation by BigumD · · Score: 2, Flamebait

      If Passangers on planes are allowed to be armed and "defend themselves", this kind of thing would happen more often...

      --
      --The space between my ears was intentionally left blank--
    17. Re:My Speculation by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      The problem with your argument is the assertion that this tragedy would not have happened if everybody's communications were monitored the whole time.

      Probably some well directed increases in security may have prevented this. In the UK they are reporting that security on US domestic flights is not tight enough, but the wholesale introduction of the police state is not justified IMHO.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    18. Re:My Speculation by Spotless+Tiger · · Score: 1
      Britain has been doing this for years, and they've never had any problems with terrorism on this scale.
      Congratulations. You've just destroyed your already stupid argument.

      Britain does have a major terrorist problem. It is quite possible for the same thing that happened yesterday to happen in the UK, security isn't much tighter and from what I saw X-rays and searches wouldn't have achieved anything.

      Furthermore, why would terrorists obey your laws on encryption etc, when they're certainly not going to obey laws about cold-blooded murder?

      Britain has done all of the things you proposed, and the only time we've been near peace was when people involved in the violence decided enough was enough and too many innocent people were being hurt, and wanted to talk to a government that was prepared to listen. The Prevention of Terrorism Act and stunts like Internment and the SAS killing of terrorists in Gibraltar have done little but fuel the hate and remove the moral highground from the forces of democracy.
      --
      Racists should be sent back to where they came from
    19. Re:My Speculation by xiitone · · Score: 1

      Are we going to outlaw the import/export of random data also? I'm no cryptography expert, but I could whip up one-time pad encryption/decryption in about 5 minutes. If Carnivore were deployed at every US ISP, how would this help? The interviews I've seen from feds and from counter-terrorism experts have indicated that the main problem has been the lack of human intelligence rather than electronic.

      --
      Elegance is for tailors. -A. Einstein
    20. Re:My Speculation by zachemlamka · · Score: 1

      Just what I've always wanted, especially given the recent attention to 'air rage' among passengers (just do a search on CNN for 'air rage' to see what I mean).



      Imagine this situation: A person gets on a plane with a gun legally. He/she gets drunk and agitated and brandishes said gun - another law abiding citizen packing heat decides to be the hero who puts down the former person with his/her own weapon. Escalation ensues, and possible outcomes are one to all passengers/crew dead. But at least they could all defend themselves...



    21. Re:My Speculation by jallen02 · · Score: 1

      Very true. And oh no, you just put a hole in the airplanes hull.. what happens?

      Well now the little oxygen masks come out. NO one is going to get sucked out of the airplane through the hole. Hell they even have ammunition that wont penetrate the hull for JUST these kind of situations.

      Verify the ammunition carried by people licensed to carry concealed firearms is airplane safe and yes its true this could have been prevented. It COULD have prevented even without firearms. But these terrorists knew that the passengers of these planes wouldnt even have so much as a screw driver to fight back with, because they obey the law and the bad guys, they didn't. Granted there will be some loss of life, empowered citizens are not afraid of 4 or 5 guys with knives. Anyhow its not the people who live striaght lives not commiting crimes that own guns you have to worry about. It is the ones who can give a flying f*ck about the laws. You could eradicate every last sale of firearms and make it illegal to own any firearms and the terrorists would still bring terror to the world.

      We would live in a more fearful society. I would be more afraid knowing that only the cops and people willing to kill others have guns. ....

      *sigh*

      Jeremy

    22. Re:My Speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Please post a website that contains all of your emails (sent or received), scanned copies of your utility bills, your credit card bills, your auto or home loan paperwork (including your social security number), your medical records, personal habits of travel during the day, blood type, fingerprints, DNA sample, recordings of your telephone and cell phone conversations for us to view. Also any personal information such as diaries, love letters or wills. Do this so we know that you're not going to do anything we consider bad. If you have nothing to hide, you will comply. Oh, and would you mind implanting this tracking chip in your arm so we know where you're going at all times? Be a chum. Thanks.

    23. Re:My Speculation by cc_pirate · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How would reading OUR email have stopped middle-eastern terrorists? It wouldn't. And the NSA ALREADY reads THEIR email.

      Curtailing the liberties of the many for the transgressions of the few is more evil than flying airplanes into buildings.

      If the NSA and the FBI need to read all email to catch criminals now, then how come they never needed to read all US mail before?

      "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
      -- Benjamin Franklin

      --

      "There are laws that enslave men, and laws that set them free. " - Sean Connery as King Arthur

    24. Re:My Speculation by J'raxis · · Score: 2

      This is the same Britian that has near-weekly bomb attacks from North Ireland?

    25. Re:My Speculation by dannu · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This is simply not true. The problem is: adaptation. Whatever the security measure is a determined group can adapt it's methods.

      Really, even monitoring every single communication on the world would not help. You can use steganography and communicate e.g. via eBay-bids. Every moderately experienced programmer could setup a system, to e.g. use a newsforum or even just TCP-timing-traffic to communicate undetactably.

      You cannot prevent these attacks by military or intelligence force. It's an understandable wish but it simply doesn't work.

    26. Re:My Speculation by unitron · · Score: 2

      If the passengers on those planes had been armed they probably would have mostly shot each other in panic in the second or so before one or more of them managed to puncture the fuselage and depressurize the airplane. Besides, since nobody spotted the hijackers as terrorists until they acted, they would have been just as able as any other passenger to get on board packing heat. I'd prefer a solution that makes the survival of the passengers and the safe landing of the aircraft possible, and even probable.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    27. Re:My Speculation by BombTechnician · · Score: 0

      but, think of this please
      if the passengers were able to carry weapons on board
      so would these guys, because they were passengers as well, before they took over the plane, passengers with a deadly objective, yes, but passengers to the airport nonetheless
      and they wouldn't have just had pistols, you can be sure of that. so even if the passnegers had weapons......... the situation could've come out the same way

      --

      If you see me running, try and keep up
      There's a good chance I don't know what the hell I'm talking about
    28. Re:My Speculation by Uncle+Squid · · Score: 1

      On the contrary, my good man. If all the passengers had been armed, they'd have used up their ammunition shooting at the squalling baby in back and the businessman who used up all the overhead space.

      The terrorists could still have done the job unhindered.

      The truth is that we're taught from a young age to be good little sheep and do what we're told. When the bad guys and the flight crew both tell you to sit down and behave, your natural reaction is to do what you're told.

      In every situation like this that's gone before, the planes wind up on the ground, negotiations commence, and usually the passengers get out alive. Since that's always been the case, the policy is for flight crews to keep everyone calm and not cause any trouble. I expect that this policy will be reviewed.

      I seriously doubt that any passengers realized they were doomed; if they knew, they would have overpowered the hijackers, regardless of who was armed with what.

      And I wasn't joking: if you let us take weapons on a plane, the businessman and the baby are gonna be the first to go.

      --
      We are too soon old, and too late smart.
    29. Re:My Speculation by jgerman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your speculation is bullshit. Your claims are groundless. Privacy advocates do not have the blood on their hands. It was lax security at the airports that caused this, and even they are not to blame. Those that are to blame are somewhere in the middle east giving each other high fives that their plan worked as well as it did.

      --
      I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
    30. Re:My Speculation by MentalPunisher2001 · · Score: 1

      Precisely...
      If we lose our freedoms, we might as well live UNDER the Taliban...
      It will not be a country worth living in, and I guarantee some people will rise up to overthrow big brother. Which will result in more violence, and DOMESTIC terrorism (can't exactly drop nukes on US soil, it'd be MUCH tougher to fight domestic terrorists - witness Colombia's struggle)

    31. Re:My Speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So many of us believe it is the government's
      responsibility to protect us. I would argue
      that the people who founded the country
      saw it as the people's responsbility to aid and
      oversee the defense of the people. Sure, the
      government organized the defense, but it boils
      down to the people. In fact, the founding fathers
      believed this so strongly that they intended
      each individual to take on the responsibility
      of defending their own self. This is why they
      gave us a right to bear arms. If even half of
      the passangers on these flights had been armed,
      how far would the terrorists have gotten? The
      government can never be omnipresent enough to
      protect me wherever I go, no matter how invasive
      they get. But, I will always be whevere I
      go, and the government could help train me to
      defend my self. What about the crazies who would
      wave a gun around whenever they got ticked? Well,
      if everyone around them who was sane were armed
      and trained, how far could the crazy really get?

    32. Re:My Speculation by maroberts · · Score: 1

      As a Briton, we don't regard one car bomb and a dozen dead in a week as "acceptable losses". Given the intransigence of both sides in Northern Ireland, we regard each and every one of the atrocities which have occurred there with deep dismay.

      But I would gently point out that the murder rate including terrorist offences in Britain is *MUCH* lower than the murder rate in virtually any major US city.

      My attitude to security is that the security services should be free to try and listen in by whatever method possible to any communications they feel necessary to protect our national security. But that doesn't mean as individuals we have to make it terribly easy for them! Personal security is to some extent the responsibility of the individual, and if the state has difficulty reading your emails, then you can be reasonably certain that your love life, business secrets and personal details sent in encrypted emails are equally secure.

      You should remember that the desire of the US not to engage in widespread codebreaking probably contributed in some measure to Pearl Harbour. I seem to remember that between the wars US codebreaking efforts were nearly killed with the famous phrase "Gentlemen do not read other gentlemen's mail".

      --

      Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
      Karma: Chameleon

    33. Re:My Speculation by kilgore_47 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If we want to live in a safe, civilized nation, we need to give up some of our lesser freedoms.

      You make me sick.
      You clearly have no understanding of the principals this country was founded on.

      There are countries where the government watches over everyone, where nothing is private. I'd sugest you move to one of those places; maybe Iraq? Or Afghanistan?

      If a terrorist act can get the American govt to take away it's citizens freedom, even "lesser freedoms", then the terrorists have been successfull.

      --
      ___
      The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. --Ben Franklin
    34. Re:My Speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that Britain hasn't experienced a terrorist on this scale may simply be down to the lack of grand ambition on the terrorists' part, not due to high levels of surveillance.
      To my knowledge, the Provisional IRA (or any other terrorist group) has never attempted anything on this scale in the UK. It's possible that attempts were detected through surveillance and thwarted, and the public never informed, or that the surveillance itself was a sufficient deterrent to put them off trying.

      In summary, you can't draw any useful conclusions from Britain's widespread use of surveillance.

      On a (slight) aside, I think that even post-WTC, a lot of Americans would not accept the level of surveillance that Britain maintains on its citizens. In practice, probably all communications to/from/within the country can be intercepted at will and without warrant by Big Brother, the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ).

    35. Re:My Speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the passengers on those planes had been armed and able to defend themselves, the disaster would never have happened.

      Thats it! Encourage people to carry weapons on airplanes! That'll stop the terrorists!

      You may now crawl back under whatever rock in texas you came out from under.

    36. Re:My Speculation by CyberGarp · · Score: 1

      From a brochure dropped out a worehole:

      "... after passing the cavity inspection, you'll be issued fine high quality orange jumpsuits at preboarding. Make sure you specify the correct size to prevent boarding delays. If during the flight you'd like to make notes, felt-tipped markers and paper will be provided free of charge. ..."

      "... The pilot will be hermetically sealed in a seperate forward compartment to ensure you safety. ..."

      --

      I used to wonder what was so holy about a silent night, now I have a child.
    37. Re:My Speculation by allism · · Score: 1

      So are they gonna take away my can of Aqua Net and my cigarette lighter too since I can make a flame thrower out of it?

    38. Re:My Speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same Britain under attack from organisations that get the majority of their funding from United States citizens.

    39. Re:My Speculation by BeBoxer · · Score: 2

      While I would tend to support this position in most circumstances, planes are special. At altitude, firing a gun on a plane is very likely to puncture the skin of the aircraft causing depressurization. On the street an errant bullet in unlikely to cause any significant harm. On a plane, the opposite is true. Any errant shot has a very real chance to take down the plane.

    40. Re:My Speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Perhaps something more along the lines of issueing tasers (or a similar weapon) to people after they've passed security.



      Of course, you would want to make sure that they were decent shots, etc.

    41. Re:My Speculation by Publicus · · Score: 1

      You fools, your level of dissonance is staggering. It appears the victim blaming has begun, let us not forget that it is the terrorists that did the bad thing, not the passengers, not the government. It's human nature to try to come up with a reason why the people hurt deserved what happened to them. The did not deserve what happened to them. A terrible thing happened. Accept it, many innocent people were hurt. The did nothing to deserve it and all reasonable precautions had been taken to keep this kind of thing from happening. It's easy to say that by not allowing armed people on airplanes we were "just waiting for this to happen." But is isn't our fault. We can't protect ourselves against everything. We just can't.

      --

      My Karma was at 49, then they switched to words. All that work for nothing!

    42. Re:My Speculation by Digital_Quartz · · Score: 1

      I have to wonder. If this had happened in the political climate of the 1860s, would you have cried out:

      "All you 'patriots' who were arguing that we should let colored people have equal rights had better get used to terrorism. Because of your whining about 'rights', the terrorists were allowed to board a plane, and look what they've done now. The blood of the innocent is on YOUR hands!"

      You see how preposterous it sounds? You're spouting the same crap, my friend. Encryption didn't hijack those planes, and Carnivore installed in every ISP in the country wouldn't stop people from making plans like this just by speaking face to face.

      "The cry has been that when war is declared, all opposition should therefore be hushed. A sentiment more unworthy of a free country could hardly be propagated. If the doctrine be admitted, rulers have only to declare war and they are screened at once from scrutiny. ... In war, then, as in peace, assert the freedom of speech and of the press. Cling to this as the bulwark of all our rights and privileges."
      -- William Ellery Channing

    43. Re:My Speculation by Zeno_1 · · Score: 1

      I guess if your going to quote a famous person, you might want to actually give the right quote..

      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

      Benjamin Franklin

    44. Re:My Speculation by jiheison · · Score: 1

      I wondered about this myself. Specifically, I wondered if more passengers will take the stance that pilots do. If they don't beleive that they can save their own lives, will they sacrifice themselves to prevent destruction on the ground?

      It sounds like this is what happened on the flight that crashed in Pennsylvania, and while those passengers didn't know it, they probably prevented an even greater tragedy.

      Terrorists rely on the fact that their hostages beleive that they can walk away from the ordeal if they cooperate. Paradoxically, the more that they terrorize their victims, the more likely their victims are to fight back.

      I hope that turning a hijacking into this order of tragedy will make it more difficult for a few terrorists to take control of entire planes. I am sure that there were many on these flights who would have fought back without hesititation if they knew what the ultimate aim of their attackers was.

    45. Re:My Speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but only 1 person has to miss, and the bullet has gone through the side of the plane and you are all dead.

      But hey, nice try.

      'I know, why don't we all have a button on the top of our heads that kills us if someone pushes it? That would stop all crime'.

      Guns don't kill people. But people kill quicker with guns.

    46. Re:My Speculation by Russ+Nelson · · Score: 2

      You can buy bullets with less destructive power now (frangible bullets). If there was a market for bullets which didn't go through the walls of an airplane, you can bet somebody would devise them. Right now, they don't exist because nobody would waste their money buying them.
      -russ

      --
      Don't piss off The Angry Economist
    47. Re:My Speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those who are willing to give up freedom for safety, deserve neither safety nor freedom

      Just because it is oft repeated, doesn't make it true.

    48. Re:My Speculation by msheppard · · Score: 2

      My initial response to how they took over the planes did not involve weapons. A highly trained in-duh-vidual could be far more dangerous than a freak with a gun. 3-4 trained assains would not need weapons to kill a few people, then hold someone as a hostage threatening to kill them as well.

      How the HELL are we gonna ensure THIS cannot happen on any domestic flight?

      I am much in support of the cockpit/cargo isolation idea.

      --
      Krispy Cream is people
    49. Re: My Speculation by Inthewire · · Score: 1

      I agree. Remember the 7-11 employee who was FIRED for disarming an armed robber? I've been boycotting those twits ever since. And yes, I periodically email them as a reminder.

      --


      Writers imply. Readers infer.
    50. Re:My Speculation by Mike1024 · · Score: 1

      Hey,

      I am much in support of the cockpit/cargo isolation idea.

      Alas, this would would cause a problem for most non-suicide missions, those with an aim like 'Release General X' or 'Give us $10,000,000' or whatever.

      The terrorists could say 'We don't plan on killing anyone, but we will shoot one hostage every minute, until you unlock the door.

      This would not be the ideal solution.

      Michael

      --
      "Goodness me, how unlike the FBI to abuse the trust of the American public." -- The Onion
    51. Re:My Speculation by ahodgson · · Score: 1

      50 to 4. Hmmm ... wonder who would win?

    52. Re:My Speculation by Rudeboy777 · · Score: 1

      Tell me why you care... The internet is a place for exchage of ideas and you seem to care more about what others think of certain ideas. I can't believe you're thinking of karma and moderators at a time like this.

      --

      From hell's heart I fstab at /dev/hdc

    53. Re:My Speculation by msheppard · · Score: 2

      My "Cockpit/Cargo Isolation" would involve 2 doors to the airplane, and no possibility of travelling from the back to the cockpit... under the threat of killing passengers or not.

      Yes they could still force the plane to land by being on a cell phone to the air traffic controllers or something like that, but they would have no hope of compromising the control of the aircraft.

      --
      Krispy Cream is people
    54. Re:My Speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect that you would lose more planes to pilot incapacitation that terrorism under that scenerio. More than one passenger has landed a heavy jet.

    55. Re:My Speculation by bigbadwlf · · Score: 1

      I don't believe these people had any idea that the plane they were on was to be used as a terrorist weapon and that the plan was that they were all to die anyway.
      When a plane is hijacked, the assumption (based on history) is that it will be landed somewhere and that the people on it will be held until such time as their government negotiates for their release. Keeping that in mind, the passengers will be inclined (and rightly so) to cooperate with the hijackers and wait for the negotiations.

      I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that 60 unarmed passengers can overwhelm 3 to 5 terrorists armed with knives.
      I would hope that if these people knew they were going to die anyway that they would band together and try to overpower the terrorists and at least try to minimize the casualties to the unfortunate passengers on the plane by crashing it into an unpopulated area.
      Perhaps this is what happened in Pennsylvania.
      Having never been in such a situation I can't honestly say, but I'd like to think it's what I would do.

    56. Re:My Speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How the fuck is that flamebait? You moderators are a bunch of stupid wankers. THIS is flamebait.

      If people can carry weapons on flights, OF COURSE it will happen more often.

    57. Re:My Speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many passangers put up a fight against the box cutters the terrorists used?
      A terrorist takes your plane, figure you're good as dead anyways, why not try to make your last five minutes heroic, or idiotic, however you look at these things.

    58. Re:My Speculation by thejake316 · · Score: 1

      If guns are allowed on airplanes, brandishing a gun doesn't make you powerful. It makes you a target.

      Damn right! The hijackers were totally prepared to die, only effective threat is that they might die in vain.

      --
      AC's cheerfully ignored
    59. Re:My Speculation by msheppard · · Score: 2

      Has a passenger ever landed a heavy jet? I don't ever remember hearing about this.

      In these cases, would the pilot incapacitation have been prevented with isolation?

      All airlines have at least one peson other than the primary pilot in the cockpit who is capeable of landing the plane. Many planes have 2 other landing capeable pilots.

      --
      Krispy Cream is people
    60. Re:My Speculation by Flower · · Score: 2
      The terrorist. He's the one willing and trained to kill. 90 percent of that 50 aren't going to have it in them to pull the trigger.

      If you listen to self-defense instructors, a gun is only worth-while if you are willing to use it. Most people will hesitate, lose the gun and have it used on them.

      Add to that, the fact that most people in a high stress situation couldn't hit the broadside of a barn from 2 feet away and I would be willing to lay good money that a majority of the casualities would result from friendly fire. I'd be more afraid that the Grannie behind me is going to put a bullet in my gut as she draws her weapon than Mr. IRA is going to accidentially shot me while targeting the officer on the other side of the plane.

      Oh, and I won't even go into how hard it is to judge shoot/no-shoot situations. My friend who was entering law enforcement said the simulator was a bitch. Or the problems if someone has too much to drink or experiences a little in-flight rage.

      How about the only thing you get to bring on board the plane is bit of string. It's the only thing I'd trust any fellow passengers with and that's with deep reservations.

      --
      I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
    61. Re:My Speculation by geschild · · Score: 1

      I still like the European solution to this problem far better than this crazed pro-gun lobby at the most inappropriate time.

      GET YOUR BLOODY AIRPORT SECURITY UP TO STANDARD!

      In other words, if checks would have been better this wouldn't have been fully prevented but you sure as hell wouldn't have had 4 planes hijacked.

      Guns in the possession of private people through a whole society is a _bad_ idea. At least over here in Europe you can die of cancer first and get shot later. For those that don't believe me go compare crime-rates over here with yours. If guns are omni-present the chance of some random asshole getting his hands on one when in a bad mood is way too high. Getting hit and kicked a few times by a disgruntled person is no walk in the park but usually you live... (Columbine anyone?)

      --
      Karma? What's that again?
    62. Re:My Speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so... how are you going to monitor all encrypted (and i'm not talking about some weak algorithms) channels? every citizen gives his private key to the government? chill out and think again in few days. you must be mad and thus acting like an idiot. i understand.

  9. Our Rights by Coffee+Warlord · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The following was a letter emailed to the President by a friend of mine, and I think you would all be interested in reading it.



    I am writing you to express my thanks for your sincere and thoughtful remarks on today's national tragedy. Like you, I offer my condolences to the families and friends of the victims of this horrific attack. I also write you on behalf of potential victims of a growing and unreasoned response to this travesty.

    Interspersed with the reports on today's national tragedy, I have been hearing other news that is as disconcerting as the senseless loss of life. Namely, that Federal Law Enforcement Agency spokespersons are talking of limiting not only civil liberties of free passage, but veiled references to endorsing the curtailing of privacy-enabling technologies, all of which are cryptography-based.

    It seems that those who truly care about freedom and all that it entails are being afforded no time to mourn this day's losses. I believe it no product of wild speculation to suggest that many policiticians and media pundits will once again renew their calls for limitations on public access to strong cryptography. These movements will be built on the graves of the dead in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. The claim will ultimately be made that if cryptography had not been so readily available, our intelligence agencies would have been able to detect and summarily thwart today's attack on the contintental United States.

    Suffice it to say that I can no sooner embrace such notions than I can embrace the terrorists who brought this tragedy to our nation's shores. And anyone suggesting such a course of action should be met with resistance equal to that which you call on us to muster against the forces of terrorism.

    The day we sacrifice our liberties in the name of "security" is the day that the terrorists' goals will have been achieved. To reiterate the wisdom of Benjamin Franklin, if we surrender our liberty in the name of security, we shall have neither.

    It is unfortunate that it seemed necessary to compose this note less than twelve hours after this day's attack, but it is every citizen's duty to take every possible action to avert national disaster; especially one in the making.

    Thank you for your valuable time. It is my hope that the perpetrators of this crime against the United States will be swiftly brought to justice. God bless America.

    1. Re:Our Rights by Old+DBA · · Score: 5, Insightful

      An alarmist (I hope) article from the Telegraph newsite in the UK about the loss of liberty that US citizens are about to have imposed by their own government:By John Keegan

      By John Keekan:

      'KILL one, frighten a thousand" is the terrorist watchword. Yesterday, a terrorist organisation, or group of organisations, killed hundreds, perhaps thousands of people.

      The atrocity will frighten not merely individuals, but whole populations and the states that rule them. It was a dark event in the history of human liberty. The most likely outcome is the imposition of measures to restrict freedom of movement and residence. Such measures will be ineffective in preventing a repetition of the disasters, but will be made all the same.

      The introduction of identity cards, compulsorily to be carried at all times, is a probable response, even in countries where "police papers" are regarded as repugnant. Registration of residence is another, and notification of change of dwelling. Officially or spontaneously, surveillance networks will emerge, in order to enforce residence controls at the local level. There will be a huge increase in the amount of personal information entered into government computer databases, and a consonant increase in the numbers of personnel employed in internal population control.

      Such measures will, in a comparatively short space of time, transform the atmosphere of social life in all countries with reason to fear this new style of terrorist attack. There will be a return to the mood of the Second World War, remembered popularly as a time of neighbourly closeness. It was also a time of snooping, informing, poison-pen letter writing and, of course, intense xenophobia.

      It should not be forgotten that, in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, the immigrant Japanese population of the American West Coast, several hundred thousand in number, were deported from their homes and locked up in remote detention camps. The United States will not start locking up Muslims tomorrow - it has yet to be established that the perpetrators were Muslim - but, if an Islamic organisation is identified as responsible, life for Muslims inside the country will become socially difficult quite quickly and may be legally circumscribed soon after.

      The advancing tide of human rights litigation will be thrown into reverse. Aliens protesting at refusal of admission or at detention once admitted or at expulsion will find that new laws, hastily enacted, have abolished the rights on which they and their lawyers expected to take their stand. The withdrawal of human rights provisions will be widely welcomed by the established population, which regards such laws as unfairly favouring incomers, social misfits and the undeserving.

      The reaction may be sharpest among the young, who, traditionally more open in their dealings with strangers and foreigners than the middle-aged, also come into contact with them more closely and freely. Friendly campus life for Middle Easterners may soon be a thing of the past. An event of this dimension can arouse latent nationalist passions and hatreds very easily and, if it suddenly becomes fashionable to display a violent patriotism, as it may, the next generation or two may be entirely different from the casual, obsessively tolerant teenagers of the 1990s.

      Meanwhile, whatever external military action the United States government decides to take will be warmly endorsed by old and young alike. The difficulty in the immediate aftermath is to identify a target and the possibility is that Washington will strike at almost any suspect - Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, perhaps all three - simply for the satisfaction inherent in retaliation. Another difficulty is that there are, after the internal and foreign wars of Iraq and Afghanistan, not many targets of value left in those countries, which made poor objectives for punishment in any case.

      If Israel were, unprompted or nudged by Washington, now to decide to terminate the existence of the Palestinian Authority, destroy its structures and re-occupy the West Bank completely, those measures would be widely supported in America, just after a moment when it seemed that opinion in the United States was tiring of its traditional support for Israel and becoming ready to accept a further withdrawal and an abandonment of the most exposed settlements. One undoubted effect of the World Trade Centre disaster is to heighten the likelihood of war in the Middle East, which may indeed, in a perverse way, have been its planners' immediate desire.

      There will, as an afterthought, be an even more immediate result of yesterday. Do not expect to be allowed to take hand baggage of any sort on flights to or within the United States. Expect delays of hours at check-in, invasive body searches, rejection of luggage and the presence in the seat next to you of an armed sky marshal, ready to shoot it out at 30,000 ft with anyone reckless enough of life to attempt a hijacking again.

    2. Re:Our Rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'The day we sacrifice our liberties in the name of "security" is the day that the terrorists' goals will have been achieved'

      This is exactly what I have been thinking for the past day.

      The terrorists already got exactly what they wanted when the second plane hit WTC and it was recorded from several perspectives. That harrowing image embedded into the consciousness of Americans and people all over the world. Terror is what terrorism is about by definition, and they won the first round.

      Although it is too early to say anything definitive about the origins of these attacks, but it is safe to assume the terrorists are against the American way of life as a whole (however these terrorists define it). And the moment American officials start to dilute civil liberties, American Constitution and Amendments, or democratic process of the nation, the terrorists have won the second round. I don't want to even think what the third round would be.

      As a weak attempt at reflecting President Bush's recent speeches (which were poignant, composed and delivered extremely well, IMO): Make no mistake, if the United States lowers itself to the level of these terrorists, the terrorists have already won.

      I'm not American, but my condolences go to everyone involved. I have three friends in NYC, two of them unaccounted for, one working across from WTC when the planes hit it. I sincerely hope this major problem can be solved in a manner which is in accordance with the very foundations of your great nation.

    3. Re:Our Rights by Steve+B · · Score: 2
      The day we sacrifice our liberties in the name of "security" is the day that the terrorists' goals will have been achieved.


      A friend of mine opined that this will either pull the country together, or tear it apart.


      Any politician or pundit who attempts to exploit the dead in the service of an anti-freedom agenda is pushing the nation through Door #2, and is -- no lesser word will do -- a traitor.

      --
      /. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
    4. Re:Our Rights by Slak · · Score: 2

      IANAL: If we are at war (in the legal sense) then some of our liberties may be suspended legitimately.

      Regards,
      Slak

    5. Re:Our Rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
      -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759

    6. Re:Our Rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm glad that someone has finally brought this up, the idea that our "civil liberties" might be infringed upon by this would be a major win for the terrorists. The 50,000 people they killed are chump change if they successfully change what America stands for, and affect our liberties!

    7. Re:Our Rights by Dexx · · Score: 1

      The argument against seems to be "Terrorists used cryptography and stenography, so only terrorists will use them."

      But when you turn it around a bit, it just doesn't sit right. "The government will read/hear our e-communciations, so only the government will read/hear them."

      --
      Feel the fear and do it anyway.
    8. Re:Our Rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does this remind you of a particular episode of "Lone Gunmen"? It seems very famillar. Concider this: the government plans this, and scapegoats the Arabs. Then they call on everyone to make laws concerning encryption and intelligence. As a result, the military gets more money, CIA gets the right to spy on the people, and Everyone is naieve, and terrofied. End of story. What do you think?

    9. Re:Our Rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey i'm sure he'll give it loads of time
      a considered reply

      he may even stay up awake at night thinking about it

      GET REAL

  10. We need more Americans like Jeremy Glick by typical+geek · · Score: 5, Interesting

    who sacrified himself to save others, on United Flight 93.

    1. Re:We need more Americans like Jeremy Glick by TrollMan+5000 · · Score: 1

      Better to go down swinging than to cower in fear. Mr. Glick probably saved hundreds of lives by averting another building hit. There are many more passengers than terrorists, so it is possible that the terrorists were subdued.

      It's just sad that the plane went down anyway. Godspeed.

    2. Re:We need more Americans like Jeremy Glick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      its too bad adequacy cannot even slightly be taken seriously. As a site where slashdot trolls post "news" and delete perfectly reasonable comments, you should not be surprised that it gets ignored when it tries to be serious.


      sorry. I had a comment deleted for no other reason than the editor disagreed with my post. If I could delete my user information from that site, I would.

    3. Re:We need more Americans like Jeremy Glick by Chundra · · Score: 1
      ugh. Primetime Glick sucks. Martin Short simply isn't funny.



      Oh... Jeremy Glick. Not Jiminy? Nevermind.

    4. Re:We need more Americans like Jeremy Glick by Omnifarious · · Score: 2

      You have to believe that people may act a bit better in this crisis. Also, if you look at the article, the source is Jerry Pournelle's site, which I consider much more reputable.

  11. A word of thanks by iplayfast · · Score: 2

    Thanks slashdot for the fantastic work you have done over the last 2 days. When other services have been down or out, you have been able to fill us in and have provided a forum for people to use, and provide links to working news sources.

    This isn't news for nerds exclusivly but it was well worth the exception.

    1. Re:A word of thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i would also like to thank slashdot on the superb coverage and also each poster, especially those that mirrored and linked other material. this community really came together. thank you

    2. Re:A word of thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > This isn't news for nerds exclusivly

      But it's definitely "stuff that matters".

  12. Destination of PA plane? by revscat · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Has anyone heard any credible speculation as to the destination of the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania was? The other three planes obviously had specific targets: the Pentagon and the two WTC buildings. The fourth crashed southeast of Pittsburgh. As nice of a city as Pittsburgh is, I'm sure, I can't recall any significant landmarks or financial centers that exist there.

    - Rev.
    1. Re:Destination of PA plane? by Villain · · Score: 4, Informative

      There were many in the media speculating that the destination of the 4th plane was camp david. I believe it went down about 85 miles from camp david. If I am not mistaken, didn't the camp david accord take place in september. (Terrorist usually pick the day of an attack to have a certain meaning).
      There were also rumors that the plane was headed for another D.C. area landmark such as the White House or the Capital building. But of course, all of this is speculation by me and the media so take it with a grain of salt.

    2. Re:Destination of PA plane? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have heard speculation that it was headed for Ft. Detrick, Md. where the U.S govt. has a large underground National Command installation.

    3. Re:Destination of PA plane? by 3am · · Score: 1

      camp david was mentioned as a probable target.

      --

      A: None. The Universe spins the bulb, and the Zen master merely stays out of the way.
    4. Re:Destination of PA plane? by Libertius · · Score: 1

      I've heard speculation about Camp David, the white house etc on CNN. Guess it will take a while until we know for sure. Camp David seemed interesting, considering the anniversary of the Camp David peace agreement...

    5. Re:Destination of PA plane? by dlapine · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Oliover North, LtCol, retired, made the remark during an interview on T.V. that the fourth plane may have been headed to the National Emergency Command Center in Ft. Deitrick (sp?).

      If the president chooses to remain on the ground instead of on kneecap (national emergency airborne command post the 747) it's possible that he might relocate here. There would definitely be a crisis team stationed there.

      --
      The Internet has no garbage collection
    6. Re:Destination of PA plane? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Latest speculation I heard is that it was possibly headed for Camp David. Although W wasn't there at the time, I imagine that this was planned long before his schedule was determined.

    7. Re:Destination of PA plane? by iainl · · Score: 2, Informative

      The current official statement appears to be that the crash near Pennsylvania was aiming for Camp David, although I have also read speculation that a target was the Sears Tower. Fortunately, it would appear from the latest updates that there was enough time between the second WTC crash and messages from passengers that they were informed of the real reason for their hijacking, and the plane was deliberately downed before reaching the intended target.

      --
      "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
    8. Re:Destination of PA plane? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reports including flight tracking put the plane turning arround near cleveland, and on track for DC (and camp david too I believe)

      White house, capitol building, and camp david seem likely...

    9. Re:Destination of PA plane? by iainl · · Score: 1

      oops - there is no official statement. I've just checked my sources, and as others have said Camp David is merely the accepted media answer; I doubt we will ever know for certain.

      now to wait two minutes to place this followup...

      --
      "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
    10. Re:Destination of PA plane? by garcia · · Score: 2

      as far as the planes go...

      The reports say that they *believe* the hijackers to have used knives (until the black boxes are found -- if -- we won't know for sure).

      What I am confused about is why this happened in the first place. The plane that went down in PA was taken care of correctly. Why did the pilots NOT send the planes into the water before hitting the towers unless they were dead or seriously injured?

      I know that no American would allow such a tragedy. I pray for those lives that were lost and I pray for a quick and acceptable resolve to the events that happened.

      God bless America.

    11. Re:Destination of PA plane? by greenplato · · Score: 1

      The Computer Emergency Responce Center is in Pittsburgh, but somehow I doubt that it was a target.

      Camp David, in Thurmont Md, is a possible location that has been said numerous times. It has a symbolic meaning to the Arab world as the location on the Camp David Accords, a 1978 peace treaty between Egypt and Israel.

      I saw Ollie North on CNN, he discounted the Camp David speculation in favor of a military command and control center in Maryland, but I didn't cath the name. Anyone?

      Or the plane could have continued onto Washington DC for any number of tagets there.

    12. Re:Destination of PA plane? by GothChip · · Score: 1

      The reports I read suggested it was heading to Camp David before the terrorists were overpowered and it crashed.

    13. Re:Destination of PA plane? by Darth+Maul · · Score: 2

      Headed for DC; probably the Capitol.

      I imagine there was a struggle when the pilot and/or passengers rushed the terrorists who took over the controls, and plunged the plane to the ground. while it was still 15 mins outside of DC.

      --
      --- witty signature
    14. Re:Destination of PA plane? by J'raxis · · Score: 2

      Camp David (Ws vacation resort).

    15. Re:Destination of PA plane? by mr100percent · · Score: 3, Informative

      Camp david Accords took place on September 11, 1978 i think

    16. Re:Destination of PA plane? by kilgore_47 · · Score: 1

      There was speculation on cnn that it was headed for either the White House or Camp David, but I don't see how they could be certain at this point.

      --
      ___
      The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. --Ben Franklin
    17. Re:Destination of PA plane? by alta · · Score: 1

      I'm sure most people on the plane figured they'd land at an airport somewhere while the terrorists got $$$ or something else they wanted. Most of these attacks end without the destruction of the plane. I'm sure if they knew what was going to be done they would have put up a fight.

      --
      Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
    18. Re:Destination of PA plane? by Aqualung · · Score: 1

      This is an easy one. The pilots were lured out of the cockpits by terrorists who were threatening the flight attendants and passengers (basically, come out or we kill the stewardess... apparently they *did* kill some of them) The pilots were taken back with the other hostages while the terrorists took control of the plane.

      Ordinarily, the pilots wouldn't have been incorrect in their actions, crew and passengers taken hostage are kept as bargaining chips in negotiations, so the pilot probably thought that he was acting in the best interest of his passengers by coming out of the cabin.

      --

      - Dave
    19. Re:Destination of PA plane? by lar3ry · · Score: 2

      I actually heard that the plane that crashed into the Pentagon was actually on an approach to either the White House or the Capitol building, and then veered and hit the Pentagon instead.

      The worries were that the plane was going so fast, there was no time to evacuate whichever was the intended target.

      As for the plane that ditched in PA, the pilot requested a change of flight plan to Washington, which would bely that Camp David was a target (I also think that Camp David isn't easy to spot from the air, but I could be wrong). No strategic value in Camp David, as the Prez was in Florida, and his wife was in DC.

      What all the targets that were hit had in common was that they were large enough to allow a relatively untrained pilot to hit them.

      We may never know the intended target for the fourth plane.

      [sigh]

      --
      "May I have ten thousand marbles, please?"
    20. Re:Destination of PA plane? by FFFish · · Score: 2

      LA Times Report the plane had diverted from its westbound route and had swung back toward Washington, D.C. ... The crash site was about 80 miles northwest of Camp David and 80 miles southeast of Pittsburgh.

      So it looks like it was heading either for Washington or Camp David.

      Problem with Washington as a destination is that it flew far, far past it. OTOH, perhaps they fucked up: if it had turned earlier, I'll just bet it would have hit the White House shortly after the other three attacks.

      --

      --
      Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
    21. Re:Destination of PA plane? by tringstad · · Score: 3, Interesting
      All anyone is going to be able to do is speculate about where the fourth plane was heading, but to me, the current theories are just absurd.

      The first targets were clearly chosen to take out buildings that had as many people as possible in them, were world renowned, and were supposedly indestructable/impenatrable. (The WTC towers were actually designed to withstand having a jet flown directly into them. I bet whoever signed off on that was sure it would never happen)

      So why then would Camp David, or any of the other theorized targets make any sense at all?

      It seems rather obvious to me, especially from a systems design view, that the 4th plane was headed for the Pentagon as well. Full redundancy. Two targets, two attacks on each. Something is bound to get through. Everything else about this was clearly well planned, and if in fact some courageous passenger on the downed plane was responsible for saving the day, the attack was still succesful.

      But of course, that's just more speculation to throw on top of the dogpile.

      --
      "I got a half gallon of Jack, and 2 dozen Ant Traps. I'm about to get wild." -me
    22. Re:Destination of PA plane? by digifuzz · · Score: 1

      People I've talked to say the plane was on the way to camp david.. however, the plane being overpowered, although a nice touching story, is a bunch of hoohah. Supposedly we shot them down, when they failed to respond to our warnings... Remember all the fighter jets we had patrolling the area by then? The lives of a few for the lives of many, I guess. Dont quote me on it though, its just what I heard.. but it makes more sense and seems like a more likely scenario to me than the 'hero' stories... Why else would there be so much undisclosed information about it on the news? You think this is something the gov wants to admit having had to do?

      Well, you be the judge, just my $0.02.

      -- fuzz

      --
      http://www.digifuzz.net
    23. Re:Destination of PA plane? by Trepidity · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In fact, unless I'm mistaken, this is the first time a hijacking has not been essentially a hostage situation - every other hijacking is done to get hostages to force governments to comply with the terrorists' demands. So it's certainly understandable that the pilots would've though this was the same.

    24. Re:Destination of PA plane? by Keith+Russell · · Score: 2

      The running theories are Washington DC or Camp David. Both would have been somewhere near that flight's path. Pittsburgh's strategic significance ended when the steel mills closed.

      What intrigues me is that, according to animations CBS aired last night, that plane turned around somewhere west of Cleveland. That's ~225 miles from the crash site (~80 mi. SE of Pgh). And this morning, on the local radio, there was speculation that passengers on that flight tried to retake the plane. Sounds to me like the hijackers' plans were going awry from the start.

      All this struck me as I walked to lunch today, looking at the Pittsburgh skyline. On a day when hijacked planes were being crashed into buildings, a hijacked plane flew over my home town.

      --
      This sig intentionally left blank.
    25. Re:Destination of PA plane? by KosovoYankee · · Score: 1

      Well, how about Three Mile Island? A jet impact into one or more of the cooling towers could have a fairly negative impact on most of the northeast US.

      --
      - If This Peace Is Fictious, I Shall Destroy It
    26. Re:Destination of PA plane? by Dragoness+Eclectic · · Score: 1

      (The WTC towers were actually designed to withstand having a jet flown directly into them [chicagotribune.com]. I bet whoever signed off on that was sure it would never happen)

      Actually, the WTC Towers did survive having a jet flown directly into them. They just didn't survive having two jetloads of fuel catch fire and burn inside the damaged buildings.

      Also, two Towers, two planes. One Pentagon, one plane. I suspect Camp David, because of the Camp David Accords.

      --
      ---dragoness
    27. Re:Destination of PA plane? by duckyd · · Score: 1

      I believe that the plane that crashed outside of Pittsburg had turned around and was headed towards DC at the time that it crashed. I don't believe there was any intended target in Pittsburg...

    28. Re:Destination of PA plane? by Garc · · Score: 1

      I've read that they were designed to handle impact from a 707, not a signigicantly larger jet (like the 737, 757, 767, etc). Did you even read your own link?

      garc

    29. Re:Destination of PA plane? by pohl · · Score: 1

      I did a quick search online, and the meetings took place from September 5th through September 17th of 1978. They were signed by Carter on the 17th at the White House. I couldn't find anything specifically about the 11th of September, but that date was right in the middle of that time span.

      --

      The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...

    30. Re:Destination of PA plane? by breon.halling · · Score: 1


      Actually, they took place on the 17th of September, 1978. You can check it out here:

      http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/campdav. htm

      --
      "Yeah, well, Dracula called and he's coming over tonight for you and I said okay."
    31. Re:Destination of PA plane? by Mr.+Foogle · · Score: 1

      Um.

      Maybe you / he meant the center at Fort Ritchie, Maryland? Deitreich is in the middle of a largish town and is to my recolletion, not where the NECC is. There WAS a NECC (Site R) at Ft. Ritche.

      Either way .. improbable. Site R is a fallout shelter, and dug into the rock.

      --
      Display some adaptability.
    32. Re:Destination of PA plane? by VEGETA_GT · · Score: 1

      Well what if they killed the pilots and took the plane in themselves. To keep the thing in the air is easy. And they did not plan to land

      my 2 cents plus 2 more

    33. Re:Destination of PA plane? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Terrorists normally wear green. They are shorter than average height. Their favorite fruit is a banana. They tend to be long sighted. They all have long metal spikes instead of fingers, which can shoot lightning at anyone who annoys them.

    34. Re:Destination of PA plane? by tringstad · · Score: 1
      I've read that they were designed to handle impact from a 707, not a signigicantly larger jet (like the 737, 757, 767, etc). Did you even read your own link?

      Umm. Did you even read my post before you decided to flame me? I don't remember writing that it was designed to be hit by a significantly larger jet. And I don't believe that the jet bit was anything more than a side-note on my comment, thus the parentheses. It just happened to be the only technical article I've seen on the whole matter, which was of interest to me, and so I'd thought I'd pass it on.

      But thanks for being an asshole. Slashdot could never exist as it is without pedantic twits such as yourself.

      -Tommy

      --
      "I got a half gallon of Jack, and 2 dozen Ant Traps. I'm about to get wild." -me
    35. Re:Destination of PA plane? by IronClad · · Score: 1

      I found on Fox news that Sept 11, 1922 was the date that a British mandate was proclaimed in Palestine.

    36. Re:Destination of PA plane? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More stupid speculation:

      If you want to be sure a plan comes off you have to have redundancy. I think the purpose of the plan was specifically to make sure that the WTC came down. If you want to hit something in Washington, you don't have to fly all the way to Ohio and then come back.

      You don't have that many planes to choose from. They have to be 757/767, transcontinental so they're carrying the most fuel, departing within a short time window, with AA and UA preferred, maybe because they had people there. And don't forget, flights can leave late. You might hold tickets on a backup plane if something is delayed.

      Your primary teams leave from Boston because they can go off course the latest. The other planes can't deviate before that to avoid tipping flight control to a pattern. Flight AA11 only needed to be off course about 25 minutes, UA175 the same.

      AA77 turned around 10 minutes after AA11 hit. Sufficient time to hear the report and perhaps also get word that the second plane is successfully within a few minutes of target.

      So, AA77 can turn to a secondary target in Washington. Given what they did to take the plane, they are not going to be able to escape in any case. They have to turn first because it would take them longer if they did need to get back to NYC.

      UA93 turns 25 minutes later. Perhaps they waited to see Cleveland on Lake Superior for navigation. The other planes seemed to use landmarks: AA11 went down the Potomac, UA93 came up the coast.

      I assume you can estimate how long it should take a fire to buckle steel. But you can't know how good a hit you're going to get. So perhaps a lookout near the WTC could report about 30 minutes later that the fire looks sufficient and so AA77 can hit in Washington. UA93 is still in position to route to NYC if one tower falls and the other doesn't.

      I note that, given where they turned around, the second pair of planes could have reached NYC near the same time. I don't know if the F-16's had scrambled by then, but the second pair would have stood some chance of getting in.

      So: hit, delay to wait for the fire, then hit again if necessary. They got lucky.

      I think all these cold numbers are my way of dealing with things. If it's numbers then it's not bodies.

  13. Congradulations by steveo777 · · Score: 1

    I'd just like to thank all the /.ers out there who set up mirrors and the like. Kudos to you for acting so quickly to help out the world's public find their news.

    --
    This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
    1. Re:Congradulations by basking2 · · Score: 1

      Hehe, it reminded me of a digital Ham Radio group. :-)

      --
      Sam
  14. speculation by graveyhead · · Score: 4, Offtopic

    My wife and I were speculating last night: will they rebuild the towers? They will almost certainly fix the Pentagon because only about a fifth of the building was damaged, but what about our landmark center for capatailsm? Thoughts?

    --
    std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
    1. Re:speculation by ekrout · · Score: 5, Offtopic

      The best comment I've heard was that we should rebuild the towers, but this time have three -- two smaller ones on the sides, and in the middle, a much taller one, symbolizing a hand giving the middle-finger to whatever cowards were responsible for the act.

      --

      If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
    2. Re:speculation by Ziktar · · Score: 1

      Actually, it was even less than 1/5th of the Pentagon. If you look at the vids, you'll see that the Pentagon is frickin' huge, and is standing well.

      As for the WTC Towers, I believe Americans are stubborn enough to rebuild, but I don't know if they'll be able to fill the rooms as easily as before. Would you want to work in the WTC Towers now that this has happened?

    3. Re:speculation by Cairsten · · Score: 1
      I, for one, hope they will. And I think, as I'm sure many will agree, that rebuilding, bigger, better, and stronger, is the best message we can send to anyone who dares to view yesterday's actions as anything but atrocious. Terrorist actions will not faze us, we will not be cowed, and the damage will be undone, leaving no trace of what you attempted, and a more lasting monument to the American spirit. I'm going to write to my officials and ask that it be made a priority... if everyone does the same, who knows what we can accomplish?

      Love and light..

      --
      We shall find peace. We shall hear angels, we shall see the sky sparkling with diamonds. - Chekov.
    4. Re:speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The speculation in the news circles is that the PA and Pentagon planes were supposed to both hit the White House.

    5. Re:speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They shouldn't rebuild the towers. They need to build a memorial park on the site.
      Then they need to build a single tower, to be the tallest in the world to demonstrate the US's wealth and power. And send the same message to the enemies of America that the Washington monument does. (huh huh he said "phallic" huh huh).

    6. Re:speculation by Can · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I can't see rebuilding the towers as possibly being economically viable.

      From what I understand, skyscrapers in general have become less and less desirable. If I recall correctly , the report I read a while back said it is a rare case that it makes sense for a building over 10 stories to be built nowadays.

      But even if we say, "America needs to rebuild the towers as a show of strength" and if the insurance companies and government throw a whole ton of money at the project to rebuild, I still can't imagine it being a wise investment. After repeated terrorist attacks, what company would want to move in? Who would want to work in a building that people routinely try to level? It just doesn't seem to me that rebuilding will work, as much as it annoys me that we've lost these buildings to the terrorists.

    7. Re:speculation by jibster · · Score: 1

      Don't you think NY should have a new park to mark the location of the heros?

      I for one think that there must be some sort of monument erected to the people who died there.

      -J

    8. Re:speculation by Darth+Maul · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Rebuild them taller. That's the only thing to do. Show the cowards that we'll just get bigger when they hit. And, I say we increase our support of Israel ten-fold. And send a message that every attack they carry out on us will result in more increases in support and bigger buildings.

      I'm so full of rage and anger.

      I was in a building just south of the Pentagon yesterday when everything happened; our building shook when the collapse occurred and smoke was everywhere. It was frightening to then see the F-16's overhead providing air cover (the plane that crashed in PA was headed for DC).

      I was sick to my stomach all day yesterday coming down off the adrenaline. What a tragedy.

      --
      --- witty signature
    9. Re:speculation by mr100percent · · Score: 2

      I think it'd be a good idea to rebuild them, though it cost $400 millionUS last time. There were thousands upon thousands of business headquarters there, without it, the city could go into a recession, and have some serious effects on the national economy, billions of dollars pass through that financial center.

      Plus, the skyline just isn't the same.

    10. Re:speculation by linzeal · · Score: 1

      10 story building in new york to recover 80 million feet of commercial space? Don't think me sick folks but I got a good laugh on the person that bought/leased the building from the port authority and how he was in tears (CNBC). Appearently he was about to raise the rent by 40%.

    11. Re:speculation by crispy · · Score: 1

      Remember that this is not the first time that the WTC was attacked. After the bombing in '93 I'm sure people were unsure about working there but people get over these things pretty quick...

      --
      My sig has a broken link in it.
    12. Re:speculation by Big+Ben+August · · Score: 1

      In a press conference this morning (well, this morning on this coast), Giuliani said they would rebuild, almost as if not rebuilding was unthinkable.

      More power to him.

      --Ben

      --
      --Ben
    13. Re:speculation by cdrudge · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I heard an interview on the radio with someone talking with the govener on Oaklahoma and what they went through a few years ago. The interviewer asked basically the same question. The governor said some people wanted to rebuild the building there, but many did not, due to the fact that some of the victims became apart of the land (figuratively and physically). Instead, they built the monument to remember and celebrate the lives of the victims. I would think, and hope, that another building(s) would not be built, but a memorial to the thousands that did die.

    14. Re:speculation by kootch · · Score: 5, Informative

      Highly doubtful, and if so, it won't be for 15+ yrs atleast.

      It'll take over a year just to remove the rubble that's currently across the 10+ square blocks. Removing the parts of the building that are still there atleast another year. But then removing the foundation will take years. The entire foundation of the complex is almost definitely weakened beyond belief. For safety, they'll probably tear down all of the remaining buildings that share the foundation, but this will be complicated by the amount of underground networks (both cable, electric, gas, and transportation) that run under the buildings.

      Only when they're done that will they ever be able to build again.

      Approx. 10 years ago there was a fire in an office tower in the middle of Philly. The middle 3 floors were affected, but they twisted the floors above it by only a few degrees. That was enough to have the building perm. evacuated and necessitated ripping it down. They're still trying to take that building apart.

    15. Re:speculation by unitron · · Score: 3, Informative
      The outer shell of the Pentagon is mostly intact but apparently the fire has spread through the ventilation ducts and has yet to be stopped.

      Interesting stuff I have heard here and there on the tube. It was built mostly of stone and masonry, saving the use of enough steel to build a battleship, which makes whatever of it that wasn't directly hit pretty good at absorbing vibration, but the part that was hit gave way more easily than it might have with a steel frame.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    16. Re:speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It took 6+ years to build those towers. If they rebuild them who is going to want to work there? Certainly not me.

    17. Re:speculation by sulli · · Score: 2

      I think they should NOT rebuild the towers, but instead make the site a National Memorial in the style of Oklahoma City. If possible fragments of the building should be preserved as a memorial to those who have died. The location, including subway stations and so on, should continue to be called World Trade Center, in their honor. That way we will never forget.

      --

      sulli
      RTFJ.
    18. Re:speculation by dgb2n · · Score: 2

      I think it is critical to rebuild the towers to send the message that America will not be dissuaded by terrorism.

      Heck, I'd contribute to a "Rebuild the Towers" Fund just to send that message.

    19. Re:speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They'll probably claim bankruptcy, and the port authority will get stuck with the bill, and ultimately, the taxpayers will pay billions...

    20. Re:speculation by zephc · · Score: 5, Funny

      you mean like this? =] quite good, i must say!

      --
      "I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.
    21. Re:speculation by Redhawk · · Score: 1

      Regarding this:

      Approx. 10 years ago there was a fire in an office tower in the middle of Philly. The middle 3 floors were affected, but they twisted the floors above it by only a few degrees. That was enough to have the building perm. evacuated and necessitated ripping it down. They're still trying to take that building apart.

      They're done now. I work right across the street from the building you mention, and it's quite gone now.

      Just in case you wanted to know.

      Redhawk

    22. Re:speculation by captaincucumber · · Score: 1

      I think we should rebuild them bigger and paint "terrorists go fuck yourselves" on the side, but I don't think that will happen. Let me tell you what I think will happen. They will clear that area out and put a memorial in it's place. That's my prediction.

    23. Re:speculation by RPoet · · Score: 2

      I have from #coverage on irc.slashnet.org that Mayor Guiliani stated the buildings will in fact be rebuilt, in some form. Which is not at all surprising, I guess. I do hope they will reserve some of the area for some kind of a memorial monument so that we will never forget September 11 2001, and never take our sense of security for granted.

      --
      "Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
    24. Re:speculation by Dastardly · · Score: 1

      What is worse is the insurers will claim act of war, and not payy claims.

    25. Re:speculation by Faceprint · · Score: 1

      6 people died in the attack in '93 (IIRC). I've heard of that many confirmed dead already just counting those who died in the hospitals. I don't think people will "get over this" quickly at all.

    26. Re:speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The best monument to those that perished is to honour them on the top floor of an more impressive building.

    27. Re:speculation by ynohoo · · Score: 1

      Since skyscrapers seem to make such easy, high density targets, I find it hard to credit anybody either wishing to work or invest in them ever again. America certainly has the landmass to make them unnecessary. If this is any sign of how conflicts will be waged in the future, sprawling or even underground complexes would make more sense. The 'wonder of the world' appeal of these phallic excesses wore off a long time ago.

    28. Re:speculation by LordNimon · · Score: 1
      I say we increase our support of Israel ten-fold.

      So you want to ensure the death of more innocent people in retailiation for the death of innocent people? It's ideas like yours that caused this mess in the first place.

      --
      And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
      To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
    29. Re:speculation by ScumBiker · · Score: 1

      I'd go for the park, as long as the grass is fertilized with the blood of terrorists.

      --
      --- Think of it as evolution in action ---
    30. Re:speculation by GungaDan · · Score: 1

      Would YOU want to go to work every day in the second iteration of a building that was once bombed and then subsequently airplaned to death within a single decade? If rebuilt, it will be hit again. NYC real estate is valuable, but not THAT valuable.

      --
      Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
    31. Re:speculation by Tiny+Elvis · · Score: 1

      Obviously all tall buildings need to have military personal standing on the roof with stinger missiles to stop incoming planes..

      $ rm /bin/laden

    32. Re:speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, and the best monument would be to rebuild, incorporating some kind of memorial. It would be a great symbol of our defiance. A park might be nice, but kind of morbid; we shouldn't give in to maudlin sentimentality, but do whatever's economically sensible with the space, incorporating a memorial, but not solely a memorial.

    33. Re:speculation by Mr+Bubble · · Score: 1

      I've been thinking about this as well.

      I would recommend building the towers exactly as they were (in appearance - not technically) to send a message that no one changes the NY skyline unless we want it changed.

      OR

      Some sort of massive skyscraping monument on the level of the statue of liberty or the eiffel tower.

      --
      "The world is a construct of forceful imagination. Those who don't know walk around in the reailties of those who do"
    34. Re:speculation by Darth+Maul · · Score: 2

      > It's ideas like yours that caused this mess in the first place.

      And it's people like you that would let these terrorist get what they want.

      Sometimes we just have to do what is right and stop worrying about making everyone happy. It's a question of right vs. wrong, not happy vs. sad. They attack because of our middle easy policy? Fine, we enforce our policy to an even greater extent. We cannot just back down. We cannot let these people think they can bully us around with cowardly tacticts. The only way we can stop these attacks is by showing them that they DO NOT WORK! We back out of Israel? Fine, they got what they want and in the next conflict they just do some other terrorist attack because they know it'll work.

      So, I want to SAVE the innocent people. By ending the effectiveness of terrorism.

      --
      --- witty signature
    35. Re:speculation by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 2
      My wife and I were speculating last night: will they rebuild the towers?

      Oh, yeah, this is great. At a time when there's way too much office accomodation in NYC, when commuting's a major hassle, when the Internet and home working makes large offices less and less relevent, we rebuild a building which is a proven prime terrorist target. Let's just set the skittles up again.

      Simon, knowing he's going to lose some karma over this one.

      --
      I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
    36. Re:speculation by GoofyBoy · · Score: 2

      If it was a normal building/incident, I would agree too. A huge industial/civil/publics works project.

      But its more than a few buildings. Its much more symbolic.

      I feel that they will build it as fast as they can and better. If anything because Americans won't let something like this stop them.

      --
      The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
    37. Re:speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sometimes we just have to do what is right and stop worrying about making everyone happy. It's a question of right vs. wrong, not happy vs. sad. They attack because of our reaction to their middle east policy? Fine, we'll oppose their policy to an even greater extent. We cannot just back down. We cannot let these people think they can bully us around with cowardly tacticts. The only way we can stop these attacks is by showing them that they DO NOT WORK! They won't back out of Israel? Fine, they got what they want and in the next conflict they just do some other cruise missile attack because they know it'll work.

      So, I want to SAVE the innocent people. By ending the effectiveness of the USA.

      -

      Heck. Didn't have to type much there did I boys and girls? Hate breeds hate. There are better solutions.

    38. Re:speculation by kootch · · Score: 1

      I live in NYC now, but I used to work next to that building and my dad worked 2 floors below where the fire was.

      When did they finally clear away the remaining parts of the building? Was I right, that it was about 10 yrs?

    39. Re:speculation by Fesh · · Score: 2
      I was thinking that it would be fitting for it to not only be a memorial, but a cemetery. Much like the tomb of the unknown soldier. Think about it... That's some of the most expensive real estate on the planet... I can't think of a greater honor to those who lost their lives than for us to inter and memorialize them at the site of their deaths.



      But then, I've been accused of being a sick bastard at times. *sigh*

      --
      --Fesh
      Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
    40. Re:speculation by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 2
      And, I say we increase our support of Israel ten-fold.

      And increase the risk of another attack tenfold?

      That's brilliant!

      To solve the israeli problem, instead, the US should WITHDRAW ALL SUPPORT to israel and let ALL the jews there to immigrate in the U.S.

      But naaaah, not a chance, americans are too racist to let that happen.
    41. Re:speculation by LordNimon · · Score: 1
      Has it occurred to you that perhaps there is something truly wrong with our Mid-East policy? Do you really think that killing more Palestinians, even those who are innocent, will solve this problem? There are Palestinian families who were living there long before the state of Israel was created. All they want to do is live in peace, but for some reason, the West keeps sending money and weapons to Israel, and the Israelis keep using the money and weapons to kill Palestinians. Did you know that for every Israeli killed by Palestinians, there are about 10 Palestinians killed by Israelis?

      Right now, most of the Arab countries are our friends. If we were to step up our funding of the Israeli terrorism (yes, that's what it is) of Palestinians, then the entire Arab world would turn against us. If you thought the WTC attack was bad, that's nothing. Right after they cut off our oil supply, the Arabs would send thousands of suicide bombers our way.

      Remember all the Native Americans who retaliated against the "settlers" that were exterminating them in the early years of this country? If people like you had been in charge back then, the solution would have been to kill all the Native Americans!

      We should back out of Israel because it's the right thing to do, not because these terrorists scared us into it. Unfortunately, this country was slowly getting around to accept that when these attacks occured. But at least we have people like you around to sensationalize this whole event beyond rationality and advocate the extermination of more innocent people.

      --
      And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
      To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
    42. Re:speculation by mysticbob · · Score: 3, Informative
      there was in interesting article in scientific american this month on the geology of manhattan and how that affected architecture.

      one key point they make is how the buildings in the financial district are possible because bedrock is relatively (30-80') near the surface.

      read the whole article here:

      http://www.sciam.com/2001/0901issue/0901scitravel. html

    43. Re:speculation by bridgette · · Score: 2

      After repeated terrorist attacks, what company would want to move in? Who would want to work in a building that people routinely try to level?

      You would think that the first attack on the WTC would have scared people away, the feeling of helplessness when evacuating from the 80th floor must be simply terrifying (when I heard about the people in wheelchairs made me phisically ill), but I think New Yorkers tend to just accept that they are likely to be killed in a terrorist attack, natual disaster, bridge/tunnel failure or violent crime. They know that evacuating Manhattan is fairly hopelss and that people living/working at the top of a high rise are one bad fire or earthquake from the end, but you could also get pushed onto the rails of the subway or killed for your winter coat. They accept the risks and move on.

      --
      - bridgette
    44. Re:speculation by asv108 · · Score: 1

      And, I say we increase our support of Israel ten-fold


      The reason we are considered to be public enemy number #1 by Islamic Fundamentalists is because of our support for Israel. I'm not suggesting we should reduce our support for Israel (that would ENCOURAGE terrorism), but our government needs to start looking a Middle East issues more objectively. There are many crimes that our committed by the government of Israel that go unchecked by our government.

    45. Re:speculation by Raven17 · · Score: 1

      Awesome .sig. A classic!

    46. Re:speculation by XO · · Score: 1

      From a message I posted on Holy Empire yesterday:

      There's a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach, I can't stand to take in any more video, any more audio, any more pictures, or news articles, but I can't fend it off, and everywhere I turn, there's more of it. But I don't want to fend it off, either.. I don't even want to bring it up here, but I feel at this point that I have to.

      There are multiple thousands of people out there today, who's lifelines just suddenly came to a very abrupt end. I hope that the ones who did not make it out of the destroyed buildings were killed instantly - that there was no pain and suffering, or desperate desire and hope to get out of there alive, only to be cheated from it. I hope that those killed on the planes that were hurled into these buildings didn't even have enough time to be afraid, to panic, etc. I hope the rescue workers and such that were at the base of the buildings when they fell somehow made it through, though I'm certain that there is no way anyone could have survived that.
      I pray to all the supreme beings that are out there, that those who did manage to survive, will still have some modicum of sanity; that they have people left to go home to; that somehow all the lives that were given today, find their homes in whatever Good afterlife they believed in... and that those who are responsible end in the worst Hell for all their lives and beyond.

      I don't think I can say anymore.. I really don't.. but I want to keep going..

      May the newfound New York sunlight shine on them all, forever.

      --
      "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
    47. Re:speculation by Kayax · · Score: 1
      If I recall correctly , the report I read a while back said it is a rare case that it makes sense for a building over 10 stories to be built nowadays.


      I consider this to be almost the definitive rare case. OK, it might be more expensive to rebuild them than the original construction ($400M), but I don't think economics have changed so much in the past 30 years to make it completely unreasonable. Rebuilding would also be a powerful message to all terrorists that they can't forever change how we live.

      After repeated terrorist attacks, what company would want to move in? Who would want to work in a building that people routinely try to level?
      By that same argument, why do people fly in airplanes? Why does anyone live in Israel? Why don't we all flee into the hinterlands and live in straw huts and ride horses? This is precisely what the terrorists want. We should take terrorism seriously and respond with as many countermeasures as possible but shouldn't let it affect our lives.
    48. Re:speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit!

      It's because the terrorists see Americans as cowardly fucks like you and think they can intimidate us and change our national policies with their actions.

      Thankfully some of us aren't willing to run away from difficulties and challenges!

    49. Re:speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "All they want to do is live in peace"

      Yeah, sure. How many wars have the Palestians started? Oh wait, I forgot, the Palestians are the GOOD guys and the US and ISRAEL are the BAD guys.

      Sorry chum, I don't have time to deal with yet another naive "dove" who's understanding of history is reading a little Chomsky.

    50. Re:speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I'd go go work there. Of course, I agree with the saying:

      Better to live one day as a Lion, than a lifetime as a worm.

    51. Re:speculation by spankfish · · Score: 1

      Obviously all tall buildings need to have military personal standing on the roof with stinger missiles to stop incoming planes..


      That works quite well in Korea, actually.

      --

      NO TOUCH MONKEY!
    52. Re:speculation by 3am · · Score: 1

      or we could let all the 'palestinians' (that made up nationality) immigrate to egypt, iran, iraq, lebanon, syria, ...

      but, no, that would make sense for some reason. maybe, just maybe, you're the racist here.

      any hopes for a rational decision and end to the confict just ended, and it's the fault of the arab side. deal with it.

      --

      A: None. The Universe spins the bulb, and the Zen master merely stays out of the way.
    53. Re:speculation by ebonkyre · · Score: 1
      > let ALL the jews there to immigrate in the U.S.

      Your suggestion assumes the Jews WANT to immigrate to the US. That's not really the case; many American Jews emigrate BACK to Israel because in their belief system, it is a HOLY LAND. That's probably the one thing they and the Palestinians agree on.

      > americans are too racist to let that happen.

      If you're referring to Jews specifically, I think the term is "anti-Semitic", but after all the posts I've seen talking about "sand n*****rs", I guess either term works. But there is just as much unfounded(?) ethnic hatred on that side of the ocean as there is here, probably more if you go by percentage of population.

      The USA is frequently referred to as a "great Zionist oppressor", etc., but most Americans probably don't even know what Zionism is. I'm not really clear on what it means, myself, except that is has to do with Jews. But would that stop [insert fanatic group here] from killing me if they had a chance? No, just the opposite - they'd say my death was my own fault for not paying more attention to what my government is doing in my name, and to some extent, they'd be right.

      > > I say we increase our support of Israel ten-fold

      Instead of "sending a message" by blindly upping support for those who fight our perceived enemies, we need to take a closer look at the messages we're already sending. If we decide they're the right messages, then maybe we do need to send them louder. But if not... well, we can't act surprised when shit like this happens; it's not like we just suddenly realized "Oh, gee, the [ Palestinians | fundamentalist Muslims | Koreans | Chinese ] don't like us much, do they?"

      Most of the groups that hate the US do so because of our interference in their way of life. We think we're doing the right thing. They think they are. Just shuffling around the people who agree with us won't fix it. We have to look at how much we want to try and force our ways on everyone else, and how much flak we're willing to take for it.

      (sorry for combining two replies, but the rants started overlapping, even though the original messages had opposite views)

      --
      "Time is an abstract concept devised by carbon-based lifeforms to monitor their ongoing decay." - Thundercleese
    54. Re:speculation by mosch · · Score: 2

      that building is quite ripped down, has been for some time now.

    55. Re:speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuckin' A!

  15. Over the top editorials by ChrisDolan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Numerous editorials in todays NY Post have advocated ignoring the law and using racist, mob logic to correct the injustice of yesterday's attack. These frothing calls to action are not only irresponsible, they are barbarous.

    "Who is responsible for yesterday's carnage? That's no great mystery."
    - editorial 4006

    The law of the land is innocent until proven guilty. Until there is concrete evidence pointing to the perpetrators of the terrorist attacks, there can be no action. If the US attacks without evidence, then we are terrorists as well, and would deserve all the condemnation we are piling on our - still unknown - attackers.

    "To hell with Bill Clinton's 'gather the evidence and proceed to court' approach."
    - editorial 4022

    "The response ... should be as simple as it is swift - kill the bastards. No, I don't mean hunt them, arrest them, extradite them and prosecute them in a court of law. I mean a far quicker and neater form of retribution for this cabal of cowards. A gunshot between the eyes, blow them to smithereens, poison them if you have to."
    - Steve Dunleavy editorial 3999

    Both of these editorialists call for dismissing the due process on which our justice system is based. They call for the removal of equal treatment under the law. These demands for extreme measures are demands for the creation of a dictatorship, of a police state. Assassinations, executions without trials, condemnation without evidence - these are the hallmarks of regimes like Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao Tse Tung's China and Hitler's Germany.

    Consistent and reasoned responses are imperitive in civilized society. Everything else is barbarism.

    1. Re:Over the top editorials by 3am · · Score: 1

      seriously, you are totally missed the boat at some point.

      --

      A: None. The Universe spins the bulb, and the Zen master merely stays out of the way.
    2. Re:Over the top editorials by Skyshadow · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Maybe -- just maybe -- you could give it 24 hours to sink in before you start criticising people; I guess we're all just not as enlightened as you are.

      For my money, I think it's perfectly acceptible to still be very upset.

      --
      Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
    3. Re:Over the top editorials by Coffee+Warlord · · Score: 1

      While you most certainly have a point, I must say that this is not a criminal act. This is an act of war. We should not be tracking down the culprit to prosecute them under our law, we should be retailiating as per the 'rules' of warfare. Declared or not, we are at war with those who planned this attack and with those who harbor them, and should respond appropriatly.

    4. Re:Over the top editorials by w.p.richardson · · Score: 1

      Yes, it makes perfect sense to subject these terrorists to a system of justice that they condem, since their acts are clearly within the law, right. Face it, the attack yesterday was an act of war. War is hell, deal with it.

      --

      Curb CO2 emissions: Kill yourself today!

    5. Re:Over the top editorials by Ray+Yang · · Score: 1

      American law is designed to protect American citizens. There's nothing that says we have to treat foreign terrorists as citizens, or try them in the courts. We can and should make war upon those who make war against us.

    6. Re:Over the top editorials by falloutboy · · Score: 5, Interesting
      "Numerous editorials in todays NY Post have advocated ignoring the law and using racist, mob logic to correct the injustice of yesterday's attack. These frothing calls to action are not only irresponsible, they are barbarous."


      As a New Yorker, I have the priviledge of seeing the Post every so often next to more intelligent, reputable publications, and what you should realize is that this is par for the course. The Post pretty much always has a dumb, reactionary comment to make. On a scale of journalistic integrity, they're only slightly above tabloids in that they sensationalize real events, instead of fake ones.

    7. Re:Over the top editorials by bruns · · Score: 1

      Why should we give them the luxury of our way of life and dealing with crimes? You think those bastards thought about the feelings of those people yesterday? To hell with them. We have ever right to seek revenge on this matter. The attack on the US was totally uncalled for, and killed so many people I doubt we will ever know the true number.

      I'm usually a logical person on things, but in this case, screw that. You hurt and kill innocent people in such a cowardly way, and I'm gonna do everything in my power to hunt you down and make you pay.

      --
      Brielle
    8. Re:Over the top editorials by Milican · · Score: 2

      I completely agree with you. Luckily, these nypost guys are only editors and don't run our nation. As a matter of fact I don't believe the nypost is all that great of a newspaper. In any case, those who are too quick to judge should remember Oklahoma. Then, like now, the papers were screaming Bin Laden's name and jumping all over Arabs, but when a white boy showed up I'm sure Bin Laden had the last laugh. Racial profiling on a national scale anyone? Its funny how papers bitch at cops for doing the same thing. Perhaps they shouldn't be such hypocrites.

      Note: Not all media outlets are doing racial profiling. As a matter of fact, I have heard many radio, and new shows who have gone out of their way to not profile Arabs. Kudos to the ethical media!

      I sometimes think that the Feds allow the papers, or maybe even bait the papers into posting this anti-arabic crap. That way the perpetrators think they are in the clear because of the media smoke screen. Only when the Feds come knocking on their door do they realize it was a trick. Florida anyone? You're not safe now you butterfly ballot eating terd.. hehe.. Of course, all of that is only speculation and I don't even take it all that seriously, and noether should you.

      The point is, remember Oklahoma and innocent until proven guilty. Its the American way (and others too). Because "those who fail to learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them" (Churchill I believe..).

      JOhn

    9. Re:Over the top editorials by Mr.+Punch · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >Consistent and reasoned responses are imperitive in civilized society. Everything else is barbarism.

      I agree.

      I was terribly saddened yesterday to hear the comments of former Secretary of State Eagleberger. He said that the only language terrorists like this understand is violence and so we must respond in kind. Further, he said that we may not know who has done this, but we do have a list of terrorist groups active in the world, and we should wage war on all of them, kill them, strike fear into their hearts.

      And then came the really bad part. If we get some people who really aren't deserving, that's okay, it's that important.

      If we sink that low, we'll be just as bad as those who attacked us.

    10. Re:Over the top editorials by graybeard · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of that cartoon by Bill Mauldin. You know, the one where Joe & Willie are peering out of a foxhole:
      Joe: Hey, someone just shot at us! Think we should shoot back?
      Willie: Naw, we need to wait for the lawyers to give us the green light. We don't want to violate anyone's due process rights.

    11. Re:Over the top editorials by mr100percent · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Upset, but I don't want to bomb Afganistan, then find out it was Iraq.

    12. Re:Over the top editorials by linzeal · · Score: 1

      Yes, and you missed grammar class appearently.

    13. Re:Over the top editorials by ChrisDolan · · Score: 2

      Most of the replies to my post above said that it is war, not crime. This is in agreement with what President Bush has said. However

      * We don't yet have a target. You can't just declare war on all bad guys in the world. Of the evidence which is available to the general public, the guilt of bin Laden is very uncertain right now. For all we know, it was a small group of Americans of Mideastern descent who executed these acts. I'm not saying that's it, I'm just saying wait until we know who did it before saying what we're going to do to them!

      * If it does turn out to be a foreign terrorist organization, nuking them likely won't help. They aren't all hiding in one convenient location. You will just make martyrs of them.

      I've been using Noriega as a (admittedly imperfect) analogy in discussions with friends. If the US had assassinated him, it would have created a martyr and put blood on our hands. Instead, he's just some nearly forgotten bum in a Florida jail today.

    14. Re:Over the top editorials by zipwow · · Score: 1

      I agree completely.

      We must show in our response that we have not been reduced to a barbary, and that even after this kind of an attack, we still hold to our principles.

      As for those saying that we need not extend the rights of justice and due process to those who are not American citizens, consider:

      "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

      Notice that there isn't a distiction claiming these rights for only Americans. If we truly believe that our laws and our freedoms are the way that civilization should conduct itself, then we must conduct ourselves in the very same way in this and every circumstance.

      In the same way, justice provides the means for most of the actions we wish to pursue. Once indicted, I believe its reasonable to use the armed forces to bring the culprits to justice.

      Bringing those responsible to court, trying, and sentencing them as according to the laws of justice and civilization, will truly be a victory over the fearmongering of terrorism.

      Zipwow

      --
      I don't know which is more depressing, that 2/3 didn't care enough to vote, or that 1/2 of those that did are crazy.
    15. Re:Over the top editorials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh.. wonder what Skylarov would make of that.

    16. Re:Over the top editorials by shaper · · Score: 2

      While I agree with you that we should be very careful who we pick for retribution, I must point out one gaping hole in your argument. You seem to be operating under the assumption that this is a simple crime like murder, subject to normal due process under normal civil and federal law. I'm not entirely sure that is the case.

      Another point of view is that this attack is an act of war. Working under that assumption, due process and all of the other niceties of normal prosecution go out the window to be replaced by only nominally binding international rules of war. Admittedly, a lot of this might depend on a declaration of war by congress and a lot of judgement by history after the fact. But going into this on the front end, if we do decide that this is an international war-type attack, then the appropriate reponse is not to arrest and prosecute the responsible individuals. The appropriate response is to shoot back until we are sure that our attackers can no longer harm us.

      Having said all that, I wholeheartedly agree that we need to be very careful how we approach any answer to the attack. We will have to live with the consequences of our actions for a long time.

    17. Re:Over the top editorials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guess what. The United States is ALREADY a regime much like the Stalinist Soviet Union, Mao Tse Tung's China and Hitler's Germany. The United States is nearly ALONE in the world in its continued support of the death penalty, in its refusal to work co-operatively with the rest of the world on critical environmental and military efforts. Your government in the short time since GWB took over office has single handedly brought about a global recession and the renewal of the cold war. The reaction you are seeing from your own people should NOT be surprising. You live in a country of fundamentalist fervour that rivals that of any other nation on earth. One need only listen to GWB quote from the bible and preach "black and white", "good vesus evil" to see how deep the problems in the USA run.

    18. Re:Over the top editorials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [I posted this as a reply to #2286356, but I believe this goes even better here. Both posted anonymously, so all karma is thus given to the memory of victims of the recent attacks]

      'The day we sacrifice our liberties in the name of "security" is the day that the terrorists' goals will have been achieved'

      This is exactly what I have been thinking for the past day.

      The terrorists already got exactly what they wanted when the second plane hit WTC and it was recorded from several perspectives. That harrowing image embedded into the consciousness of Americans and people all over the world. Terror is what terrorism is about by definition, and they won the first round.

      Although it is too early to say anything definitive about the origins of these attacks, but it is safe to assume the terrorists are against the American way of life as a whole (however these terrorists define it). And the moment American officials start to dilute civil liberties, American Constitution and Amendments, or democratic process of the nation, the terrorists have won the second round. I don't want to even think what the third round would be.

      As a weak attempt at reflecting President Bush's recent speeches (which were poignant, composed and delivered extremely well, IMO): Make no mistake, if the United States lowers itself to the level of these terrorists, the terrorists have already won.

      I'm not American, but my condolences go to everyone involved. I have three friends in NYC, two of them unaccounted for, one working across from WTC when the planes hit it. I sincerely hope this major problem can be solved in a manner which is in accordance with the very foundations of your great nation.

    19. Re:Over the top editorials by ChrisDolan · · Score: 2

      Your are totally right: it is OK to be upset. It's even OK to express that anger in words.

      But I don't want us to do something in anger that we will regret later. Anger should never be the driving force in any relations (international, domestic or personal).

      I am *seriously* scared of the mob mentality that is being whipped up. With this much anger, someone is going to die, and it's likely to be someone innocent if that anger isn't tempered by rational thought.

      Enough innocents have died already!

    20. Re:Over the top editorials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ever heard of "war crimes"?

    21. Re:Over the top editorials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are right. We shouldn't seek any action against the people who did this. Let's just forget the whole thing happened. So what if they killed thousands of american citizens? Hey, we're civilized. Let's shake our finger at them, that will teach them.

      Now, let me ask you this. How many thousands of american citizens must die before retaliation is acceptable? 10,000? 100,000? Would you rather wait until they do it again? Or just sit back, knowing that you are 'civilized', when they drop nuclear weapons and wipe out millions?

    22. Re:Over the top editorials by Jburkholder · · Score: 1
      Yah, and this seems to be echoed over an over by stuff I hear and people I talk to. "Nuke 'em" seems to be a common refrain.

      I even got a strange email from a company that makes html editing software that I once used:

      Hello everyone,

      This is Nicholas Longo, the CEO of CoffeeCup Software.
      As you may have heard the World Trade Center and Pentagon
      were attacked about 45 minutes ago.


      The Team at CoffeeCup would like to send our heart felt
      sorrow to those that perished in these attacks.

      We would like to also say on record that if any country
      is found responsible for these attacks, we call for that
      country's complete destruction and annihilation.

      Do not let terrorism which is designed to create fear
      and stop production, halt your life or work.

      Stay focused and do not stop what you are doing.

      -May God bless us all and the decisions we must make.

      Nick-

      helpdesk@coffecup.com

      Now, I think that tracking down and punishing those responsible for this attack is important and justified. Launching an all-out campaign of genocide against arab populations is quite another thing. They anti-arab hysteria I've heard today is, to say the least, unsettling.

    23. Re:Over the top editorials by unitron · · Score: 2

      The extremely irritating technicality here is not knowing for sure exactly with whom we are at war.
      We can't point with absolute certainty to a particular country, kingdom, tribe, criminal gang, or pirate ship and say that they are the enemy, and not that other country, kingdom, tribe, criminal gang, or pirate ship.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    24. Re:Over the top editorials by graybeard · · Score: 1
      Oh, puh-leeze.
      due process and all of the other niceties of normal prosecution go out the window to be replaced by only nominally binding international rules of war.
      You have been brainwashed by the spirit of litigiousness that reigns today. The only "rule of war" is that the victor makes the rules. What, somebody is going to sue the JCOS for bombing the wrong terrorist camp? Is the Dutch Army going to raid Arlington to take the generals off to some International Tribunal?

      This situation is governed by politics, not law. If we demonstrate to the world that are actions are justifiable, we will be supported. We have much to gain by acting with prudence, but the important thing is that we act.

    25. Re:Over the top editorials by greenrd · · Score: 1
      And then came the really bad part. If we get some people who really aren't deserving, that's okay, it's that important.

      Unfortunately, this is par for the course in US government thinking, whether it be a Democrat or Republican administration. I'm not just talking about terrorist attacks, I'm talking about things like "the threat of a good example", e.g. Allende in Chile. Allende was considered such a threat because he was a democratic socialist, and if he could stand up to America that would be a worrying example to other developing countries. Kissinger preferred Pinochet. No matter that Pinochet was an evil dictator who stifled dissent with torture and a "caravan of death" - Kissinger knew of this, and approved - he told State Department officials to stop bringing up the issue of human rights.

      This is all true, and there are many other examples (evil Saddam used to be a US ally, believe it or not) although I expect I'll be modded into oblivion...

    26. Re:Over the top editorials by ChrisDolan · · Score: 2

      I never said "forget."

      Tell me, who should we attack, hmm? Iraq? Afghanistan? Libya? Rural Michigan? What do you think, should we kill all arab-americans? Should we just kill any one you don't like?

      Rational thought must prevail, not mob mentality. You decide the punishment AFTER you find the perpetrator guilty.

    27. Re:Over the top editorials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We know Afghanistan harbors Osama Bin Laden. We also know that Bin Laden is a terrorist. I don't see the harm in demanding that Afghanistan turn over Bin Laden, then proceeding to militarily attack them if they refuse. If we find out later it was Iraq, we can attack them too.

    28. Re:Over the top editorials by aozilla · · Score: 1

      Give the CIA/FBI a week, and they will certainly have convincing evidence. Perhaps not evidence that would stand up in a court of law, since it will be obtained without through lying, stealing, and other various trickery, but it will be convincing evidence. I only hope enough of it can be shared with the U.S. citizens to convince the majority of the people of its accuracy.

      --
      ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
    29. Re:Over the top editorials by xinit · · Score: 1

      I find the whole idea of killing those responsible amazingly short sighted.

      These are people who are willing to die for The Cause, as was well illustrated by the suicide bombings yesterday. Making a person a martyr to an already militant fundamentalist organization is much more dangerous than any other solution imaginable.

      --
      --- http://foo.ca
    30. Re:Over the top editorials by aozilla · · Score: 2

      As for those saying that we need not extend the rights of justice and due process to those who are not American citizens.

      U.S. grand juries have indicted Saudi multimillionaire Osama bin Laden twice: once before the embassy bombings in Africa, and again in October on allegations he participated directly in those bombings.

      http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/ter rorists_990110.html

      That Afghanistan refuses to extradite is not a criminal issue, it is a military issue. The only law applicable is international law, and the standards of evidence to allow the U.S. to engage in self-defense have been met and exceeded.

      --
      ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
    31. Re:Over the top editorials by Jburkholder · · Score: 1

      http://www.coffeecup.com/attack/comments.txt

      Ok, "annihilation" was the wrong word, apparently.

      Still, he wants to see any country found to be behind this attack destroyed.

      "I would not want to destroy a race.
      A country ? Yes."

      How is that any better? What does "destroy a country" mean? I assume it means to reduce the buildings to rubble and kill most of it's citizens. Sorry, but this is over the top.

      We are supposed to be a civilized nation. What happened yesterday was a despicable and uncivilized attack on unarmed civilians. When our country responds to this attack, it must be within the limits of law and civilised behaviour.

      To do otherwise would, IMO, make us not much better than the "lawless terrorist nations" that we presume to be responsible for this and other similar attacks.

    32. Re:Over the top editorials by graybeard · · Score: 1
      'The day we sacrifice our liberties in the name of "security" is the day that the terrorists' goals will have been achieved'
      These terrorists don't give a flying fuck about our liberties, our way of life, or how Mariah is doing these days. They resent the tremendous influence we have in the world, and sincerely believe that that influence is a threat to their way of life. Their goal is to reduce that influence. They believe that the way to make themselves look strong & the US to look weak is to perform acts such as this.
    33. Re:Over the top editorials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even more irritating is the sheer number of USAns
      who would be happy to attack any arabic person.

    34. Re:Over the top editorials by shaper · · Score: 2

      Actually, in my first revision (yes I actually read my posts before I submit) I said pretty much the same thing in another paragraph. With re-reading it with my other points, it came off as rather like beating a dead horse. I do agree with you in principle, though. For better or worse, the victor does indeed write the rules (and the history books). We had just better make sure that we are the victor. :-)

    35. Re:Over the top editorials by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 2

      Bullshit. These are people who are willing to send others to die for The Cause. I'm reminded of Logan's line from the X-Men movie to Magneto, which I'm sure I don't have exactly right: "If you really believed in that, you'd strap yourself into that." Killing the guilty might not deter others from doing whatever they want, but it sure will prevent the people you just killed from doing it again.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    36. Re:Over the top editorials by argonaut · · Score: 1

      These are people who are willing to die for The Cause

      These people are lied to and essentially brainwashed to believe they will go to heaven. I hardly call them "willing."

      <b>... Making a person a martyr to an already militant fundamentalist organization is much more dangerous than any other solution imaginable.</b>

      At least he will be dead. That is much better then him continuing to kill more Americans.

    37. Re:Over the top editorials by KoshClassic · · Score: 1

      "They call for the removal of equal treatment under the law."

      I mean no disrespect, but I did not think that the concept of equal protection was supposed to apply to foreign citizens (or, perhaps, foreign states) initiating crimes outside our borders. Dealing with such entities is clearly within the realm of our foreign policy and not our justice system. While its nice to have the ideal that we'd like to apply the concepts of our internal justice system to our foreign policy, neither the constitution nor any law we have mandates it.

      None the less, let's apply a simple concept of our justice system known as self-defence -- If I reasonably believe that someone is about to harm me (or others) with deadly force, I may use deadly force against them to prevent them from harming me.

      Lets suppose, today, that the US launched a "retaliatory" strike at Bin Laden or Afghanistan without any evidence linking him to yesterday's events. Suppose some months from now that evidence arrises that clearly implicates some other entity in yesterday's attacks. Would we have committed some massive injustice? NO. Don't we reasonably beleive that if allowed to, Bin Laden will attempt to kill more of our citizens in extremily violent ways? Couldn't we say the same about many other foreign individuals / groups and even states?

      The concept of self defense applies here and IMHO would cover pretty much any action we took. But, again, even if self defense didn't 'legally' apply, it doesn't have to because there is no law that says we must conduct foreign policy in a 'just' manner. If we don't, does that lower us to the same level as these terrorists? Perhaps, but who here would have truly been against a PRE-EMPTIVE strike against whomever did this if it would have prevented what occured yesterday?

      The mistake we are all making is thinking in terms of retaliation for a specific past act, when we ought to be thinking in terms of pre-emption of future acts (after all, nothing can now undo what occurred yesterday). It simply comes down to "We will not tolerate those who have done us harm" vs. "We will not tolerate those who would do us harm".

      --
      Understanding is a three edged sword. - Ambassador Kosh Naranek, Babylon 5
    38. Re:Over the top editorials by remande · · Score: 2
      If those responsible are in the United States, we should hunt them down with the full force of our law enforcement power and prosecute them to the hilt. As a Christian and a Catholic, I abhor the death penalty. In this case, I would ask for the death penalty. Not because of vengeance; my faith gives me no right to ask for that. But because someone capable of plotting this is either capable of escape, or capable of planning more such attacks from his cell. Those responsible must be rendered harmless, even if it renders them dead.


      If they are in a foriegn nation, the justice system and due process no longer apply. Once you leave your borders, the justice system gives way to diplomatic efforts--and diplomacy involves both diplomats and Green Berets.


      Once we find those responsible, we should certainly ask the host country to capture them and extradite them. That being said, we should be ready to enter said country and capture or (more likely) destroy the assailants. Then we should apologize to said nation for the temporary intrusion, and leave.


      This looks like a foriegn Arab attack per the latest news reports. If this is the case, remember that there are a lot of powerful Arab nations that don't like us, there are certain cells of Arab terrorists that absolutely hate us, and we as Americans appear ready to run anybody wearing a turban out on a rail.


      I am no diplomat, but I figure that the proper response to this is a surgical strike that eliminates the terrorist cell, and possibly certain of its supporters and suppliers. The latter are not innocent civilians, anymore than you or I would be if we supplied software to the Mafia.


      Producing less than a surgical strike would leave this cell free to commit more acts, and teach the rest of the world that there will be no response. Producing more than a surgical strike (such as an invasion, or a nuke, as some would have us do) will unnecessarily anger decent Arabs in decent Arab nations.


      We must draw a very obvious line in the sand between those responsible and their countrymen. The statement that we must make is: "We are America, and we don't care what color your skin is or which god, if any, you worship. But if you kill Americans, you will be destroyed."


      In summary, those responsible that live within our borders should be persued and prosecuted to the full extent of the law, with the full rights of any other defendant. Those responsible that live outside our borders should be extradited to us and persecuted as above. Failing that, those responsible that live outside our borders should become targets of the United States military forces and any other military and diplomatic powers we can bring to bear upon them.

      --

      --The basis of all love is respect

    39. Re:Over the top editorials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree....we obviously need to get back at whomever is responsible here, but in maintaining the ideals of a nation. To do anything else is no more reasonable than to pick up and move to a communist nation because it might be "safer" over there (which, incidentally, is my advice to many of the "nuke'em"-sayers here).
      We also can't plan to bomb or plot revenge until we know who or what we're dealing with...people are getting riled up and racist in a war-frenzy when it might not be war anymore. Maybe it was one extremist group, and now they're all dead?

      The important thing to remember is: You can't kill suicide bombers!! Does anyone here honestly believe non-bias attacks on another nation is going to deter someone who is willing to burn alive crashing a plane into a giant building..? They have terrorist cells all over the world....go ahead, nuke Iraq, the cell in Florida will crash itself into the White House tomorrow.

      with that said...yes, we should get even. The question is, how do we get back at those responsible?

      PS: If it does turn out to be an Arab nation with known terrorists, maybe we should stop supplying them and/or their opponents with money and weapons?

      -Anon Coward
      -Maybe they should just lock the cockpit from now on?

    40. Re:Over the top editorials by graybeard · · Score: 1
      I find the whole idea of killing those responsible amazingly short sighted.
      Well, it's not.

      Consider this: don't you think it's curious that you hardly ever hear about foiled terrorist attacks? You know that for every one that succeeds, there must be many more that fail. But it's not in the interest of the Security establishment to publicize the failures. And even though they hardly ever succeed, the terrorists are still at work.

      Terrorists, the good ones, are already motivated. They don't need a martyr to inspire them. Martyrs are only useful to sway public sentiment (their public) toward them.

      The benefit to taking out the leaders of this organization is obvious: they know what they are doing. It takes time & money to develop these skills. The hope is that with better intelligence & the application of deadly force, the bad guys won't build up this level of skill.

    41. Re:Over the top editorials by seaker · · Score: 1

      I agree caution is called for.

      Revenge is not justice

      --

      -----------------------------
      If you can't blind them with brilliance, baffle them with bull.
    42. Re:Over the top editorials by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 1

      How about we change our policy on terrorism. We have been tip toeing around this issue for too long. Now that something has happened on U.S. soil(and not half way around the world) maybe we will now set a strong policy against terrorism that the rest of the world can look to.

      The U.S. needs to show that terrorism will not be tolerated and that nations who harbor terrorists will also not be tolerated. Let's take Bin Ladden as an example(regardless if he has behind this latest act). He is a known terrorist. He has admitted this fact and we have proof linking him to many acts. The U.S. needs to pressure Afghanistan into turning him over or if they refuse let them know that they then will also be held accountable for his acts.

    43. Re:Over the top editorials by ChrisDolan · · Score: 2

      Following that logic, maybe we should nuke China too to prevent them from attacking Taiwan. Maybe we kill all the sharks in the ocean to keep them from attacking our children. Maybe we should execute all gun owners in the US because they *might* murder someone.

      These are all absurd reactions. If you don't have a concrete reason for retaliation and specific goals for what you expect that retaliation to accomplish, then you are just lashing out against your fears.

      How many innocent Afghanis is it acceptable to kill along with bin Laden to abate our terror?

    44. Re:Over the top editorials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're mean! the law is based to some great extent on principles of what we consider the shared inalienable rights of mankind. To be true to our founders' principles we must not violate other people's rights just because we can get away with it. I guess a lot of people just don't care about principles any more, and I guess the country belongs to the living, not the founders, but I care about principles, and I believe principles of reason and humanity and neutrality have served this country well in the past and will continue to if people will stop throwing them out the window.

    45. Re:Over the top editorials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One should not be concerned so much with how `convincing' it is so much as the truth of it.
      The CIA/FBI could peddle a lie for a decade or so quite easily in order to give the US military some target practice. Remember that informational video on the dangers of DU (made shortly before Iraq, then stuffed under the table for a decade, leaving the radiation affected people to live with the consequences).

    46. Re:Over the top editorials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you missed spelling class apparently,

    47. Re:Over the top editorials by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 2
      Upset, but I don't want to bomb Afganistan, then find out it was Iraq.

      So what? Then bomb iraq too. Kill two birds with one stone. Then the israeli will be immensely pleased with the US and maybe do them a favour or two.
    48. Re:Over the top editorials by KoshClassic · · Score: 1

      Perhaps I should have stated more explicity - prior acts + stated intentions to commit more acts are equivelant to a reasonable expectation that in the future such acts will be committed. Therefore, we should strike Bin Laden with impunity.

      How much evidence do you need before you use deadly force to prevent someone from attacking you, or do you just let them attack you and sort it out later?

      "These are all absurd reactions. If you don't have a concrete reason for retaliation and specific goals for what you expect that retaliation to accomplish, then you are just lashing out against your fears."

      Again, its not retaliation, its pre-emption against future acts of terror. That is what "retaliation" will accomplish, by removing those who would commit these acts from the equation.

      Look, there is no rigid 'algorithm' to this - its easy to dismiss someone's rationale by taking that rationale to an extremity - we've got to use our heads on a case by case basis. China is not going to attack Taiwan. Everyone who owns a gun will not go out and kill someone. Osama Bin Laden, on the other hand, has killed (or had people killed on his behalf) and has made strong indications that he'd like to do so again. There is (as far as we know) strong evidence to support this. Does this man have the right to a fair trial before we kill him, especially if killing him now will prevent future deaths? NO. He is not a US citizen, and is not himself present in our territory. He is not protected by the constitution or our laws, yet he represents a severe danger to our very lives. We have the power to stop him now, and if we don't we'll probably suffer the consequences for not doing so.

      --
      Understanding is a three edged sword. - Ambassador Kosh Naranek, Babylon 5
    49. Re:Over the top editorials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You people frighten me sometimes..

      Would you have liked seing the neighbourhood "retard" handling a gun without supervision? That's the way I feel right now about some americans and the weapons that are at the disposal of your armies.

      Think for moment! That type of quick, no-thoughts-about-it response is probably exactly what the terrorists want. Then, when american cruise missiles bomb inocent cicillians (unintentionally ofcourse), you will once again be the badguy. Prove them wrong.

      The kind of power that your nation wields demand wisdom, clarity of mind and great insight. It's a terrible responsibility.

      Besides who ever said that two wrongs make a right..

      Lastly I just want to add my sincere and hartfelt condolances to the families and loved ones that were left behind.

    50. Re:Over the top editorials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's wrong with that? We can get rid of 2 enemies at once. And I don't think we'll make the mistake of not finishing the job this time.

    51. Re:Over the top editorials by chinakow · · Score: 1

      I agree totally, the only way to rally tell these terorist to go fuck them selves is to act in a rational and sane manner, or in other words , in the opposite way that they act, I think that treating "them" civilly and with respect even though they have shown none, makes then look bad , in everyones eyes, and doesn't allow them to be martyrs, this seems better to me , I don't mind life inprisonment that is a worse punishment for people like this than death and it makes them an example without angering as many people, of course I am sure that there are alot of people who will totally disagree with me and that is there right too, thats just what i think

      Jon

    52. Re:Over the top editorials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "[I posted this as a reply to #2286356, but I believe this goes even better here. Both posted anonymously, so all karma is thus given to the memory of victims of the recent attacks]
      "
      WTF? Are you serious? karma? What the fuck is karma going to do? Do you realize that slashdot karma is NOT real??? Jesus. Get a life.

      (btw, I'm sure the victims are at the 50 point karma cap already)

    53. Re:Over the top editorials by SoulSeller · · Score: 1

      "Your government in the short time since GWB took over office has single handedly brought about a global recession..."

      Perhaps you could do us a favour, and learn WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT before you go spouting off? President Bush TAKES OFFICE, and the global economy falls flat??

      C'mon...

    54. Re:Over the top editorials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Following that logic, maybe we should nuke China too to prevent them from attacking Taiwan. Maybe we kill all the sharks in the ocean to keep them from attacking our children. Maybe we should execute all gun owners in the US because they *might* murder someone.

      Or dive some planes into some buildings to prevent XYZ from interfering with our business...

    55. Re:Over the top editorials by mimbleton · · Score: 1

      Terrorist do understand only threat of force.
      Please show me a single example when "evil" was conquered by anything but brute force?

    56. Re:Over the top editorials by jafac · · Score: 2

      We are at war. In a state of war, the gloves are off, the rules change.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    57. Re:Over the top editorials by jafac · · Score: 2

      No, a criminal decides the punishment when he commits the crime. Hammurabi's law, (ironically enough) lives on in our current US criminal code.

      Fine for speeding,
      Jail time for stealing,
      Death for murder (depending on the jurisdiction).

      I know that the harassment of innocent Arab Americans has already begun in earnest. That sucks.
      But from the sound of things in the investigation so far, these guys didn't do a whole lot to cover their tracks. I think that the evidence will be pretty clear-cut when it all shakes out.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    58. Re:Over the top editorials by TWR · · Score: 2
      The difference between Noriega and Bin Laden and his ilk is that narco-thugs are better people than Islamic and Arab terrorists. Both groups may deserve death, but you can reason with a drug lord. The only thing Bin Laden and his followers understand is massive punishment to all they hold dear.

      If the US did the right thing, Iraq, Iran, Afganistan, and Syria wouldn't be habitable for the next several million years.

      -jon

      --

      Remember Amalek.

    59. Re:Over the top editorials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're against terrorism, you are against
      terrorism. It means you're not allowed to become
      a terrorist yourself.

      We should eliminate terrorism, but only with
      legal means.

      "Im against terrorism as everyone else not being
      terrorist. And I refuse becoming a terrorist to
      fight it." - Bo Ingon

    60. Re:Over the top editorials by zipwow · · Score: 1

      Exactly. And as I said, I believe its acceptable to pressure Afghanistan militarily to release or let us apprehend Osama bin Laden.

      I don't htink its acceptable to bomb his last known location while giving Afghanistan no chance to change their position, or a declaration of war.

      We're in a position of power over Afghanistan, as our government is in a position of power over us. Its easier to burn down the house of the murder suspect, but our laws and our way of life dictates that we risk our own safety to arrest and try the criminal.

      Its better that innocent people die trying to do justice, than innocent and guilty die together in the continuation of injustice.

      Zipwow

      --
      I don't know which is more depressing, that 2/3 didn't care enough to vote, or that 1/2 of those that did are crazy.
    61. Re:Over the top editorials by Datafage · · Score: 2

      The Constitution and Bill of Rights grant their protetion to all of humanity. Nowhere does it say these rights are for American citizens, but rather that humanity is endowed by its Creator, no matter skin color, nationality, blah blah blah. By our justice system, they have rights. I don't think these people deserve it, but don't cloud facts.

      --

      Nicotine free Amish .sig.

    62. Re:Over the top editorials by Ray+Yang · · Score: 1

      The Constitution allows us to go to war. In war, we don't have to impanel juries and try and convict everybody we shoot. This isn't a matter of justice in the legal sense, although it may be in the moral sense. This is a matter of war and/or public danger, which is another matter entirely.

    63. Re:Over the top editorials by Ben+Hutchings · · Score: 2

      Extradition agreements are made on a one-to-one basis; there is no international law that makes extradition a universal (or ever near-universal) norm.

      If the US could ask Afghanistan to extradite anyone for crimes in the US, perhaps Afghanistan should ask the US to extradite Americans who conspire to spread Christianity in Afghanistan?

      I'm not saying that the US shouldn't go after whoever is responsible, with or without the cooperation of the government of the country/ies they are in, but your appeal to 'extradition' is invalid.

    64. Re:Over the top editorials by Ben+Hutchings · · Score: 2

      Just bomb the rest of the world. Non-Americans don't really count, after all. Right?

    65. Re:Over the top editorials by aozilla · · Score: 2

      No, my appeal to extradition is not invalid. If the spread of Christianity is illegal in Afghanistan, then Afghanistan has every right to ask the U.S. for extradition. Of course the U.S. will say "fuck you", and then Afghanistan can try to mount a military strike against the U.S. to try to capture those people. They'll lose of course, and no one will help them, because that's a fucking stupid thing to start a war over.


      Extradition agreements are made on a one-to-one basis; there is no international law that makes extradition a universal (or ever near-universal) norm.


      I never claimed there was. I only claimed that international law was the only law which was relevant, and my point was that international law does not bar the US from retaliation against Afghanistan on the grounds that they refuse to extradite a known danger to us.


      --
      ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
  16. Also from the count-blessings dept. by TrollMan+5000 · · Score: 1, Redundant

    There were 6 survivors pulled from the rubble this morning, 1 police officer and 5 firefighters. Apparently when the building collapsed it did in such a way that an air pocket was formed, allowing room for the people and shielding them from more debris.

    There's probably been more survivors nowrescued now. It's amazing that anyone could have survived the collapse, considering the amount of building involved.

    1. Re:Also from the count-blessings dept. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Redundant? I see no other post on this thread even close to it. And besides, it cannot be said enough, that we should all count our blessings after such a dark day!

      No wonder people say that moderators smoke crack on this site. I wish I had mod points to correct this travesty!

  17. Remember the Skyline ... WTC 2002 by abde · · Score: 2

    I made a few small logos which i'd like to share:

    http://www.abde.net/images/911-TN.jpg "9-11"

    (9-11 as in september 11, and also as in emergency, etc)

    http://www.abde.net/images/remember.jpg "Remember the Skyline"

    http://www.abde.net/images/wtc-2002.jpg "WTC 2002"
    (as in, rebuild)

    do copy and pass it on if you think its worth sharing. these are
    meant as an expression of solidarity, of remembrance ... i dont know.

    --
    Don't blame me - I voted for Howard Dean. http://dean2004.blogspot.com
  18. Pilot skills / Collapse by glowingspleen · · Score: 5, Informative

    Great articles on Slate right now:

    Why the Towers collapsed:

    http://slate.msn.com/code/explainer/explainer.as p? Show=9/11/2001&idMessage=8265

    How good were the Pilots?

    http://slate.msn.com/code/explainer/explainer.as p? Show=9/11/2001&idMessage=8270

    1. Re:Pilot skills / Collapse by _xeno_ · · Score: 1
      In relation to How good were the Pilots? I have to wonder if the terrorist pilots were really as good as speculated. It's possible that the terrorists first demands were "take us to $TARGET_CITY" - after nearing the destinations, they disposed of the pilots (ordered them back, killed them, whatever) and took control there.

      That would mean that the skill in navigating and long range flying wasn't necessary, just enough skill to direct the plane into the tower - which is fairly hard in and of itself, but may be easier than the other approaches. I really don't know how hard it is to fly a big jet - I can say after having been allowed to hold the yoke of a small Cesna, that controlling a small plane isn't that difficult - keeping it level and making small, careful, turns is fairly easy - making large turns is almost definately harder as my stall-into-the-cornfield experiences in Flight Simulator have proven.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
    2. Re:Pilot skills / Collapse by wemmick · · Score: 1
      --
      ___
      Cognitive Overflow
      more than yo
    3. Re:Pilot skills / Collapse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do not think your theory is right:

      The pilots of 3 of the 4 planes could
      not inform the authority that their planes
      were hijacked which is IMHO a strong hint that
      the pilots were killed immediately after
      the hijackers entered the cockpits.

      Frank

    4. Re:Pilot skills / Collapse by Griim · · Score: 1

      Did you read the articles?

      The guy was basically saying that a lot of first-timers to the big craft tend to overcompensate wildly, because everything you do is slower, bigger, more weight behind it, etc.

      Just to get the plane from their original altitudes of 30,000 feet down to the ground without causing the craft to disintegrate is a feat. It's a lot more than just 'point plane in direction a.' Plus they were able to hit the tower on first pass, not easy either, for beginners.

      Not that a lot of beginners do things like this.

    5. Re:Pilot skills / Collapse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking as someone who writes military and commercial flight simulators for a living .. flying big planes is MUCH easier than small planes (e.g. Cessnas), particularly if you don't need to do landing/takeoff. Why? Because they are massively fly-by-wire .. electronic control systems do all the work really. Its a lot harder to throw the plane out of control, because almost all actions that might harm the plane are prevented by control systems. Control systems prevent the plane from rolling too quickly (and in fact they physically prevent any commercial liner from being able to roll entirely at all). They prevent the plane from diving too quickly. They prevent anything that can cause excessive g forces. They prevent the plane from ever reaching mach 1. It would be no challenge even for a relative novice to get the plane down from 30,000 feet.

      By and large, flight simulators (including games) pretty accurately reflect the difficulty of flying any particular aircraft. Its pretty much stick, throttle, rudder and air brakes. Theres really not all that much more to it - what makes it difficult is the massive amounts of procedural training and emergency training required to become a commercial pilot, and of course taking off and landing (yet today we even have control systems that can land planes with NO pilot at all). Ask any commercial pilot - the hardest part of piloting modern commercial airliners is overcoming boredom and staying awake once you've taken off.

      Getting the plane down from 30,000 feet is as simple as telling the auto-pilot your desired altitude - control systems do the rest. You basically don't need to touch the controls.

      Get a flight simulator (and some decent associated hardware), one with with New York and try it yourself (yes its sick, I know, this is pedantic though) .. I guarantee you will be getting it right almost every time with maybe a few hours of "training". And guess what - doing it in real life is virtually that easy too - and you can be sure they practiced for more than "a few hours".

      Of course, the reality is that at least one of these terrorists had much more "real" experience flying. But modern planes, even fighter jets, are pretty easy to fly, control systems are really the ones flying the planes these days. Successful unmanned (completely fly-by-wire) inter-continental flights have been done decades ago already, *including* both taking off and landing.

  19. Damage report, please. by Belly+of+the+Beast · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If some one has a concise report of the damage to the WTC beyound the towers(which buildings, what damage, etc.) it would be of interest to those of use in the hinter lands

    1. Re:Damage report, please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to The Philadelphia Inquirer (9/12/2001, pg. A12), the following WTC buildings were destroyed:

      1 WTC (North tower, with TV mast)
      2 WTC (South tower)
      3 WTC (Marriott Hotel, 22 floors)
      7 WTC (47 floors)

      Status is unclear regarding the smaller buildings at 4, 5, and 6 WTC.

  20. IMAGE and VIDEO Mirror tarballs by Harper · · Score: 5, Informative

    I have set up a rather extensive set of image and video mirrors.
    http://www.watership.org/media/

    I have made tar balls of the images and the movies so everyone will be able to set up their own mirror.

    http://watership.org/media/images.tar.gz -(26985k)
    http://watership.org/media/movies.tar.gz -(200189k)

    i am not sure on the copyright issues. But anyone is welcome to dload and set up content mirrors.

    --
    Producing satire is kind of hopeless because of the literacy rate of the American public. - Frank Zappa
    1. Re:IMAGE and VIDEO Mirror tarballs by isudoru · · Score: 0

      who will care about copyright at a time like this?

      --

      ----
      "I believe in karma. That means I can do bad things to people and assume they deserve it" - Dogbert
  21. Ad Revenue by NetJunkie · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I noticed that no TV or radio stations were doing ANY commercials around here yesterday. I was thinking how good it would be for some sites that got a LOT more traffic yesterday to donate some of the profit to the Red Cross or another relief organization.

    Slashdot mentioned getting 3x as much traffic..how about donating some of the after-expenses profit?

    1. Re:Ad Revenue by lobsterGun · · Score: 1

      Not every station...

      I was watching CNN Headline News in the lobby of my clients buidling. I caught it shortly after the second tower had been hit. They were running a story on drinking water. I went upstairs to my cube and tried to get internet coverage of the story. All major sites were down.

      After the Pentagon was hit we all headed down to the lobby and started watching again. They cut to commecial. When they came back from commercial. We all sat there looking at the picture trying to figure out what was wrong. It was the oddest thing. I could see in the picture that the tower was not there, but I couldn't believe it till they announced it a few seconds later.

      A few minutes later they cut to commericial again. This time when they came back it was obvious that the other tower had fallen.

      Shortly thereafter Headline News dropped coverage all together and just showed the regular CNN feed.

    2. Re:Ad Revenue by irc(addict) · · Score: 1

      Hmm. Lets think about this for a second. Its sort of a crude forumla.
      Slashdot doesnt have much if any profit.. just enough toover wages and bandwidth. And the banners probably only just cover bandwidth.
      So. 1 page: 10c Bandwidth: 10c Ads.
      ... 3pages: 30c Bandwidth: 30c Ads.
      Wheres the profit which they can donate?

  22. ebay exploitation of disaster banned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ebay, in an attempt to prevent exploitation of yesterday's terrorist attacks, has banned and removed auctions containing items related to the world trade center and the pentagon.

    http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-7137598.htm l? tag=mn_hd

  23. Interesting... by Skyshadow · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is interesting:

    I'm a reasonably intelligent person, I know that the NSA is basically admitting to recording all cell phone traffic, I know this will include my private calls...

    And I don't care. Maybe I will in a week or two, but right now...

    Anyway, I'm usually very pro-privacy, so I found my reaction on this one interesting.

    --
    Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
    1. Re:Interesting... by stcanard · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Here's the crux...

      Right now, no, it would not worry me. Let's pull out all the stops and get the bastards. In a time of disaster some rules get bent, and this is one of those times. I Canada we have something called the "War Measures Act" which essentially suspends all civil rights if put into effect, and it was once in the 60's in response to internal terrorism.

      The problem is if this is used to justify turning this into regular procedure for the forseeable future. This is where the concern is. Will the FBI use this to ban all encryption and install Carnivore permamently in all ISPs? Honestly, then the terrorists have won. Now is the time to start thinking about that.

    2. Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting reaction. But I don't believe they're recording all calls, just those from targeted numbers.

    3. Re:Interesting... by AshPattern · · Score: 1
      I think his point was that the cell phone conversations were already being recorded. After all, you can't record a conversation after the fact. Therefore, it's regular procedure and probably has been for a long time.

      I'm having a strange reaction to the information, myself.

    4. Re:Interesting... by Havokmon · · Score: 1

      Even if they are recording all calls, it would be impossible to listen to them all. Same goes for emails.

      I don't have a problem with it, because unless I'm doing something wrong, finding my conversation 'real-time' would be impossible.

      I have a hard time finding emails *I* sent last month..

      --
      "I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
    5. Re:Interesting... by ColdCuts · · Score: 1

      Great, they should have no trouble finding cell phone conversations using such key words as 'bombing', 'terrorist', 'osadin bin ladam' etc.

    6. Re:Interesting... by tb3 · · Score: 2

      The War Measures Act was used in October 1970 in reponse to the FLQ kidnapping of a Quebec politian and a british diplomat. I was a young child living in Ottawa at the time and it was truly frightening. To this day is it debatable wether this was on over-reaction on Prime Minister Trudeau's part. It is a concession to terrorism to subject your citizens to this treatment. And you are correct, the precident that would be set is terrifying.

      --

      www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance

    7. Re:Interesting... by Ranger · · Score: 1
      I'm a reasonably intelligent person, I know that the NSA is basically admitting to recording all cell phone traffic, I know this will include my private calls...

      It doesn't mean they are recording domestic calls. The NSA can intercept international calls. They aren't supposed to intercept domestic calls, their mandate is to collect intelligence beyond our borders. Those calls could have been made from here to other countries, and so been intercepted within the rules of their mandate.

      That being said, they do have the capability to monitor radio traffic within US borders. As it is a highly secretive organization, the question is do you trust them? How do you prevent abuses of power within such a group?

      I think the only way for a secret organization to survive like that is that secrets must be made public in a timely manner. It may take 25 or 50 years for such knowledge to become declassified. That brings up another question. How do we know that it's all been brought into the light? There are tradeoffs between security and freedom. And this is what is at stake this very moment. Beware any temporary measures becoming permanent.

      If NSA intelligence fingers the culprits then I say bravo. Then we can get those bastards who are trying to destroy America.

      --
      "You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
    8. Re:Interesting... by KoshClassic · · Score: 1

      Ummm, has the NSA admitted that? I think they try to record all *foreign* cell phone traffic. Unreasonable search and seizure applies only within our own territory.

      --
      Understanding is a three edged sword. - Ambassador Kosh Naranek, Babylon 5
    9. Re:Interesting... by mesocyclone · · Score: 2
      The NSA has, for decades, recorded all radio traffic almost everywhere. However, they do not have authority to *listen* to them except, I suspect, in cases like this.


      OTOH, they probably do have the authority to send them to GCHQ (British "NSA") and have them tell them what's in them :-)


      At the moment, privacy is not my biggest worry. IN fact, I have long thought that extreme privacy advocates on the internet have ignored the real world. We need privacy protection, but the internet need be no more private than telephones (where the government, with due cause through judicial process, can monitor you).

      --

      The only good weather is bad weather.

    10. Re:Interesting... by stcanard · · Score: 1

      I think his point was that the cell phone conversations were already being recorded. After all, you can't record a conversation after the fact. Therefore, it's regular procedure and probably has been for a long time. I am in no way surprised. Here in Vancouver a few years ago we had a big political scandal that started because a Member of Parliament was using a scanner to record cell phone conversations between our Premier and a real-estate agent. It ended up bringing down the government. If private citizens are doing it, you can bet the gov't is. I've just been assuming for years that all my communications are monitored. The only surprising thing here is that it's been admitted.

    11. Re:Interesting... by iabervon · · Score: 2

      It seems that they're mainly looking for calls from victems to other people, which might describe the events better or differently than the recipients remember. If I were making such a call, and encryption was an option but not automatic, I'd probably leave it off.

    12. Re:Interesting... by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 2
      Right now, no, it would not worry me. Let's pull out all the stops and get the bastards. In a time of disaster some rules get bent, and this is one of those times. I Canada we have something called the "War Measures Act" which essentially suspends all civil rights if put into effect, and it was once in the 60's in response to internal terrorism.
      The War Measures Act was used in October 1970 in reponse to the FLQ kidnapping of a Quebec politian and a british diplomat. I was a young child living in Ottawa at the time and it was truly frightening. To this day is it debatable wether this was on over-reaction on Prime Minister Trudeau's part. It is a concession to terrorism to subject your citizens to this treatment. And you are correct, the precident that would be set is terrifying.

      The October crisis was just a ploy by prime minister Trudeau to hit his political ennemies, the Québec nationalists. The "terrorist" organization involved was, at the time, HEAVILY infiltrated by the Royal Canadian Maudit Police, so the political kidnapping of Québec mafia minister Pierre Laporte was setup to get rid the Québec government of an indesirable minister (he was involved with organized crime, and he was about to be charged for his involvement with organized crime).

      Slightly before Laporte was kidnapped, a british diplomat (James R. Cross) was also kidnapped.

      The federal prime minister Trudeau jumped on the excuse to proclaim martial law in Québec, suspend the civil liberties, and the police and the army moved-in to put all Trudeau's political ennemies in jail, without trial. Over 400 people were detained for months.

      I was a young child living in Montréal at the time, and our family fled to New-York (where I got my first sight of the twin towers, then being built), not knowing when we'd be back. Not exactly a pleasant thing to live through (the police would simply pick targetted people from the street and wouldn't let them take care of their children, leaving them in the dark).

      Pierre Laporte was found dead a few weeks later in a car trunk, whilst James R. Cross was freed unharmed.

      The War measures act was abrogated by conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney, in a gesture to show willingness to accomodate Québec's concerns.

      Fortunately, this outrageous piece of legislation does not exist anymore, to be again abused by the tyrannical liberals.
    13. Re:Interesting... by Anthony+Boyd · · Score: 2
      Even if they are recording all calls, it would be impossible to listen to them all.

      I am not an expert, please disregard my comment if you wish. However, I have spent the last 7 years working on large-scale Web sites, trying to solve the problems of how to sort and present massive volumes of data. It is possible that they have the exact issues you describe. Consider especially the storage space for the insane amount of data a single day's worth of cell phone calls would consume. However, I want you to also consider how you might "drill down" into these phone calls. For instance, real-world: the company I work for tracks all calls, going back for years. We have a Web interface. You pick the month and get a big list of all calls for that month. Narrow it down to the day and get a smaller list. If you can also offer criteria such as the hour of day, the caller, or the number, you can get a very focused list. I actually used the system recently, when I heard from a vendor that someone was impersonating me. So I looked for any outgoing calls to that vendor's number on specific days, and there it was: someone in Marketing was indeed calling my vendor.

      Let's apply that here: first, they limit the calls to the 10th and 11th. Great, only 20 million calls now. Then, they limit the calls to only a few obviously related cities (San Francisco, Boston, New York, maybe a few others). Great, only half a million calls now. Then they start plugging in whatever evidence they might have -- perhaps they focus on any cell phone that called a car rental agency. Where do they get the car rental agency numbers? They pull from a national yellow-pages database. I have one such CD on my desk here, with monthly updates, even! So great, now they're limited to only 50,000 calls. I don't know about you, but I can listen manually to 100 calls if my boss asks. He puts 500 people on such a task, and every single one of those 50,000 calls will be listened to.

      Call accounting systems already exist for consumers to purchase. Yellow pages on CD already exist. Databases that can handle millions or billions of records already exist. Imagine what an agency with billions of dollars to spend and some of the top minds in the country could do. I'm a schmuck and I've built Web interfaces that do similar on a smaller scale -- these guys can run circles around me. So I believe it when they say they will "review" all the cell phone calls.

    14. Re:Interesting... by Havokmon · · Score: 1
      I completely agree with you that it's possible for anyone to listen to your phone call, or all your phone calls.

      BUT

      It's still impossible to listen to them all.

      Therefore, if you're not doing anything wrong, odds are slim and none that your converstation will be listened to.

      Especially if you have kids, they never listen. :)

      This is the entire reason why things like carnivore are put into place. It's a filter that helps sort out the 'garbage' personal calls from the dangerous ones. If you're not a danger to the owner of the recordings, it's not an issue.

      --
      "I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
  24. possibly Camp David by __aawsxp7741 · · Score: 1

    I've heard rumours that the plane was headed for Camp David.

  25. Should the missile shield be built? by Razov · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Perhaps now it is time to think if a big amount of money should be spent on the missile shield, if even the pentagon can be hit by a terrorist attack.

    Although the attack was quite well organized, it probably didn't cost too much, and the shield wouldn't be useful against this kind of attacks.

    Given the current situation of the middle east, this kind of things are much more probable than a missile attack from some distant country.

    1. Re:Should the missile shield be built? by Ray+Yang · · Score: 1

      You're both right and irrelevant. Some attacks are more probable than others, but that doesn't mean that we should only defend against the probable ones (especially if others are far less likely, but still very possible, and very devastating).

      Because we were attacked from the air, does this mean we don't need a navy? Should we abandon defenses against chemical weapons because we haven't ever been attacked with them? It's unrealistic to expect the bad guys to attack us in the ways we expect, hence all the people thinking up nightmare scenarios.

      Now, it's fair to ask if missile defense will take away from far more important defenses, but right now, I don't think so. At 8 billion a year, it's peanuts (in the context of the federal budget), and shouldn't detract at all from efforts to beef up other defensive systems. There's also a question of cost-effectiveness, and how real the threat of a ballistic missile strike is, which I will leave to another day.

    2. Re:Should the missile shield be built? by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      I think the missile shield was a deterrance. Whoever did this could have done worse. Imagine chemical warfare, or missiles to 15 of the largest cities on the eastern seaboard.

      The missile shield doesn't have to work, it just has to discourage those from trying. The only time the shield is useless is if an airliner is hijacked.

      I would bet money that the terrorists didn't use missiles specifically because of their uncertainty of our missile defense readiness

    3. Re:Should the missile shield be built? by humblefar · · Score: 0

      You saw what happened while you and GWB were stargazing.
      Get you priorities straight - starwars will not save anyone from terrorism.
      Only sound mature policies can do that. But we
      don't have that kind of politicians and we are
      quickly losing that kind of people in this country.
      O, o why everyone is dreaming about domination,
      is that our damnation?..

    4. Re:Should the missile shield be built? by Sir+Tristam · · Score: 2
      Although the attack was quite well organized, it probably didn't cost too much, and the shield wouldn't be useful against this kind of attacks.
      I've seen this argument against the creation of a national missile defense system, and it doesn't hold water. Would you argue that, since having seatbelts in cars does not prevent everybody in a car crash from dying, we should stop putting seatbelts in cars? That's exactly the argument that's being put forward here: it doesn't make us 100% safe, so we shouldn't bother with it.

      Creating a national missile defense system will not make us 100% safe from attack, but it will make certain forms of attack less likely. That would allow us to concentrate on methods of preventing attacks of other types, and being prepared to handle the aftermath of these other attacks.

      Chris Beckenbach

    5. Re:Should the missile shield be built? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think we should build an airplane shield.

    6. Re:Should the missile shield be built? by bluGill · · Score: 2

      these attacks are irrelavent to the missile shield arguement. there are missiles outthere, and there are terrorists out there. There is no one system that can defend against all forms of attacks.

      You can make the arguement that missiles are unlikely to be used, so why spend a lot to defend against them.

      You can make an argument that we need to spend money on terrorists attacks (but I don't know how to do them without violating rights, while missile defense is easy from that point of view) It is in fact reasonable to prevent an attack you have seen once from occuring again.

      There are many other arguements I can think of, both ways. however expirencing one attack does not make the other possibal ones go away. that something will not work against anouther attack is irrelavent to the arguement that we should build it. I find it unlikely that any terrorists hijacking defense would also work against missiles.

    7. Re:Should the missile shield be built? by Hard_Code · · Score: 2

      "Would you argue that, since having seatbelts in cars does not prevent everybody in a car crash from dying, we should stop putting seatbelts in cars? That's exactly the argument that's being put forward here"

      No it's not! Seatbealts HAVE been proven to save people who USE them. Whereas missile defense has hardly been proven do to anything except gobble up money (oh, yeah, it hit a deliberately easy target that in no way models what a real flurry of incoming missiles would be like). Missile defense is a lark and the money should be spent on something better - better intelligence to thwart terrorist attacks, for example.

      --

      It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
    8. Re:Should the missile shield be built? by StevenMaurer · · Score: 2

      A seatbelt system does not prevent every death, but it has been categorically proven to stop the majority of them. The cost of seatbelts is minor.

      A better automotive analogy for Bush's missile system is adding a 440HP engine to a car without seatbelts on the theory that you could use it to accellerate your way out of danger.

      Not only is the justification dubious, it is likely to create a false sense of security, and the money spent prevents you from spending money on what would really protect you.

      The proposed missile defense system has never been shown to work except under rigged trials, and costs trillions of dollars that would not be spent on terrorist countermeasures, which would be considerably more effective against the kinds of attacks the U.S. faces.

    9. Re:Should the missile shield be built? by pentalive · · Score: 1

      Just because this was done to us does not mean others won't lob missiles our way when they can.

      The Missile Shield still needs to be built.

    10. Re:Should the missile shield be built? by isudoru · · Score: 0

      as shown yesterday, it's not the outside attacks the USA can be damaged from, it's the inside ones and that's much worse since they are harder to find out in advance

      --

      ----
      "I believe in karma. That means I can do bad things to people and assume they deserve it" - Dogbert
    11. Re:Should the missile shield be built? by Sweetwind · · Score: 1

      In this morning's Orange County Register, Rep. Cox reported that he was eating breakfast with Defense Secretary Rumsfeld when the news of the attack was delivered. Rumsfeld started talking about missile defense! I think there is a time and a place for missile defense, but it is clearly not of any use in this situation. I deeply fear that Rumsfeld's attachment to missile defense is not logical.

    12. Re:Should the missile shield be built? by sheldon · · Score: 2

      I think a better analogy would be arguing whether we should have seatbelts in airplanes because we need to save people in car crashes from dying.

      If you go "Huh?", then maybe you understand why talking about a NMD as protection against yesterdays attack is a dubious attempt to further a partisan politcal agenda.

    13. Re:Should the missile shield be built? by Merk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually it's more like putting bullet-proof glass in every car in the US. It would be hugely expensive, increasing the cost of the average car by thousands of dollars. For the average family, it might never be useful. And it is pretty much pointless if people are always dying in car crashes instead.

      For a better analogy look at the Maginot Line in France. At the time it was a "high tech" defence against invasion by the German army, it took years to build and cost a lot of money. When the Germans invaded France, they simply went around it. The line was never taken by force, but that didn't matter much because by the time the French surrendered it, it was meaningless.

      All a defence like the Maginot Line or a Star Wars missile shield will do is force an attacker to change attack plans. That in itself has some value, but it could probably be accomplished for less than $100 billion dollars.

      For more info on the Maginot Line (and other comparisons to the Star Wars plans) search on Google.

    14. Re:Should the missile shield be built? by remande · · Score: 2
      I oppose a missile shield because of the cost/benefit ratio, and because of the nigh-religious faith that high tech will solve all of our problems.


      What have our latest attacks been? Terrorists hijacking passenger liners. Manure bombs in U-hauls. Letter bombs out of a portable shack.


      All of these have been low tech attacks; the latest attacks required no cool technology, though it required heavy training. Ten years ago, our biggest threat was a slew of Soviet or Chinese missiles. Sure, missiles are a threat today, but the above represents a bigger threat.


      Here in the US, we seem to think that there is a high tech solution to any national defense problem. We give our soldiers laser sighted weapons and PDAs, produce stealth fighters and atomic submarines, and have almost turned every one of our uniformed defense forces into some kind of a technician. But then look at what we face.


      In Vietnam, we promised to bomb the VC back into the stone age. Meanwhile, they were killing us with dung-dipped punji sticks. We couldn't bomb them into the stone age, because they were already there. Our beautiful, missile-equipped fightercraft had to have guns retromounted on them once we found out that our high-tech IFF didn't work.


      High tech beat Saddam Hussein, I'll give you that. High tech is good. But it doesn't solve all our problems.


      The Missile Shield will give us less protection than if we spent the same amount of money on less "sexy" projects, such as Marine and infantry divisions. Worse, it will make us feel safe, while our enemies (who can't afford ICBMs) can walk right in.


      I don't remember the song, but a line comes to mind: "Just when we're sheltered under paper/the rockets come at us sideways".

      --

      --The basis of all love is respect

    15. Re:Should the missile shield be built? by Razov · · Score: 1

      That's a point: A missile attack is quite unprobable. After all, Assured Mutual Destruction has worked many year with Russia. Which country would fire a missile against USA, knowing that it would be responsed within minutes?

      This is a great advantage for this kind of terrorist attacks: It's difficult to find the responsibles, because they're kind of secret organizations. They can make this kind of attacks hoping to come out unharmed, which would be impossible for a missile attacker.

      I think the money could be much better spent on intelligence. After all, it's quite worrying that someone can hijack four planes without no one noticing. This attack must have been planned months ago, and prepared, but the CIA didn't new about it. If we all accept that this attacks are more probable than missile attacks, and we are almost unprotected against them, they're a priority.

    16. Re:Should the missile shield be built? by Sir+Tristam · · Score: 2
      No it's not! Seatbealts HAVE been proven to save people who USE them. Whereas missile defense has hardly been proven do to anything except gobble up money
      Yes, it is. Seatbelts are a mature (and simple) technology. The missile defense is not. The post to which I was responding indicated that because a missile defense would not have prevented this attack, we shouldn't work on one. Period. To this argument, my analogy is valid.

      However, you are now putting forward a different argument than that to which I was responding; of course my response does not fit exactly. Yes, missile defense technology does not function right now. Does that mean that we should not develop it? Many of the first rockets that NASA built in the space program were failures. After the first one failed, should we have given up on the attempt to put men on the moon? No, we took almost a decade, matured the technology, and succeeded in our goal. The same is possible with missile defense. Whether it is something we should do is another matter.

      Yes, seatbelt use increase the likelyhood of surviving a crash, but it does not make it certain. Will a mature missile defense system protect us from every possible attack? No, but it will help reduce the threats and allow us to concentrate more on other vectors. If you wish to compare apples to apples, we are exactly back to what I stated in my first post.

      Could the money be spent better? That's altogether another topic from what the original message was about. But if you want to figure out the costs, make sure you include in the benefits all the new technology that will be spun off by this research.

      Chris Beckenbach

  26. The Canadian Connection? by ergo98 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is a horrendous situation and I hope most of the people got out of the buildings before the collapse. As a Canadian they might as well have hit Toronto because it feels the same. While the US media has ignored it there have been lines at blood banks across Canada, and every Canadian city has offered to help however they can (and they are actually offering for real. Toronto prepared 15 EMS teams with ambulances and all of the equipment ready to go on NY's request, and our hospitals and air ambulances prepared to take any overflow that might exist).


    Having said that it is INCREDIBLY irritating seeing the natural habit of pointing to easy solutions to get the knee jerk solutions : For instance every report has been making a BIG deal about 2 of the people possibly having come from Canada (though strangely apparently they had New Jersey licenses from preliminary reports). Guess what: They flew FROM US airports, and they apparently had UAE passports, so could someone tell me why this "Canadian connection" is given such relevance? Secondly during the attack all attention was immediately placed on international flights despite the fact that the four flights were originating and destined in the US, but of course it's easy to think of foreign airports as lax versus the super secure impenetrable US airports. I just had to get this off my chest because while I would do anything for New York right now, it's hard to tolerate the habit of looking outwards for blame. As a caucasian I really feel for anyone of Middle Eastern descent as all of them are being painted with the same brush and people should remember that not every Muslim is a terrorist, and not every Middle Eastern descended person thinks this is cool: The vast majority are horrified.

    1. Re:The Canadian Connection? by NetJunkie · · Score: 2

      I'm surprised too we aren't hearing about the donations in other countries. I've read several reports like this in Canada and other European countries.

      As for the "Canada connection"... Everything I've heard on the news and radio just says that at least one flew in from Canada. Not that anyone is blaming Canada, nothing like that.

    2. Re:The Canadian Connection? by Ray+Yang · · Score: 1

      Canadian connection? What Canadian connection? I've heard of no canadian connection, and nobody is seriously thinking about blaming Canada.

      And we're looking outwards for blame, b/c that's where the major terrorists are, and that's where the people celebrating this tragedy are. We'll look inwards too, just to cover the bases, but I'm sad to say that I don't think your statement that `the vast majority are horrified' is accurate.

    3. Re:The Canadian Connection? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Canada and the USA are in this together, by Canada's choice, which shows us who our true friends are.

      Personally I have seen the unbelievably strong support for my country and my people from the Canadians, something I will never forget.
      Obviously these people came in the US from somewhere, I don't think that anyone should make a big deal that they passed into my country from Canada, if they really did (which would have been just their last stop on a series of stops towards my country).

      The importand thing is that they got into the US; they probably had the appropriate documentation anyway.

      Anyway, to make a long story short, if they did come from Canada into the USA, it's irrelevant.

      Canadians have been giving of themselves unselfishly in huge numbers to support my country and my people, by giving blood, offering support, shelting Americans diverted to Canada, etc.

      I will personally never forget it and I say God Bless Canada and God Bless All Canadians!

      David Nichols

      P.S. I have been to your country twice and it was incredibly beautiful with really nice people. I know this post sounds pretty corny but that's they way I fell right now.

    4. Re:The Canadian Connection? by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      but I'm sad to say that I don't think your statement that `the vast majority are horrified' is accurate


      I am not Muslim or of Arab descent, yet this statement is very forboding: There are millions upon millions of Muslims in the world, and to most of the sects suicide is never acceptable. To most of them they may disagree with the US' position in Israel (just like most Jewish people would disagree instantly if the US took the Palestinians side), and that is something that is encouraged in most Western nations because that's what democracy and freedom is all about, but that doesn't mean they support killing anyone or any of these actions. While the media showed small groups of people of Palestinians rejoicing, do you really think these couple of dozen people represent the majority? Secondly remember that these people live in a very unpleasant place and their life is gunfight after gunfight with the Israelis, and many of them have very short lifespans. I don't think they can be used as a fair account of Muslim or Arab beliefs.

    5. Re:The Canadian Connection? by Phrack · · Score: 1
      I do know (from my sister, a nurse in Birmingham) that all the major trauma/burn centers in the US have been placed on alert. According to her, there are only about 30 major burn centers in the US (and I know UAB is one of the best).


      I imagine that Canadian centers are certainly standing by, ready to help. And, as an American, let me say: thanks.


      I think the media outlets discuss the Canadian Connection simply for three reasons: the US-Canada border is a pretty open border, terrorists have been thwarted attempting to come through Canada before, and they gotta do something in the absence of real news from the scene. Allow me to apologize for any insult, and I'm sure we all realize that defense of civilized society from terror attacks is the responsibility of all member nations in that society, no matter where the attacks are targeted.

      --
      Dump the IRS - http://www.fairtax.org
    6. Re:The Canadian Connection? by tcc · · Score: 2

      Gives a whole new meaning to my Nick :)

      The Canadian Connection :)

      No but seriously, you're right, but that's what people want.... someone to blame, someone to shoot at so they can more secure knowing that the people behind this are out of the streets. It's a false sense of security, reminds me of Arlington Road movie....

      --
      --- Metamoderating abusive downgraders since my 300th post.
    7. Re:The Canadian Connection? by Hallow · · Score: 1

      The issue is that it's been known for some time that anti-US groups, who want to get into the US, have a better chance if they use Canada as a way onto the continent, like the guy last year that wanted to blow up the space needle.

      I don't think we're placing blame on Canada, they're a free society very similar to our own, and the attack could have easily gone in the other direction. The blame is more on the openness of our border as a potential entry point. We're probably going to start treating everyone coming in from Canada and Mexico as if they were coming from any other foriegn country. :(

    8. Re:The Canadian Connection? by BurntHombre · · Score: 1
      Yes. It's all about you. *sigh*

      "...every report has been making a BIG deal about 2 of the people possibly having come from Canada..."

      Big deal? I hadn't even heard this until you mentioned it. Maybe you're so eager to "be a part of the situation," you're willing to claim relevance in any way possible, either negative or positive. In other words, get over yourself (or your country).

      Secondly during the attack all attention was immediately placed on international flights despite the fact that the four flights were originating and destined in the US, but of course it's easy to think of foreign airports as lax versus the super secure impenetrable US airports.

      Don't be an ass. It's not because people think internation security is lax compared to domestic. In fact, it's fairly common knowledge that security on domestic flights is WAY looser than international flights. It's not some big racist conspiracy to discriminate against foreigners. And last I heard, ALL planes were grounded, whether domestic or international. Don't you have something better to do than play the victim?

    9. Re:The Canadian Connection? by zulux · · Score: 1

      My feeling, here from Washington State, is that the good provence of British Columbia allows way to many *fundamentalist* Islamic "refugees" into it's boarders. Driving into Vancouver, you begin to wonder if you're in North America anymore. The refugees from Asia have made positive contributions to the culture of Vancouver, It's time we demand that other refugees start making a positive contribution.
      We had that incendent with the Algerian-Canadian who was smuggleing bomb making material from Canada, destined for LAX just two years ago.
      It just seems that Canada, and the United States as well, should make sure that any "refugees" are compatable with the culture already here, and that they will regard our cournties as their home, not just an easy way to sponge off the Western infidael.

      --

      Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

    10. Re:The Canadian Connection? by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      This is a conversation and I will bring up what I'm noticing as a Canadian (that's the whole conversation), and I apologize if that post wasn't about *YOU*. Personally I usually have no problem with the US media ignoring Canada : We're a small country so really it only makes sense (and conversely obviously we pay a lot of attention to the US: It's a large country hence it plays a big part. No biggie). My problem was that the times I have heard mention of Canada it has been ridiculous: For example I just watched on CNN a reporter interviewing Jean Chretien (the Prime Minister) and he actually asked him if we're getting food to the people on the planes "stranded" here. I mean seriously that question just blows me away. The other time I heard about Canada is in reference to the fact that people who flew out of Boston may have come through Canada: Indeed when the story of all of the information is compressed into a tidbit it ends up ignoring the car, the luggage, Boston, Portland, and ends up being "Terrorists may have gotten into the US from Canada". Perhaps you (and several others obviously) didn't notice this, but I did because it seems like a really bizarre point to make the most important point.

    11. Re:The Canadian Connection? by KoshClassic · · Score: 1

      "While the US media has ignored it there have been lines at blood banks across Canada, and every Canadian city has offered to help however they can (and they are actually offering for real. Toronto prepared 15 EMS teams with ambulances and all of the equipment ready to go on NY's request, and our hospitals and air ambulances prepared to take any overflow that might exist)."

      IMHO, its not fair to criticize the US media for "ignoring" this - there are more important things to cover right now. Beleive me, *ANY* assistance is appreciated, including this.

      --
      Understanding is a three edged sword. - Ambassador Kosh Naranek, Babylon 5
    12. Re:The Canadian Connection? by Intrinsic · · Score: 1

      All I want to say is thank you for pointing this out, we really appearicate your help and the views of the national media does not reflect the views most of the people in the US who are smart enough to know better then to trust everything the corprate owned media says.

      Unfortuantly, I cant speak for the clueless.

      Secondly during the attack all attention was immediately placed on international flights despite the fact that the four flights were originating and destined in the US, but of course it's easy to think of foreign airports as lax versus the super secure impenetrable US airports.

      I totally agree with you, yea are airports probably have worst security.

    13. Re:The Canadian Connection? by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      You will be agreed with by many, many Canadians regarding this. Our refugee policies are under attack internally and have been for a while because we've basically been far too generous to anyone who wants to come here: If you make it to Canadian soil (legally or not) you basically then have all the rights and priviledges of any Canadian, with the same rights to a free trial, healthcare, etc.

    14. Re:The Canadian Connection? by BurntHombre · · Score: 1
      but I did because it seems like a really bizarre point to make the most important point.

      This is what I mean. It's not the most important point, no one has tried to make it the most important point, it's simply a relevant point. As I understand it, you seem to think Canada is being picked on simply because US media commentators are mentioning that the terrorists may have come through Canada. That's silly. It's like saying rental car companies are being unfairly criticized since the media keeps mentioning how various rental cars and records are being investigated. I'm sure it makes you really nervous if you're an executive of Avis, but you have to put it in perspective.

    15. Re:The Canadian Connection? by ckedge · · Score: 2


      they might as well have hit Toronto because it feels the same.

      I work at a tower 6km North of the downtown core in Toronto, and every 10 minutes during the entire morning, I was looking over my shoulder to see if 1st Canadian Place was still standing.

      I kid you not.

      BTW: 1st Canadian is taller than the perspective in that shot leads you to believe. The camera is a lot closer to the CN tower than the downtown core.

    16. Re:The Canadian Connection? by zulux · · Score: 1

      It's truly a shame we are not more selective on who we welcome into our respective countries. For evey jerk we allow in, we miss the oppertunity to help a decent person. It's amzing how people agree on this issue, but nobody makes a stand. I guess I'm afraid of being labeled as racist. I love the cool people that have traveled hard roads to get in to this country, and I deplore the people that give these good people a bad name.

      --

      Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

    17. Re:The Canadian Connection? by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      In Canada for a while they played a series of commercials which supposedly exemplified racism, and one part absolutely burned me: It showed a gentleman saying "We let too many immigrants into this country!": Apparently such a claim is "racist".

    18. Re:The Canadian Connection? by zulux · · Score: 1

      Grrr... It must be doubely annoying to consider that your taxes paid for it. I has an interesting visit in a large-town in France called Orange (Named after a crusaiding Knight). The "National Front" canidate had won the election for Mayor several years back and the rest of France was all in a tissy - the National Front has a reputation of being racist jerks, and indeed some of them really are racist jerks. Anyway, the Mayor (who seemes quite normal) did a turnaroud not unlike New York - and today Orange is a nice place to live. The interesting thing, is that the 30% of the local immegrant population voted for him in the next election - up form presumibly 0%.

      --

      Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

  27. ESR is totally wacko by graveyhead · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It seems that ESR has written an opinion piece on Newsforge that is sure to get slashdotters up in arms. Sorry couldn't resist the lame pun. Seriously though, it seems like ESR is promoting his personal agenda during this time of crisis. Hardly appropriate.

    --
    std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
    1. Re:ESR is totally wacko by graveyhead · · Score: 1

      Um possibly the fact that he advocates dropping airport security entirely so that passengers can carry guns. You don't think that's totally wacko? All it takes is one idiot letting his gun fire by accident. The plane depressurizes(sp?) and everyone dies. Are you seriously telling me that this is a good idea?

      --
      std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
    2. Re:ESR is totally wacko by eXtro · · Score: 1
      I recently flew from home to Detroit and back. The leg from Minneapolis to Detroit was cancelled due to mechanical problems. "Good" I think to myself, better to be cancelled than to encounter potentially life threatening problems while in the air. Well, most of the mob didn't feel that way. Obviously there was a huge line of people at the gate wanting to rebook their flight. As I walked past the mob I heard comments such as "I wish I had a grenade, I'd pull the pin and chuck it at the attendants". First of all, the attendants had no involvement. They just were relaying bad news. Second, it was a freaking mechanical problem. I'd hate to see the riot that would have errupted if any of these lunatics were armed.


      Me? I walked past the lines, up to the main ticket gate and calmly explained that my flight was cancelled. They booked me on the next available flight, gave me a book of coupons (air miles, discounts etc) and sent me on my way.

    3. Re:ESR is totally wacko by linzeal · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Perhaps it is too much to hope that we will respond to this shattering tragedy as well as the Israelis, who have a long history of preventing similar atrocities by encouraging their civilians to carry concealed weapons and to shoot back at criminals and terrorists. But it is in that policy of a distributed response to a distributed threat, with every single citizen taking personal responsibility for the defense of life and freedom, that our best hope for preventing recurrences of today's mass murders almost certainly lies.

      Isrealis shoot at anything that moves sometimes as evident by the massive civilian losses in the west bank. Twitchy gun-totting people, yeah; that would be a fun place to live, NRA land. I'm not against guns but jesus h christ this would make this nation a paranoid place even if it were a private one.

    4. Re:ESR is totally wacko by w.p.richardson · · Score: 1
      That is a really great idea.


      I am very concerned about the "draconian" measures that will be passed, and no doubt cheered by many, which will limit freedoms that citizens have. This is an inappropriate response to this senseless tragedy.

      --

      Curb CO2 emissions: Kill yourself today!

    5. Re:ESR is totally wacko by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      You don't let people bring guns onto the plane; you assign them guns with rubber rounds when they get on board, if they're qualified to use such a weapon. Police officers, military personel, federal agents... then you also make sure that there is a similarly armed airline employee flying incognito as well.

      Now, the terrorist is not only faced with a single armed guard, but potentially many armed passengers. Rubber rounds would avoid the depressurization problem, while still providing adequate force (particularly at short range) to stun or disable someone. Heck... give the flight attendants mace and tazers! Even if there's never another terrorist attack, they still have to deal with the occaisional drunken and abusive passenger.

    6. Re:ESR is totally wacko by nd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So far, nearly every response I've read criticizing ESR's remarks are pretty much the same -- "he's a wacko", "this is disgusting", "stick to software", etc.

      Rather than things like this, and conspiring about personal agendas, could you give a legitimate argument against his piece? It's not very unreasonable at all.

      Here's my take on his view in short:

      Government restricts personal liberties of citizens for our "protection". Good citizens abide. Bad citizens bypass/ignore restrictions, leaving good citizens defenseless. Something is very wrong here, and ESR suggests that perhaps the restrictions shouldn't exist. Yesterday's incident is evidence of this scenario.

      This is NOT saying "everyone should carry a gun".

    7. Re:ESR is totally wacko by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Some friends have asked me to step outside my normal role as a technology evangelist today, to point out in public that a political panic reaction to the 9/11 terrorist attack could do a great deal more damage than the attack itself.

      Hmmm. I wonder who these "friends" were. I've never known ESR, busybody at large, to need urging from friends before telling us what we think.

    8. Re:ESR is totally wacko by pi_rules · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree that the position sounds a bit alarming, but really it's quite logical.

      For crying out loud, the terrorists apparently took over the plane with -knives-. I'm guessing ceramic ones, so they could slip past the metal detectors. How in the world a plane full of 50-90 people were unable (or unwilling) to confront 3-5 "armed" people is beyond me. To me this is just evidence that the average American citizen is now nothing more than a fattened coward who thinks freeom and peace come without any work. That's the government's job, right?

      I am getting absolutely sick of people being called crazy for having firearms and ammunition "just in case.". You may think ESR is nuts for wanting armed citizens on planes, I think everybody else is nuts for NOT wanting them. The founding fathers would probably shit a brick to find out that 90 citizens weren't able to overpower a team of 5 because none of the law abiding people had any sort of weapon on them -- even more appauled that they could pull it off with knives. I'm standing here today not under British rule (not that I think Britians are bad) because armed citizens revolted against a tyranical government.

      People often spout off silly examples of one lunatic pulling out their gun and dropping a few people just because they're pissed off. Give me a freaking break. Do you -really- think somebody is going to pull out a gun for some silly-assed reason when it's encouraged for the average citizen to carry a gun? I really doubt it, unless they're criminally insane and have a death wish. Remember the shooting in a NYC subway a few years ago when some loon hopped on board with a semi-automatic handgun and rattled off 30 shots? Lets do some math here:

      If memory serves he was using some type of 9mm pistol with 15 round clips. Lets say this guy really knew his stuff and could rattle off a shot every .2 seconds; that's 3 seconds per clip (you have to be -trained- to do something like that BTW, it's far more likely it would have taken him .5 seconds or more). So, that's 3 second, clip empty, getting the next one in would take another 3 seconds (at least), then empty that one out. Total operation: 9 seconds.... for what I could consider somebody well trained. An armed passenger, who is also well trained, could have likely removed his weapon from a concealed position and fired two shots into his chest within 2 seconds... stopping the bulk of the killing.

      So, allow passengers to carry? Nope, ban anything that holds more than 10 rounds. Honestly, what kind of logic is this? Granted, you can still buy guns which hold more than 10 rounds, and you can buy the clips too; but only used clips. Now what used to cost 20 dollars for a piece of metal and plastic can run you anywhere from 50-150 depending on the type of gun you're looking for.

      There's outrage that gas prices were jacked up when people paniced and began filling up their tanks "just in case." At the same time, K-mart pulls it's firearms and ammunition off the shelves to look like a good guy. Good guy my ass. If somebody had turned off the gas at their gas station for fear of somebody building a bomb we'd consider the gas station owner crazy. K-mart pulls their guns and nobody seems to really give a rat's behind. The country is under attack and you intentionally keep people from buying arms and ammunition? Re-read that sentence again -- let it sink in. I will never set foot in K-mart again; and I do intend on writing a nice calm letter to their head office when this is all said and done.

      Given that the nation has received the ugly end of an act of War I would consider ESR's piece right on topic, not "hardly appropriate". Yes, there was a tragedy yesterday. Yes, perhaps ESR is taking this opportunity to point of why he thinks his view is right, but I don't consider his opinion any less valid than discussion of any other anti-terrorism measures the government is thinking about taking. The rules of engagement have changed. Citizens are being treated as if they're military soldiers -- so act like it. Don't own a guy? Buy one, learn how to use it. Go grab a few hundred rounds of ammo and put them in your closet. If you can in your state, carry it wherever you feel comfortable carrying a weapon.

    9. Re:ESR is totally wacko by mks113 · · Score: 1

      I haven't noticed that crime rates are way down in the US because so many people have guns.

      Unintentional gun injuries are pretty high though.

      I can handle certain government regulations. Airport security is one of them. The physical weapons these guys had were insignificant. Their real weapon was their willingness to kill.

    10. Re:ESR is totally wacko by Russ+Nelson · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If one bullet through the fuselage could bring down an airplane, why do terrorists bother with bombs? In any case, it's possible to design bullets with less impulse than existing ammunition. The fact that nobody has yet done so is simply because nobody would bother to buy it, because you are prevented from carrying a gun on board an airplane.
      -russ

      --
      Don't piss off The Angry Economist
    11. Re:ESR is totally wacko by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 2
      So far, nearly every response I've read criticizing ESR's remarks are pretty much the same -- "he's a wacko", "this is disgusting", "stick to software", etc.
      ...
      Government restricts personal liberties of citizens for our "protection". Good citizens abide. Bad citizens bypass/ignore restrictions, leaving good citizens defenseless. Something is very wrong here, and ESR suggests that perhaps the restrictions shouldn't exist. Yesterday's incident is evidence of this scenario.

      In Switzedland, everybody is drafted into the army, and goes there for a few weeks every year.

      Eveyrone (who qualifies) if given an army rifle, with ammo to practice with. And they practice shooting every week. You see men in business suits carrying assault weapons in the streets as a matter of course. Nobody blinks (except the tourists)

      Of course, the swiss won't give weapons to wackos who don't pass the psychological tests...

      The US could very well insure that there are plenty of army reservists, properly trained (that includes psychological testing) that are allowed aboard airliners with their concealed weapons.

      After all, the only Swissair airliner that ever got hijacked was not hijacked for long: the passengers instantly formed a commando that quickly disabled the culprit...
    12. Re:ESR is totally wacko by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm standing here today not under British rule (not that I think Britians are bad) because armed citizens revolted against a tyranical government.

      Let it go. It's been a while.
      Seriously, America isn't the only nation that has gained their freedom by use of guns, but some of the others are now coping fine without it. Why can't you?

      An armed passenger, who is also well trained, could have likely removed his weapon from a concealed position and fired two shots into his chest within 2 seconds... stopping the bulk of the killing.

      If you had read any physics books instead of letting Hollywood educate you - you would know that firing a gun in a plane a high altitude is a bad thing. Key words: Depressurization, oxygen starvation, fainting, death. What's so much better with that?

      The country is under attack and you intentionally keep people from buying arms and ammunition? Re-read that sentence again -- let it sink in. I will never set foot in K-mart again; and I do intend on writing a nice calm letter to their head office when this is all said and done.

      I am sure K-mart is just glad to get rid of you as a customer, because people like you are the ones that turn into fanatics like T McV. Talk about paranoia....phew! yeah, they're all out to get you. Look out for the "black helicopters".
      I'm also pretty sure you're incapable of writing a "calm" letter to anyone.

      Citizens are being treated as if they're military soldiers -- so act like it. Don't own a guy? Buy one, learn how to use it. Go grab a few hundred rounds of ammo and put them in your closet. If you can in your state, carry it wherever you feel comfortable carrying a weapon.

      Yeah, that'll fix it. Let's all start shooting at each other. Picture this, in your gun-centered world:

      Everyone's armed.
      You go to a bar.
      You get drunk.
      You get into a fight with some drunken guy over some girl.
      You get a slap in the face.
      You snap.
      You pull your gun.
      You shoot.
      You missed him.
      You hit her.
      *She* is dead.
      He pulls his gun.
      He shoots.
      He missed you.
      Some other girl winds up dead.
      Her friends pull their guns, raging with anger.
      They shoot...
      etc...
      etc...

      And don't tell me it wouldn't happen in America, because you are all so responsible, and we never get drunk, and go to your shrink twice a week, and do gun training, and...that's a load of crap. People are animals, and Americans are people. Americans = animals. This of course goes for the rest of the world as well. Give people the tools and they *will* misuse them.

      And by the way, there *is* a world outside the USA. Most countries in europe for example have just a fraction of the murder rate you guys have in the US. And most of them have strict regulations on guns. Get that into your redneck head - guns don't solve problems, they just makes them worse.

      On another note; I just love the way the US likes to picture the "fanatics" in arabic countries, with pictures in the news of people shooting guns in the air and shouting - "barbarians" you say.
      Now pull out your (probably favorite) selection of John Wayne movies and look at your own gun-loving heritage. See any similarities?

    13. Re: ESR is totally wacko by Inthewire · · Score: 1

      He has a number of good points. I think the worst is that current measures have not prevented any incidents. You never know who was dissuaded from casual, spontaneous action.

      --


      Writers imply. Readers infer.
    14. Re:ESR is totally wacko by sgt_getraer · · Score: 2, Informative
      How in the world a plane full of 50-90 people were unable (or unwilling) to confront 3-5 "armed" people is beyond me.

      Easy.

      Group of terrorists get on plane. Shortly after takeoff, knives are pulled out of carry-ons. Stewardess is stabbed to show they mean business. They announce they have a bomb and if anyone screws with them, they all die. Then, take over cockpit, kill the pilot, and use your pilot to guide plane into the target.

      The assumption you're going on here is that the passengers were just idly twiddling their thumbs, knowing full well that they're being used as a makeshift missle. This is certainly not the case.

    15. Re:ESR is totally wacko by pi_rules · · Score: 2

      If you had read any physics books instead of letting Hollywood educate you - you would know that firing a gun in a plane a high altitude is a bad thing. Key words: Depressurization, oxygen starvation, fainting, death. What's so much better with that?

      Please, educate me then. Dig up the specs on a Boeing 757 and 767 and find out how many places a 9mm 115grain jacketed hollow point will go through. While you're at it run the numbers on a .45 230grain JHP, and full metal jacket (FMJ) for both rounds. Heck, throw in a .38 special round or two too.

      And don't tell me it wouldn't happen in America,...

      IIRC New Hampshire has nearly no gun control as far as carrying a weapon goes. If you can own it, you can carry it, concealed or unconcealed. By all means, dig up some statistics that show gun toting New Hampshie residents are blowing people away left and right.

      And for the "Hollywood education" comment, when's the last time you went to a shooting range with retired marines, police officers and NRA certified teachers?

    16. Re:ESR is totally wacko by IronChef · · Score: 2

      I haven't noticed that crime rates are way down in the US because so many people have guns.

      I don't have the links handy, but most places that have implemented easy acess to concealed weapons permits HAVE seen such a decrease. And in the other places there is no statistically significant change. And, overall, crime has been down over the last decade. (some categories have been up... I think juvenile crime has been up, though overall violent crime is down.)

      The evidence really does show that more concealed weapons leads to less crime. It IS a deterrent, and your fellow citizens are largely competent and capable of carrying responsibly. It IS a shocking concept! I don't trust people to make my hamburger at McDonald's. But by dog, the Average Joe CAN manage to carry a gun without making some horrible mistake with it.

      *Most* states in the US now have easy access to concealed weapons permits. Have you heard of any related bloodbaths in places like Washington state, Florida or Vermont? Nope. I live in Seattle where anyone WITH $60 and WITHOUT a record as a criminal or whacko can get a gun permit. And we're famous for rain and high-tech companies... not Old West shootouts.

      (A load of foreigners were getting robbed and shot in Florida a while back... Foreigners. People that could not get permits. Defenseless people. Easy targets.)

      The physical weapons these guys had were insignificant. Their real weapon was their willingness to kill.

      So true. Their will combined with the LACK of will on the passengers' part was a lethal combination.

      I want Americans to get some backbone. Maybe now that everything is different they will... they won't assume that they'll get out of a hostage situation. Always fight; never give up.

    17. Re:ESR is totally wacko by IronChef · · Score: 2


      Glaser "safety slugs" are a wacky frangible ammunition, reputedly designed for use on airplanes. They definitely have less energy than a tradtional round. I'm sure similar ammo has been designed. El Al supposedly has an undercover armed guard on all flights, so they must have a solution for guns on planes.

      Safer ammo is important but the best thing is still training. If you shoot at someone on a plane -- well, try to hit them. Their body is the best backstop.

    18. Re:ESR is totally wacko by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Rather than things like this, and conspiring about personal agendas, could you give a legitimate argument against his piece? It's not very unreasonable at all.

      Unless you consider that anyone carrying a weapon in a combat situation is automatically considered a soldier. This could include women, children, and the elderly. In a sense, the perpetrators wouldn't be attacking civilians, but rather soldiers.

    19. Re:ESR is totally wacko by cybrthng · · Score: 2

      Your a moron. Go back to your squirrel hunting and coon pie eating town.

      I pay taxes and support a military because they are there to protect me. I don't care for the right to bare arms and i care for the right to LIVE.

      I'd much rather give up the right to own a gun then give up the rights of our children to now have to be subject to search & seizure, medal detecters and everything else HAVING A GUN causes.

      You forget that it wasn't a freaking KNIFE that killed people, it was the plane. Have you ever flown? If you saw someone being stabbed to death and they're saying they got a bomb what would you do? Remembering that *MOST* previous hijackings landed somewhere and *MOST* people lived, odd are you would take you chances and cooperate.

      Most "Civilians" don't want to die, and i'm sure the events prior to the crash were the most gruesome and disturbing endings all 266 of those people could have.

      So take your ramblings elsewhere. Your forgetting what it is like to be alive

    20. Re:ESR is totally wacko by cybrthng · · Score: 1

      "And for the "Hollywood education" comment, when's the last time you went to a shooting range with retired marines, police officers and NRA certified teachers?
      "

      Obviously your a fanatic and lost all credibility with that statement.

      1) Those people in the plane weren't marines with some kind of militaristic perogative

      2) They obviosly weren't police officers armed with guns

      3). NRA certified teachers? Thats like telling me i should listen to KKK Certified teachers.

      Incase you didn't hear from the phone calls people DID try and communicate and did say "we are going to die, so i am going to try and stop this"..

      Martial law doesn't do anything for you.

    21. Re:ESR is totally wacko by finkployd · · Score: 2

      Vermont, not New Hampshire.

      Finkployd

    22. Re:ESR is totally wacko by pi_rules · · Score: 1

      Original Response:

      If you had read any physics books instead of letting Hollywood educate you - you would know that firing a gun in a plane a high altitude is a bad thing. Key words: Depressurization, oxygen starvation, fainting, death. What's so much better with that?


      Rebuttal:

      And for the "Hollywood education" comment, when's the last time you went to a shooting range with retired marines, police officers and NRA certified teachers?


      Your interpretation:

      Obviously your a fanatic and lost all credibility with that statement.

      How in the world does making an effort to train oneself on the physical attributes and handling of weapons by people with vast experience make me a fanatic? I have no idea in the world -how- you gathered from my comment that I thought there were marined, police offices, and NRA instructors aboard that plane, nor was I insinuating that any of the above catergories have valid political views -- only that they know how guns operate and know how to use them. So, logically, if I -had- been education by Hollywood I would no longer be a "fanatic". as you put it. Did you even -read- the post or auto-respond as soon as the acronym NRA came up?

    23. Re:ESR is totally wacko by finkployd · · Score: 2

      NRA certified teachers? Thats like telling me i should listen to KKK Certified teachers.

      Please expand on this. I would love to know how you equate NRA instructors with the KKK.

      Finkployd

    24. Re:ESR is totally wacko by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Your a moron.


      When insulting another individual it's quite often advantageous to at least start the insult with proper grammar.

    25. Re:ESR is totally wacko by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

      The fourth plane, which crashed in PA, carried passengers who knew what they were doing. They overpowered the terrorists and, though the plane crashed, they probably saved hundreds of lives.

      If your main priorities are to be protected, find another country. I like the US not because it protects me the best (it doesn't) but because it mostly guarantees my freedom to do whatever the hell I want, as long as I don't hurt others in the process. If you want safety, learn to protect yourself, for God's sake. Your mother can't do that for you anymore, and nobody else will with any degree of reliability. Take some classes in self-defense, buy a weapon, and take some god damned responsibility for yourself.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    26. Re:ESR is totally wacko by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have forgotton what it is like to not be scared.

    27. Re: ESR is totally wacko by Inthewire · · Score: 1

      I will never set foot in K-mart again
      I agree

      --


      Writers imply. Readers infer.
    28. Re: ESR is totally wacko by Inthewire · · Score: 1

      Do you know what a taser is? It isn't a nonlethal nonpenetrating magic wand. It is a weapon that fires a pair of barbs that trail wires back to a power source...then delivers a high voltage impulse that cause loss of muscular control and pain.
      So far, so good. But they are single shot weapons, hard to use accurately, impotent against multiple assailants or heavy clothing.
      Tasers are worse than useless in this capacity.

      --


      Writers imply. Readers infer.
    29. Re:ESR is totally wacko by shanek · · Score: 2
      I'd much rather give up the right to own a gun then give up the rights of our children to now have to be subject to search & seizure, medal detecters and everything else HAVING A GUN causes.

      Ring ring, hello? We have that now anyway!

    30. Re:ESR is totally wacko by albanac · · Score: 1
      You may think ESR is nuts for wanting armed citizens on planes, I think everybody else is nuts for NOT wanting them.

      Have you ever seen what happens to a pressurised cabin if someone lets off a .44?

      Guns are not the answer. Particularly not at 15,000 feet.

      You want something which would be good for the population, in health, in mental stability and courage, in ability to deal with criminals and other armed people? Make instruction in some form of kempo/kung fu part of the elementary curriculum. Teach people from childhood to be healthy, to defend themselves and to be self-controlled.

      ~cHris
  28. I don't want to rush to judgement... by Gorimek · · Score: 0, Troll

    ...but have you noticed that you never see Osama bin Laden and Bill Gates in the same room?

    1. Re:I don't want to rush to judgement... by Villain · · Score: 1

      Humor has its place....This isn't it.

    2. Re:I don't want to rush to judgement... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never seen bin Laden and George W. in the same room either.

    3. Re:I don't want to rush to judgement... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They know that both of them in the same room would be too tempting a target to pass up.

  29. I don't know... by KryooyrK · · Score: 0

    I'm just your average college student from a small town moved to the capital of the State. I too was horrified by what had happened yesterday and today I finally feel the need to speak. I've been reading through the comments and saw people write that we needed to strike the terrorists back yesterday. That would have been all well and good had we known whom the terrorists were. Sure it could be bin Laden, but we don't really know. For all we know, it was a group of National Terrorists, not an international group. Please don't go pointing fingers before the facts are out. Enough people have died already. More innocents do not need to be taken from us. Yes, I am saddened by what happened, but we also need to move on. Move on, but never forget. We cannot sit on our haunches and dwell over something that happened in the past.
    As for privacy issues... how well would facial recognition work when anymore it is just a (relatively) simple operation to have your facial features changed? Sorting through hundreds of thousands of phone calls, emails, and whatnot every day just doesn't seem feasible to me. A lot of man hours would be wasted. The simple truth is that airline security is very poor right now. I'd much rather be physically searched (patted down) whenever I flew than have my face scanned every time and a computer glitch and mistake me for someone I'm not. But then again, I'm just a college student from a small town... on one really listens.

    --
    Yellow bird I see
    The gray dragon wisely hides
    Honor is duty
  30. The good side by gonz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    FWIW I'm very impressed with the response of the American people to this unprecedented crisis. I thought the newscasters did an unusually objective job of covering the event (despite the recurrent technical problems), and the talking head experts had very interesting things to say. Fox even wheeled out Ollie North and Newt Gingrich for comments, and even they had surprisingly incisive things to say (!).

    The discussions on Slashdot were atypically mature (at least at moderation level 3 ;-) ), and people kept the crass jokes and politicking to an amazing minimum. I am the moderator of a forum that reflects a much less (ahem) savvy/sophisticated subculture, and I was impressed to see my users put aside their flamewars for a day and engage in mature discussion.

    We live in a period of extreme political cynicism/complacency, but yesterday reaffirmed my faith in the American people and our elected representatives. Probably everyone will revert to their non-noble selves once the shock has worn off, but I just wanted to say that it's cool, for a moment, to have old-skool solidarity with your neighbors in the face of a common enemy. :-)

    Peace,
    Gonz

  31. Mothra Pheonix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The United States will not just rise like phoenix from the ashes, it will rise like Mothra!

    We will be the meanest son of a beech phoenix ever! Shooting fire, razor sharp talons, and faster than sound, invisible to radar.

    1. Re:Mothra Pheonix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A giant slug? .. Great.

  32. we setup a section for relief efforts by MousePotato · · Score: 3, Informative

    Our organization has been very busy. Check my posts from yesterday. People in Dade County FL can use our site as the day goes on to help in our efforts. Click here or cut and paste [http://ckfonline.org/arc/]. Thanks for everyones help everywhere.

  33. A different Perceptive -- Harry Browne by JasonVergo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Harry Browne of the libertarian party thoughts:

    http://www.antiwar.com/orig/browne2.html

    When Will We Learn?
    by Harry Browne
    September 12, 2001

    The terrorist attacks against America comprise a horrible tragedy. But
    they shouldn't be a surprise.

    It is well known that in war, the first casualty is truth - that
    during any war truth is forsaken for propaganda. But sanity was a
    prior casualty: it was the loss of sanity that led to war in the first
    place.

    Our foreign policy has been insane for decades. It was only a matter
    of time until Americans would have to suffer personally for it. It is
    a terrible tragedy of life that the innocent so often have to suffer
    for the sins of the guilty.

    When will we learn that we can't allow our politicians to bully the
    world without someone bullying back eventually?

    President Bush has authorized continued bombing of innocent people in
    Iraq. President Clinton bombed innocent people in the Sudan,
    Afghanistan, Iraq, and Serbia. President Bush Senior invaded Iraq and
    Panama. President Reagan bombed innocent people in Libya and invaded
    Grenada. And on and on it goes.

    Did we think the people who lost their families and friends and
    property in all that destruction would love America for what happened?

    When will we learn that violence always begets violence?

    Teaching Lessons

    Supposedly, Reagan bombed Libya to teach Muammar al-Qaddafi a lesson
    about terrorism. But shortly thereafter a TWA plane was destroyed over
    Scotland, and our government is convinced it was Libyans who did it.

    When will we learn that "teaching someone a lesson" never teaches
    anything but resentment - that it only inspires the recipient to
    greater acts of defiance.

    How many times on Tuesday did we hear someone describe the terrorist
    attacks as "cowardly acts"? But as misguided and despicable as they
    were, they were anything but cowardly. The people who committed them
    knowingly gave their lives for whatever stupid beliefs they held.

    But what about the American presidents who order bombings of innocent
    people - while the presidents remain completely insulated from any
    danger? What would you call their acts?

    When will we learn that forsaking truth and reason in the heat of
    battle almost always assures that we will lose the battle?

    Losing our Last Freedoms

    And now, as sure as night follows day, we will be told we must give up
    more of our freedoms to avenge what never should have happened in the
    first place.

    When will we learn that it makes no sense to give up our freedoms in
    the name of freedom?

    What to Do

    What should be done?

    First of all, stop the hysteria. Stand back and ask how this could
    have happened. Ask how a prosperous country isolated by two oceans
    could have so embroiled itself in other people's business that someone
    would want to do us harm. Even sitting in the middle of Europe,
    Switzerland isn't beset by terrorist attacks, because the Swiss mind
    their own business.

    Second, resolve that we won't let our leaders use this occasion to
    commit their own terrorist acts upon more innocent people, foreign and
    domestic, that will inspire more terrorist attacks in the future.

    Third, find a way, with enforceable constitutional limits, to prevent
    our leaders from ever again provoking this kind of anger against
    America.

    Patriotism?

    There are those who will say this article is unpatriotic and
    un-American - that this is not a time to question our country or our
    leaders.

    When will we learn that without freedom and sanity, there is no reason
    to be patriotic?

    Harry Browne was the 2000 Libertarian presidential candidate. You can
    read more of his articles at www.HarryBrowne.org, and his books are
    available at www.HBBooks.com.

    1. Re:A different Perceptive -- Harry Browne by Ray+Yang · · Score: 1

      Because we exist as human beings, there will be people who seek to do us harm. Because we are a wealthy country, there will be people who seek to do us harm. Because we seek to bring prosperity and trade to others, there will be those who seek to do us harm. And yes, because we are people, often greedy, often ignorant, there will be those who take offense and seek to do us harm.

      But sanity is not to be close-minded, and mind our own business. Sanity is not to cravenly surrender when others seek to blackmail with bombs and hijackings, for such appeasement can only encourage more of the same. You're wrong when you say `teaching a lesson' doesn't work. Who has challenged America military on the open field since 1991?

      Sanity is not to be found in retreating from the dream of a better, more prosperous world. Sanity is not to be found in allowing others to break every rule of civilized conduct, and get away with it. These are the paths to an insane world, a world where we cower in the corner, helpless against the whims of others, many with goals that we do not like. We make mistakes, we occasionally act out of short-sighted greed. But we can also act for the betterment of the world, and more often than not, this is when we make enemies. Our troubles in the Mideast stem from our effort to help countries and peoples defend themselves from annhilation at the hands of their neighbors (deliberately vague, as more than one country fits the bill), as well as our effort to protect the prosperity of our citizens, and the citizens of other countries.

      You're wrong, sir.

    2. Re:A different Perceptive -- Harry Browne by MrEd · · Score: 1
      Thanks for posting this! Sorry no moderators seem to be taking a shining to it.


      The cynical part of me would tell you to write a sob story asking how deranged religious madmen who can't be negotiated with would commit such a dastardly, cowardly crime. That'll get some attention.

      --

      Wah!

    3. Re:A different Perceptive -- Harry Browne by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so the US never "breaks every rule of civilized conduct" when it bombs civilians in Yugoslavia, Sudan, Iraq, etc.

      You're a hypocrit "we can shoot up everyone else, but leave us alone" american.

    4. Re:A different Perceptive -- Harry Browne by joss · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You're polite and sound sensible, but it seems to me that you have a very lop-sided view of the world.

      Consider the possibility that American media contains more effective propoganda and distortion than Pravda ever managed.

      Try reading some alternative viewpoints such as http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/ . I'm not saying this stuff is more accurate than the mainstream media, judge for yourself, but at the very least it will give you a better understanding of where some people are coming from.

      --
      http://rareformnewmedia.com/
    5. Re:A different Perceptive -- Harry Browne by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you're a fool. Why do you think we spend untold billions to develop weapons that can seek and destroy one building and one building only, when a bigass, cheap-as-fuck bomb will do the job just as effectively? If we were interested in killing civilians, there would be no Baghdad, Sarajevo, etc. any more.

    6. Re:A different Perceptive -- Harry Browne by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who has challenged America military on the open field since 1991?

      Exactly. There is no way to defeat the
      United States military in combat. That's
      why the terrorists have done what they did.
      All empires, ours included, can only be
      defeated from within. I can see those responsible
      laughing as we agonize our next steps.

      I'm not that old, but weren't the British
      redcoats really pissed of at the Continental
      army for using guerilla tactics instead of
      meeting them in the "open field"???

      Welcome to the American Empire. It has
      existed since 1945, and only now that the
      foundations starting to crack that we have
      to take off the mask and the white-hat of
      idealism and purity that has never really
      existed for the past 50 years.

    7. Re:A different Perceptive -- Harry Browne by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, so this week we're imperialists. Everyone remember to save your "isolationist" hats for next week.

    8. Re:A different Perceptive -- Harry Browne by Spotless+Tiger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      FWIW it was a Pan-Am flight (103) that was downed after Reagan bombed Libya, with Thatcher's help. The result of that tragedy were several hundred casualties, part of a town in Scotland destroyed, and many thousands eventually thrown out of work when the airline went bankrupt.

      An eye for an eye leaves the world blind. There should be a response to this latest tragedy. If the right response is to send in the Seals to grab Bin Laden, or just to build a higher WTC and send the bastards a message that they cannot win, it should be chosen because it's right, not because it's popular.

      --
      Racists should be sent back to where they came from
    9. Re:A different Perceptive -- Harry Browne by bradasch · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm sorry, but this is too much:

      Because we exist as human beings, there will be people who seek to do us harm.

      I refuse to believe that our simple existence is bound to create enemies ourselves. We do not live in a world with constant clan-like fighting. Do you really believe that some stranger seeks to do harm you just because you exist?

      Because we are a wealthy country, there will be people who seek to do us harm. Because we seek to bring prosperity and trade to others, there will be those who seek to do us harm.

      Now this is interesting: do you really believe that the US is a wealthy country without harming other countries? Or are all trade/economic/political decisions made always thinking about what would be the result to other countries? Remember, just months ago, president Bush said he wouldn't sign a deal for reducing pollution because it could harm the US industry. Basically, it's "I don't care what will happen to the world, if it will give us any trouble".

      This is a basic principle of capitalism: if you want to be rich, the first thing you should forget is that the poor exist. In the current state of world's economy, rich nations like the US depend on the poorness of third world countries.

      Who has challenged America military on the open field since 1991?

      What's the point in doing that? What did the US achieve in the Gulf War? Saddam still exists and still is a threat to the world. And war, today, isn't necessary in the open field. Look at yestedays acts: there was absolutely no military weaponry envolved. No troops, tanks, military air fighters. Just four comercial airplanes.

      IMO, the first thing that should be done (of course, after attending the horrible aftermath of the incidents), rationally speaking, is think about why would someone do that to the US. Please don't come with the "they're all nuts" answer. Unless you can prove that there is a severe case of madness spreading on the world, and the first symptom is "hate against the US". IMO, there are too many "anti-american" movements today to think that it's the work of some crazy radicals. Remember, these radicals need funding and support, and it always come from non-radical groups.

      Please, do not make the horrible terrorism that happened a mental-diseased case. It's far much more than that.

    10. Re:A different Perceptive -- Harry Browne by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The truth sometimes hurt, but that's the way things are. Perception is reality.

      Try living abroad sometime and you'll see what the rest of the world thinks of us. We may be the only superpower left, but that doesn't mean we can do whatever we want and escape the consequences.

    11. Re:A different Perceptive -- Harry Browne by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's actually both - our economic policy is, and has always been, imperalist but our political policy is isolatonist (Bush Jr.) or just plain confusing (Clinton).

      Both policies should be in sync - either you're involved with the world or you're not. You can't have world trade and then expect to be isolated from its politics.

    12. Re:A different Perceptive -- Harry Browne by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahh, but the unfortunate point is that no matter what we do, people will hate us for it. If we stay out of conflicts (ie Rwanda) people say we should do more. When we get involved (ie Kosovo) people say go home. If you're going to be hated and envied no matter what, why not just act in your own interest?

    13. Re:A different Perceptive -- Harry Browne by Ray+Yang · · Score: 1

      >I'm sorry, but this is too much:
      >I refuse to believe that our simple existence is
      >bound to create enemies ourselves. We do not live
      >in a world with constant clan-like fighting. Do
      >you really believe that some stranger seeks to do
      >harm you just because you exist?

      I believe that because I exist, and take up resources, that others might see me as a means to an end, and, absent an order which prevents them from doing so, some fraction of those others will seek to exploit and use me for my detriment and their benefit. This is commonly called `anarchy' by political theorists, and I don't think anybody denies the impulse is there.

      >Now this is interesting: do you really believe
      >that the US is a wealthy country without harming
      >other countries? Or are all
      >trade/economic/political decisions made always
      >thinking about what would be the result to other
      >countries? Remember, just months ago, president
      >Bush said he wouldn't sign a deal for reducing
      >pollution because it could harm the US industry.
      >Basically, it's "I don't care what will happen to
      >the world, if it will give us any trouble".

      There are two questions here. The first is do I believe people hate us simply because we are rich, irrespective of how we got here. And the answer is yes, I do. If you have ever visited China, or (I am told) Norway, or even spent some time talking to certain people in certain departments on campus, you will discover that being rich, successful, and motivated carries a stigma. Whether it was the successful farmers in Russia (the kulaks), or the success of Troy, or the `soak-the-rich' income tax, some part of people dislike success for being successful. This is called jealousy, or envy, and I defy you to show that such evil doesn't exist in the human heart, in whatever measure (large or small).

      The second has to deal with the idea of exploitation, which I will comment on below.

      >This is a basic principle of capitalism: if you
      >want to be rich, the first thing you should
      >forget is that the poor exist. In the current
      >state of world's economy, rich nations like the
      >US depend on the poorness of third world
      >countries.

      Huh? Who among us has forgotten the poor exist? You'll have to be more specific. Secondly, you give voice to the prejudice that our prosperity depends on keeping others low. I disagree vehemently. I accept that it's possible to achieve a measure of prosperity through the exploitation of others, but, by and large, that's not how it works. Do you know how much we trade with the poorest countries in the world? How *little* presence and resources we draw from the poorest countries? Our trade with the 30 or 40 poorest countries in the world comprimses a negligible portion of our economy. Our prosperity does not depend on them. If you look at countries that have become rapidly prosperous in the last 50 years (Taiwan, Korea, Japan, Singapore, possibly China) you will find that their prosperity is mostly home-grown, created by farsighted leaders and hard-working people who toiled through some truly horrible conditions to achieve what they have today. And that prosperity was home-grown, done without need to economically exploit or rob others.

      >What's the point in doing that? What did the US
      >achieve in the Gulf War? Saddam still exists and
      >still is a threat to the world. And war, today,
      >isn't necessary in the open field. Look at
      >yestedays acts: there was absolutely no military
      >weaponry envolved. No troops, tanks, military air
      >fighters. Just four comercial airplanes.

      Right. And that's because nobody will threaten us on the open field again after 1991 (for a while). Qadafi backed off his program after we bombed him in 1986. And now we must make sure that people back off this program, this war, that they have chosen to make upon us in our workplaces and our homes.

      >IMO, the first thing that should be done (of
      >course, after attending the horrible aftermath of
      >the incidents), rationally speaking, is think
      >about why would someone do that to the US. Please
      >don't come with the "they're all nuts" answer.
      >Unless you can prove that there is a severe case
      >of madness spreading on the world, and the first
      >symptom is "hate against the US". IMO, there are
      >too many "anti-american" movements today to think
      >that it's the work of some crazy radicals.

      I don't think these people are crazy. I think they have chosen to hate us, for a variety of reasons, ranging from the religious, to resentment of our wealth, to resentment of our unwillingness to help them (and, to be honest, our foreign aid in recent years has been quite stingy). They can weave, to their own mind, quite elaborate mental structures to justify their sentiments, as the Communists did before them.

      I agree we should look at where we are unnecessarily offending people. Like any great and influential country, we have a habit of that. But I think we should also vigorously combat those who hate us, and who hate the peace and prosperity of our world.

      >Remember, these radicals need funding and
      >support, and it always come from non-radical
      >groups.

      People don't have to be insane to hate. There are many businesses, movements, and governments who fund these groups for other purposes, but these groups are comprised of living, breathing people with beliefs of their own which violently disagree with ours.

      And, as enlightened an age as we live in, many who are immune to the logic of our reason and contemptuous of our goodwill are susceptible to the logic of force. Indeed, often the failure to use force shows weakness and invites further contempt and hate, for it shows that hating us is a safe occupation.

    14. Re:A different Perceptive -- Harry Browne by bradasch · · Score: 1

      I believe that because I exist, and take up resources, that others might see me as a means to an end...

      Now I can agree with you. Others can seek to do harm to you after they see you take up resources. This is as subjective as it can get. Of course, anyone seeing you doing anything can find it offensive and retaliate. This is very different from "I exist and this is a reason for others to hate me".

      ..being rich, successful, and motivated carries a stigma. [...]This is called jealousy, or envy, and I defy you to show that such evil doesn't exist in the human heart, in whatever measure (large or small)

      I believe jealousy exists only if the person suffering it cannot achieve the envied objective. If you give means (or help) to a person to achieve things he/she envies, it becomes an aspiration, which is always desirable.
      Now, I cannot assume the attack to the WTC occurred because of jealousy. This is an awful irrational conclusion.

      ...Do you know how much we trade with the poorest countries in the world? How *little* presence and resources we draw from the poorest countries? Our trade with the 30 or 40 poorest countries in the world comprimses a negligible portion of our economy...

      Check your numbers. I live in Brazil. We have imported, thourgh all our history, much more from the US than we exported. Some years ago, some politicians opposing the government showed that Brazil signed trade deals to import pacifiers (the one babies like) as a condition for exporting rice. In simple words, it's "Yes we will buy you food if you buy our toys". This happens all over Latin America. American companies use all the commercial power available to obtain economic advantages here. Things your government wouldn't dream of doing inside the US.

      And now we must make sure that people back off this program, this war, that they have chosen to make upon us in our workplaces and our homes.

      Sure. But please don't use the argument "if we make them fear us, they'll back off". It won't happen. The attacks prove that a dozen (or so) people can cause a lot of destruction.

      I agree we should look at where we are unnecessarily offending people. Like any great and influential country, we have a habit of that. But I think we should also vigorously combat those who hate us, and who hate the peace and prosperity of our world.

      I agree 100% with you on that. That's exactly my point. But the first thing to combat is the cause to the hate, not the hate itself (which, I repeat, we must combat). The US needs to find a way to stop offending other people unnecessarily.

      Indeed, often the failure to use force shows weakness and invites further contempt and hate, for it shows that hating us is a safe occupation.

      I don't think so. You don't stop hate showing more hate. You can create fear, but the hate will remain until it grows bigger than the fear. And then things happen again. You stop hate showing that hate is useless. It achieves nothing good. It only produces more hate.

    15. Re:A different Perceptive -- Harry Browne by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is true. We simply have to pick our fights carefully. The problem with the Arabs is that you're not dealing with a country, but with a culture and religion. That's too big, even for the United States. We should also do more diplomacy and find ways to divide and conquer such a large group and pit them against each other; heck, they're already killing each other in places like Afghanistan and Algeria.

      This was done masterfully by the other George Bush against Saddam. I hope the current Bush can do the same, but the cries for revenge are very very strong, even in places like San Francisco, which one would expect to be more liberal than the rest of the country.

    16. Re:A different Perceptive -- Harry Browne by Ray+Yang · · Score: 1

      Now I can agree with you. Others can seek to do harm to you after they see you take up resources. This is as subjective as it can get. Of course, anyone seeing you doing anything can find it offensive and retaliate. This is very different from "I exist and this is a reason for others to hate me".

      That's quibbling. By existing, you take up resources (air, food, water, etc.).

      I believe jealousy exists only if the person suffering it cannot achieve the envied objective. If you give means (or help) to a person to achieve things he/she envies, it becomes an aspiration, which is always desirable.
      Now, I cannot assume the attack to the WTC occurred because of jealousy. This is an awful irrational conclusion.


      I believe jealousy exists if the person being jealous doesn't have something, irrespective of whether they *can* achieve it, and equally irrespective of the actions of the object of their jealousy. And I'm not saying that WTC occurred because of jealousy alone. I'm going into the psychological reasons people choose to hate their neighbors. I mean, what do you call arrogance? Many times arrogance is acting contrary to what other people want, because you *can*. It need not even hurt them materially, just ego-wise. People get annoyed when America builds a missile defense system, even though it doesn't hurt them. People get annoyed when they see extravagant waste in America, even when they have no part of the resources being wasted. That's jealousy, and that's a root of hate.

      Check your numbers. I live in Brazil. We have imported, thourgh all our history, much more from the US than we exported. Some years ago, some politicians opposing the government showed that Brazil signed trade deals to import pacifiers (the one babies like) as a condition for exporting rice. In simple words, it's "Yes we will buy you food if you buy our toys". This happens all over Latin America. American companies use all the commercial power available to obtain economic advantages here. Things your government wouldn't dream of doing inside the US.

      I think we both know governments and companies dare. But Brazil hardly qualifies as one of the world's poorest countries -- stop and think: is your country poorer for the business you do with Americans? Has your life been poorer for our presence in the world? No! Through trade, and scientific and cultural exchanges, our countries have worked together for mutual benefit.

      Sure. But please don't use the argument "if we make them fear us, they'll back off". It won't happen. The attacks prove that a dozen (or so) people can cause a lot of destruction.

      There are people in whom we can instill fear, to keep them from doing this sort of thing. Into these we will instill fear. There are those who are implacable, who must be implacably destroyed if we are to be safe. These we will destroy. Hatred may breed hatred, but the lesson of the second world war is that it is possible to locate, track down, and annihilate certain evils. To date, we have hoped that certain types of terrorism were transient, or that the price we pay for tolerating it is less than the price we would pay for destroying it. I think that calculation just changed.

      I don't think so. You don't stop hate showing more hate. You can create fear , but the hate will remain until it grows bigger than the fear. And then things happen again. You stop hate showing that hate is useless. It achieves nothing good. It only produces more hate.

      We will learn to hate, but, more importantly, we will destroy those who seek to hurt us. We will destroy them so that they will not have an opportunity to perform another evil such as this. That's what our political leaders mean when they consider this war.

    17. Re:A different Perceptive -- Harry Browne by bradasch · · Score: 1

      I think we're on the same track. But there are three things that still annoy me about your post, and, I guess, that you will not understand.

      The first:
      People get annoyed when they see extravagant waste in America, even when they have no part of the resources being wasted. That's jealousy, and that's a root of hate.

      That's the whole damn point! If people stopped wasting resources just because they *can* waste it, we would get much better understanding and much less jealousy. This applies to *people* too, not only countries.
      One of the reasons that we brazilians have high levels of urban violence is the huge difference between the poor and the rich. It is a violent statement when, for example, a family of 4 people has 6 cars in their garages, and their neighbour can't buy one for themselves. It rubs in the face of the poor people the whole "I can and you can't" thing. Only because of unnecessary waste. That's the old concept of economic oppression. We have a system (the screwed capitalism we see in the world nowadays) that allows huge waste of resources while others suffer the lack of the same resources. And, the same system concedes more power to those wasting more, which increases waste, and there you have a huge snowball growing downhill. And, even worst, this system allows those who can waste the solemn excuse of "it's not my problem if you're poor", even when it is. Or even when you can do something to help and you choose not to.

      The second thing:

      I think we both know governments and companies dare. But Brazil hardly qualifies as one of the world's poorest countries -- stop and think: is your country poorer for the business you do with Americans? Has your life been poorer for our presence in the world? No! Through trade, and scientific and cultural exchanges, our countries have worked together for mutual benefit.

      I will answer that with an example: what would you think about any country if they, somehow, imposed a deal (economic/political/scientific/cultural) which would end being bad for americans (I'm being very generic, on purpose). Wouldn't you think "they can't do that to us", even if the damage caused by this deal wouldn't end up affect your own private life, but of others in the US? Well, welcome to a third world. We sometimes have to sit and watch an american company take our resources even when they don't need to do that. Just because they can do it. That's economic oppression, again. Please, don't think that all deals are bad for Brazil. Some of them are really good for us, some are good for both. My point is, most are not. We end up giving more than taking, and that's wrong, because we need more. This can stop economic development of a country like Brazil, but wouldn't do any good to the US. Some goes to waste, because the US can waste.

      All I'm saying is that the US is in a position where you could be more helpful to a lot of nations, and help preventing lots of bad things. But sometimes we see the opposite. That, to some people, causes the damned hate we are arguing about.

      The last, thing thing:

      Hatred may breed hatred, but the lesson of the second world war is that it is possible to locate, track down, and annihilate certain evils.

      Really? Neo-nazism (skinheads) in Europe don't exist? I'm sorry you feel that way, because you got it wrongly. IMO, the lesson learned was that racism, when taken to those extremes, end up in nothing but war and destruction. This lesson has reduced racist groups in almost all of Europe to a very feeble minority. But it hasn't changed the rest of the world. We have very active racism in Mid-east (Israel against Muslins). And this is very off-topic.

      Now, the problem is that some people (the attackers of the WTC) discovered ways to use the system they supposedly are fighting against to their purposes. IMO, the biggest meaning of the attack is "you can have a rich and powerful nation, but it takes only some of our people to make a huge mess in your own house, using your own things". To answer that, you can say, "we'll crush you like bugs". Or, We will destroy [you] so that [you] will not have an opportunity to perform another evil such as this. But will the US destroy all anti-americans? All of them? 100%? That's hard to say. I really hope that destroying is used as a last resource. If you pardon my innocence, I really hope things like that stop happening not because of destruction or retaliation, but as a consequence of construction of better relations. And I don't think that only as a humanitarian and altruist person. I think that because I really don't believe anyone can destroy them all.

    18. Re:A different Perceptive -- Harry Browne by DK · · Score: 2, Interesting

      American media has more propaganda than Pravda? Is that what you think?

      As a Soviet emigre, I find it insulting that you can even draw such a comparison. I have relatives who have spent years in prison in Stalinist labor camps. My parents, for most of their lives, lived in fear of speaking their minds. Do you have ANY idea what it means to live in an oppressive society?

      I am completely bedazzled by the anti-american bashers who never stop for a moment to think about how lucky they are that they can bash away all they like, without fearing for their lives. There are billions of people in the world who don't have this luxury.

      I'm also amazed at how many people are so thoroughly 100% cynical of US foreign policy. It's even become non-PC to think otherwise. I won't deny the prime motivator is usually economic, but I also think the world is a bit more complicated than that.

      Pardon me for being one of the media-brainwashed masses.

    19. Re:A different Perceptive -- Harry Browne by bkirkby · · Score: 1

      Any inkling that I've ever had of becoming a Libertarian have just now been removed. Thanks for posting this so I know what the Libertarians are really about.

    20. Re:A different Perceptive -- Harry Browne by joss · · Score: 2

      > American media has more propaganda than Pravda? Is that what you think?

      No, and it's not what I said either. I said American media contains more *effective* propoganda than Pravda. The difference is that Americans, on the whole, entirely believe what they read in their mainstream media. Not so many Russians completely beleived what they read in Pravda.

      > I am completely bedazzled by the anti-american bashers who never stop for a moment to think about how lucky they are that they can bash away all they...

      America is a relatively free society, agreed. If someone disagrees with the government you can't just send him off to the gulag. That's why it's so important to control waht people think.

      --
      http://rareformnewmedia.com/
    21. Re:A different Perceptive -- Harry Browne by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ray said:
      "Because we exist as human beings, there will be people who seek to do us harm. Because we are a wealthy country, there will be people
      who seek to do us harm. Because we seek to bring prosperity and trade to others, there will be those who seek to do us harm.

      I think what's relevant here, Ray, is that because we give guns to Israelis that they use to shoot Palestinians, there will be people who seek to do us harm.

      Ray said:
      "Sanity is not to cravenly surrender when others seek to blackmail with bombs and hijackings, for such appeasement can only encourage more of the same.

      Cravenly surrender? I bet the hijackers, when their motives are known, would have wanted us to eliminate or severely cutback our funding of Israel--but does this mean we shouldn't do this? Indeed we should do this (and should have done it long ago) not in order to "surrender", but because it is the right thing to do.

      Ray said:
      "Our troubles in the Mideast stem from our effort to help countries and peoples defend themselves from annhilation at the hands of their
      neighbors.

      Hmmm, helping countries and peoples defend themselves from annihilation...sounds good to me! When do we start sending money to the Palestinians? Or the Kurds in Turkey? Or the Indians in Chiapas? Oh, that's right, those people are defending themselves from annihilation by our political allies--no money for them!

      Sorry to be so sarcastic, it's late...

    22. Re:A different Perceptive -- Harry Browne by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "rich nations like the US depend on the poorness of third world countries".

      Wow, the idiot that posted this message has ZERO knowledge of economic theory. Read a book sometimes, if you are capable.

      The zero-sum game theory, which the poster seems to believe in, makes as much sense as the flat earth theory. It has been completely disproven. The fastest way to wealth is to IMPROVE the lives of others, not to make them worse. Have all the wealthy computer executives acquired their money by making our lives worse? I am posting this message right now due to the work of a whole bunch of people who have created the PC revolution (first) and then the Internet revolution. These people are all at least middle class (by Western standards, which is 'rich' by third world standards), if not downright wealthy. How has it impacted me? I have BENEFITTED, you moron.

      The zero-sum game thery is only subscribed to by people who are incapable of creating success in their own lives and are looking for a simplistic scapegoat, which is also the motivation of most of the terrorists.

    23. Re:A different Perceptive -- Harry Browne by mimbleton · · Score: 1

      "It rubs in the face of the poor people the whole "I can and you can't" thing."

      Oh really. So if I spend 5 years studying to get a good job, the fact that I can drive Ferrari it is slap in your poor ass face?
      Screwed capitalism ha?
      Do you know anything better? Please, show me a single country that does not follow that "screwed" model yet it can compare with Western Europe or US?
      Can you?

      "Some goes to waste, because the US can waste."

      Since both, US and Brazil started pretty much from the same level why do you think we are where we are and you are one of the poorest countries in the world.
      Do you think we had direct line to some God or something?
      No, because we worked hard.

      "We have very active racism in Mid-east (Israel against Muslins). "

      Hmm, what about all these Jews being killed by crazy Muslims?
      Oh, that doesn't count .... of course.
      You are so fucking biased it is not even funny.

      PS.
      Who are you to give us lessons how to run our country?
      Come back when you are able to feed your own population without killing homeless children.

    24. Re:A different Perceptive -- Harry Browne by bradasch · · Score: 1

      Oh really. So if I spend 5 years studying to get a good job, the fact that I can drive Ferrari it is slap in your poor ass face?

      You may study 5 years just to buy a nice car, cool running shoes and lots of beer so you can burp in other people's face. It's a free country anyway.

      No, because we worked hard.

      Yes, right. You work soooo hard. Poor little thing. We are just enjoying the sun here.

      Hmm, what about all these Jews being killed by crazy Muslims?

      You tell me I'm biased when you can't even understand that "Israel against Muslims" is exactly the same thing as "Muslims against Israel". Read again use your brain to think.

      Who are you to give us lessons how to run our country? Come back when you are able to feed your own population without killing homeless children.

      I would feed my population if I didn't have to spend more money paying interests to US banks. But hey, you know how to run a country and you work hard, and everything you have comes from your sweat, isn't it?

    25. Re:A different Perceptive -- Harry Browne by mimbleton · · Score: 1

      "is exactly the same thing"

      No, your post indicated something else.

      "I would feed my population if I didn't have to spend more money paying interests to US banks. "

      If you borrow money you shall return that money.
      If you are unable to repay, DO NOT borrow.
      Couldn't be any simpler, could it ?

      "you have comes from your sweat, isn't it?"

      Yeah, exactly ... oh, and we do enjoy sane economical system as opposed to some leftist regimes you have in your state.

    26. Re:A different Perceptive -- Harry Browne by bradasch · · Score: 1

      This will go on forever. But it's funny, anyway.

      No, your post indicated something else.

      Read it all and use your brain, I repeat.

      If you borrow money you shall return that money. If you are unable to repay, DO NOT borrow. Couldn't be any simpler, could it ?

      Yes, very simple. So simple we are paying interests 100 years old (literally, no exageration here), because if we say "we payed enough already", a banker says "no, I don't think so". Are you suggesting we stop paying, then?

      Yeah, exactly ... oh, and we do enjoy sane economical system as opposed to some leftist regimes you have in your state.

      Dude... Now you don't tell me how to run my state. What you said is as silly as me saying that your regime has created rightists like some tele-evangelists we see in the US. Do you enjoy they?. And, BTW, our state is doing better than the rest of Brazil. Oh, we are leftists? Should the US bomb us, too? And who the hell are you to preach about how to run Brazil?

      Now here's what I think: you are so closed inside the US you forgot how the world outside is.
      You are so closed inside the US that you forgot that outside bad things happen because of US influence. But why should you care? The bad things happen outside, anyway.
      Oh, sorry. That was valid only till last tuesday. Now it's not anymore.

    27. Re:A different Perceptive -- Harry Browne by mimbleton · · Score: 1

      "Yes, very simple. So simple we are paying interests 100 years old (literally, no exageration here), because if we say "we payed enough already", a banker says "no, I don't think so". Are you suggesting we stop paying, then?"

      Please, just follow original agreement.

      "What you said is as silly as me saying that your regime has created rightists like some tele-evangelists we see in the US. "

      What regime ? What rightists?
      In US you can preach anything you want,it is called freedom.
      On the other hand , none of this stuff is mandatory and if I don't care, nobody forces me to support or even listen to these people.
      Obviously you don't know shit about this country.

      "Oh, we are leftists? Should the US bomb us, too? "

      Who said that ?
      You gonna "bomb" yourself into soviet style "age" if you continue to follow your leftist bullshit.

      "you are so closed inside the US you forgot how the world outside is."

      I wasn't even born in US. I am here since 1992 and I am 30 years old. Draw your own conclusions.

      "you are so closed inside the US you forgot how the world outside is."

      Your envy of our economical position and our social system is very transparent.
      Furthermore you do think this attack was justified and inside you rejoice from what had happened in NYC.

    28. Re:A different Perceptive -- Harry Browne by bradasch · · Score: 1

      Please, just follow original agreement.

      You obviously never heard anything about opression. I guess you think slavery was alright, cos they were following the original agreement.

      On the other hand , none of this stuff is mandatory and if I don't care, nobody forces me to support or even listen to these people.

      Of course. So the cold war was just a waste of time, cos you were not listening anyways. Noboby was forcing you to listen to their political theories, yet you went all the distance to build nukes that could end the world. Interesting.

      You gonna "bomb" yourself into soviet style "age" if you continue to follow your leftist bullshit

      I'm as much as a leftist as you are a rightist interested in exploiting poor countries. Draw your own conclusions too.

      Your envy of our economical position and our social system is very transparent.

      Yes... that's a very rational conclusion...
      I've been once to the US in a 15-day vacation. I don't intend to come back. Why? Because there's nothing else there to see, in my opinion.
      Do I envy you? No, I don't. Why? Because I can have all the things you think I envy. I live in a democratic country, maybe even more democratic than the US. You will never understand that, cos you can only think that the world wants to be like you. It's time to review these concepts.

      Furthermore you do think this attack was justified and inside you rejoice from what had happened in NYC.

      That's just offensive. I was deeply shocked by the attacks. Even people with opinions like yours are not going to make me feel the attack was justified. What I've been saying all this time is that thinking like yours lead crazy fundamentalists like those Taliban bastards to attack the US. Why do you think it was the US and not Europe, Latin America, Japan, or any other country that was attacked? You know, the US is not the better place to live in the world. I can think of several other places where life can be better.

    29. Re:A different Perceptive -- Harry Browne by mimbleton · · Score: 1

      "about opression."

      What are you talking about? Your economical situation is NOT caused by loans but by your crappy economy that is not competitive with US or Western Europe.
      It is simple as that. It was the case with Taiwan and other Asian tigers but these countries managed to built strong and powerful industries and now are decades ahead of Brazil.
      Try to follow their example , it will do you more good than continuous bitching at US and other western countries.

      "yet you went all the distance to build nukes that could end the world. Interesting."

      I don't know if you are aware of the fact that Soviet Union was extremely dangerous opponent and we had not much choice but to keep up our military ready for a confrontation with them.
      We did not end this world, did we ?

      "interested in exploiting poor countries."

      Please, stop this bullshit. Are you saying that Sun, Microsoft or IBM are exploiting anyone?

      "only think that the world wants to be like you. "

      Well, not everyone in the world but there are many, many more people trying to get into US than it trying to enter Brazil.
      People vote with their feet and in this contest we way ahead of you.

    30. Re:A different Perceptive -- Harry Browne by bradasch · · Score: 1

      I said this will go on forever.

      Your economical situation is NOT caused by loans...

      You are proving my point that you couldn't be less aware of how things are in Brazil. Our national debt is getting to the point where it will not be payable anymore. When this happens, will the US bankers worry about it? Think what would happen if we stopped paying it.
      About our "crappy" economy... Why does the US imports food, clothing, shoes from Brazil? Your wonderful country with its powerful industry can't produce enough? Again, interesting.

      It was the case with Taiwan and other Asian tigers but...

      Yes, yes. The last time I heard there were 10 yo kids working in factories to be "more competitive", earning next to nothing. What a powerful industry!

      Are you saying that Sun, Microsoft or IBM are exploiting anyone

      The american justice seems to disagree with you. Microsoft is kinda having some hard times there. The only news I hear that can be good to Microsoft is that the government is easing things up. Sheesh.

      People vote with their feet and in this contest we way ahead of you

      You made me LOL with that. Last election in the US was decided on courts. By political reasoning. And Bush didn't get majority in individual voting. And, still there are americans that say that should a recount be issued, Bush would loose. Shame on you.

    31. Re:A different Perceptive -- Harry Browne by mimbleton · · Score: 1

      You are completely uninformed and biased individual.
      Please, read something about US and its constitution before you accuse us.
      Case closed.

    32. Re:A different Perceptive -- Harry Browne by bradasch · · Score: 1

      I rest my case too. I won't convince you of anything. Your mind is as closed as your "case".

  34. Seismic Observations (WTC - Impact & Collapse) by SilverThorn · · Score: 5, Interesting

    For those that are interested, the Lamont-Doherty Cooperative Seismographic Network (LCSN) has recorded the activity that happened at the World Trade Center so you can realistically feel what was felt there and nearby for the impact and collapse of the buildings.

    LCSN Link: http://www.ldgo.columbia.edu/lcn.html

    --
    Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.
  35. Go ahead and let them wiretap. by MongooseCN · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    I've got my encryption ready. All they'll be doing is wasting cpu power. And once they get machines that can decrypt messages fast enough, just double the bits in the encryption key and wait another couple years for them to catch up.

  36. Re:Slashcode by unitron · · Score: 2

    I was impressed that Slashdot and the internet in general did as well as they did yesterday considering the no doubt unprecedented load and traffic.

    --

    I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  37. Lack Of Media Content On Real News Sites by ekrout · · Score: 5, Informative

    So, I have 142 average to high-res images on a page I threw together, as well as several videos. The site, http://www.students.bucknell.edu/ekrout/images/911 _In_America/images/gallery/index.html, should be able to take high-abuse in terms of bandwidth, etc. It's a resource, so feel free to use it. Thanks.

    --

    If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
  38. McVeigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many times did McVeigh attack large buildings?
    I think it means that OKC was immediately blamed on middle east, and turned out to be home-grown.

  39. Perfect Blue Sky by waldoj · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The United States' sky was blue, perfectly blue. Empty, simple, clear, clean, blue. Throughout the country, millions of people looked up at the sky on Tuesday to see the most perfect, cloudless sky that has existed for many, many years.

    Except for over New York City. The sky over Manhattan was obscured by thick, black smoke and dust from the remains of the World Trade Center. They did not share our sky, and we did not share theirs.

    The rest of us Americans shared something else, too: television. We spent hours glued to our televisions, placing panicked phones calls every few minutes to friends and family, not to share mutually-known news, but to share the thick silence of horror. Every station broadcast the latest news, without interruption. They all used a common title: "Attack on America," sparing us the usual battle over which network's tragedy-moniker will stick.

    By afternoon, many of those that had remained home to watch the news realized that they needed some face time, and headed to the streets for some human contact. Those that had spent the day at work had gotten very little done, finding themselves a part of impromptu television communities in neighboring offices. It was, of course, all that anybody talked about. Strangers gathered on street corners, nodding acquaintances traded news tips, people sobbed and prayed on the sidewalk.

    All beneath that perfect blue sky. With every last airplane in the United States resting safely on the tarmac, not a single contrail scarred our endless collective ceiling.

    The blood drives started by mid-afternoon, setting up cots in office parks, buses, and abandoned shopping malls. The turnout was so tremendous that crowds of people were turned away, asked to return the next day to give of their blood.

    Then there were the American flags. Where happy orange pumpkins and brown ice cream cones had flapped in front of homes and businesses, now crisp new star-spangled banners hung. On Charlottesville's Downtown Mall, four girls bearing carnations walked down the street, offering bright yellow flowers to babies and businessmen, homeless women and waitresses. Nearly everybody in sight bore boutonnieres in their buttonholes, and it was impossible not to cry.

    Late afternoon brought perhaps the most surreal event of the day. Congress assembled on the Capital steps and sang a verse of "God Bless America." Republicans, Democrats and Independents sang together, slightly off-key, unaccompanied by music. Under our great blue sky.

    1. Re:Perfect Blue Sky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "Under our great blue sky."


      The sky is blue in the rest of the world too. Please keep this in mind as you begin the path towards violence and revenge.

    2. Re:Perfect Blue Sky by FFFish · · Score: 2

      Speaking of television, my two newsfeeds (CBC and CTV, the national Canadian broadcast stations) are both dedicating this day, too, to coverage of the terrorist attack.

      Is this happening in other countries, too? By which I mean, are your main television stations remaining focused on the event, or have they already reverted back to daytime soaps programming?

      --

      --
      Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
    3. Re:Perfect Blue Sky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the love of God, Taco, add a moderation category of -1 maudlin.

    4. Re: Perfect Blue Sky by Inthewire · · Score: 1

      Pretty writing.
      With every last airplane in the United States resting safely on the tarmac, not a single contrail scarred our endless collective ceiling.
      AWACS, Air Force One, Air Force interceptors, American Airlines employees from DFW to LAX, military helicopters, etc were all airborne. Facts are facts. Fancy is fancy.

      --


      Writers imply. Readers infer.
    5. Re:Perfect Blue Sky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Belgium national TV has been broadcasting 16hours straight live coverage. Most stuff relayed from CNN or another US channel, but with as much interviews from local politicians.
      One of the remarkable things was an interview with Willy Claes, former secr.gen. of NATO... He was rather synical about all NATO countries having their own secret agencies and investigational forces, but none cooperating. Let us hope that, as an outcome of this tragedy, forces will be joined and information will be shared from now on, as to prevent further massacres !

    6. Re:Perfect Blue Sky by ASIO · · Score: 1

      Yeah, here in Australia we're having continious coverage. Going on for our second day now.

      --
      On the other hand, you have fingers :)
  40. revoke sovereign-ity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    as the UN did for germany and japan, revoke the sovereign-ity of whatever nations participated or harbored these cowardly attackers. then we invade, put up military courts, execute the perpetrators, bring about law and order in the places that allowed this to happen, and after a few years, leave.

    end of story.

    1. Re:revoke sovereign-ity by toast0 · · Score: 2

      and what happens a few years after we leave?

  41. Media Archive - Faster Speeds by beefdart · · Score: 1

    We here at school have begun collecting images and video to help out with the bandwidth problem the news sites are having... Here Also feel free to send anything in...

  42. Detailed info on Boeing planes by David+Ishee · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Janes has made info from their All the World's Aircraft data available online for the 767 and 757.

    --
    Your password has expired, please login to change it.
  43. Backup for the Pentagon? by Morris+Schneiderman · · Score: 1

    Pure speculation. Two planes were sent to the World Trade Centre in New York. It would seem reasonable that two were sent to the Pentagon in DC.

  44. Media Backup Movis/Pics by beefdart · · Score: 1

    We here at school have begun collecting images and video to help out with the bandwidth problem the news sites are having... Here Also feel free to send anything in...

  45. Consistent and reasoned responses by hodeleri · · Score: 2

    You said, "Consistent and reasoned responses are imperitive in civilized society. Everything else is barbarism."

    What happened yesterday was not just a terrorist attack on the WTC and the Pentagon and not just a terrorist attack on the US. It was a declaration of war against the civilized world.

    Any country that supports or harbors terrorists on any scale had better sit down and take a long, hard look at what they are doing today, they probably won't last the next decade if they continue. The people that did this must be exterminated including any who support them.

    While I'm not a fan of military action, I would now join the military to take revenge not for my nation, but for the world. The terroists have shown us they can take our own planes and cause such enormous destruction and through this they show that they despise the foundations of civilization itself, trade and travel. There is only one consistent and reasoned response to this, and I feel it is never again.

    1. Re:Consistent and reasoned responses by jmv · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Any country that supports or harbors terrorists on any scale had better sit down and take a long, hard look at what they are doing today, they probably won't last the next decade if they continue. The people that did this must be exterminated including any who support them.

      If (not the *if*) the actions came from Bin Laden, the U.S. has to realize that it is a "country that supports or harbors terrorists" in that it is the CIA that "made" Bin Laden, so he could fight the russians in Afganistan. The U.S. DOES support terrorism, as long as it is against other nations. Now that a U.S. sponsored terrorist turns against the U.S. suddently it becomes someone else's fault. Of course bombing Afganistan is much simpler that rethinking your (US agancies, ...) own methods.

    2. Re:Consistent and reasoned responses by DnA+Works · · Score: 1
      So, you're saying that the CIA made Osama Bin Laden destroy the WTC? Hmm, that seems to be a bit of a stretch (yes, you moron, I realize that you did not *say* that but that's the logical extension of your theory). According to your logic, then, if an ex-military man uses his skills to mug and kill someone, the Army is to blame? Or if someone with martial arts training kills another person in a fight, the sensei holds all responsibility? Grow the fuck up!

      *Everyone* and I mean *everyone* makes choices. If Bin Laden blew up the towers, the *worst* that you can say about the CIA is that they trained long ago (I doubt that he's been attending many CIA terrorism 101 classes in the last few years ...)

    3. Re:Consistent and reasoned responses by alienmole · · Score: 2
      You're angry, as we all are, which presumably explains all the insults and expletives in your message.

      However, that doesn't change the fact that it's not just training, but money and other kinds of support that the U.S. has used to further its political agenda, that have helped people like Bin Laden, and Saddam Hussein before him, to become serious threats. There are many other examples, most dating back to a time in which the U.S. was willing to do just about anything to combat the Soviet threat.

      The U.S. cannot now in good conscience wash its hands of such acts, and pretend that it is completely innocent. The attack on America was a cowardly, brutal and uncivilized act, but it may have been executed by a pawn that America helped loose upon the world, no matter what excuse it might have had at the time.

    4. Re:Consistent and reasoned responses by DnA+Works · · Score: 1
      You are correct ... the US probably had a hand in creating this but do you believe that they wound up this little terrorist and let him go to destroy the WTC? No. He has been learning on his own. The most for which the US government can take credit for is starting him on the path. Can you prove to me that all of his money is from the US government? Or is it, perhaps, for American and other Arab/Moslem sympathisizers.

      Perhaps my message had more 'insults and expletives' than needed but I only count two. I just grow disgusted by the constant "the US deserved this, the US made this man"-style repetition of comments. Please try to look at more than the terrorist press releases and realize that there are more bad guys than just the US government agencies.

    5. Re:Consistent and reasoned responses by alienmole · · Score: 1
      You are correct ... the US probably had a hand in creating this but do you believe that they wound up this little terrorist and let him go to destroy the WTC? No. The most for which the US government can take credit for is starting him on the path.

      I agree.

      Can you prove to me that all of his money is from the US government?

      It isn't.

      Or is it, perhaps, for American and other Arab/Moslem sympathisizers.

      That, and Bin Laden had a lot of his own money too. Saddam Hussein and Iraq got a lot of U.S. financial and military support in their long battle against Iran.

      Please try to look at more than the terrorist press releases and realize that there are more bad guys than just the US government agencies.

      I have never read a terrorist press release that I'm aware of. I live in the US, but I do also read media that comes from outside the US. The perspective one gets from purely consuming US media can be just a tad warped.

      BTW, I wasn't suggesting "the US deserved this". It's impossible to "deserve" the death of perhaps ten thousand civilians. But, I think one should be careful of getting too sanctimonious and righteous in the response. Don't make it into the holy war that the other side may believe it is. It's a simple case of needing to eradicate a threat, as quickly, efficiently and definitively as possible.

    6. Re:Consistent and reasoned responses by DnA+Works · · Score: 1
      I believe that you and I are arguing many of the same points. However, there are still a few things in your response with which I take issue:
      • but I do also read media that comes from outside the US
        As do I. Being from Canada, I find that both CBC and BBC do a much better job of reporting the facts than the American versions.
      • getting too sanctimonious and righteous in the response
        Couldn't agree with you more; however, if you are insinuating that this is the attitude that I am projecting, I must disagree. I merely believe that attitude that you describe best fits those "peace-makers" who believe that the US has no right to exterminate the source of this tragedy.
      • I have never read a terrorist press release
        Supposed to be ironic, evidently needs a bit of work ...
      • Don't make it into the holy war that the other side may believe it is
        Absolutely. Let's go in, kill and/or destroy the infrastructure and get out.
      There. That wasn't so bad was it? </sanctimoniousness> ;)
    7. Re:Consistent and reasoned responses by jmv · · Score: 2

      According to your logic, then, if an ex-military man uses his skills to mug and kill someone, the Army is to blame?

      There's a big difference there. They did not give Bin Laden normal military training. They made him into a terrorist. He didn't change what he was doing, he kept doing the same thing except with a different target. Somehow, the US thinks that terrorism against Russia or other countries is OK, as long as it doesn't target US. The US has only itself to blame for that. Of course, I was assuming here that it is Bin Laden, which is not at all sure yet.

    8. Re:Consistent and reasoned responses by alienmole · · Score: 1
      I think we both occupy a place somewhere in the middle (as I define it, anyway) and were each objecting to an extreme on opposite ends of the spectrum.

      OK, now we're agreed, let's go kill the fuckers!!!

      I suppose what it comes down to is that if I'm going to endorse killing people, inevitably including some possibly innocent people, I want to make sure "our" position is as morally sound as it can possibly be. Which to me, means a bit of self-doubt and questioning is in order, no matter how justified our anger might feel.

    9. Re:Consistent and reasoned responses by DnA+Works · · Score: 1
      They did not give Bin Laden normal military training. They made him into a terrorist
      So close to irrelevant that it doesn't matter - extend the example above to special forces/computer warfare/whatever.

      Somehow, the US thinks that terrorism against Russia or other countries is OK
      Seems to me that you may be making a *bit* of generalization here ... OK, a huge, unproven, unprovable, hyperbolic generalization but what the hey? That's *your* opinion.

      The US has only itself to blame for that
      I guess that you are trying to say that, by extension, the US has only itself to blame for the destruction of the US towers. Funny, that's the same arguement that all terrorists use when they kill someone - " is responsible for this, not me!", where may be anything in our local galactic cluster that is not the terrorist, the terrorist organization or the puerile religon/philosophy/post-traumatic stress disorder to which the terrorist subscribes. Silly me. I thought that the US had terrorism to blame.

    10. Re:Consistent and reasoned responses by jmv · · Score: 2

      I just grow disgusted by the constant "the US deserved this, the US made this man"

      No, the US (nor anybody else) doesn't deserve this and I am against any kind of "political violence". However, at the same time, the US made this possible. In order for such a tragedy to occur, you need two things: a motive and the capacity.

      First, the current US foreign politics maximizes the number of people and nations with the motive. While I don't agree at all with these acts, you have to remember that you can't piss of everybody in the world and expect never to get into trouble.

      Second, the capacity. The americans (from the CIA and others) gave the capacity to Bin Laden. They helped Iraq (and Saddam) against Iran. They were involved (by sending weapons, training, ...) in so many civil wars around the world that they gave (or at least help) terrorism capacity to many organizations. Of course, I'm talking about the US here, but many european nations (UK comes first) did that too.

      This is not meant to *excuse* these unnecessary violent acts, but I think it *explans* them.

    11. Re:Consistent and reasoned responses by jmv · · Score: 2

      What the US (A) did was give a gun to someone (B) and say "go kill this guy (C)". Now B turned around and shot A instead of C. Yes B (in this case the terrorists) is to blame, but so is A.

      And as I said, I pretty sure the US sponsored more acts of terrorism (though different) than most arab countries. Just think about the number of dictators or rebel organizations the helped, in most cases by sending weapons. How many terrorism acts has the CIA only performed.

      Now, get a history book. Who is the most responsible for all the trouble in middle east? The allies (US, UK, France). They are the ones who divided the land arbitrarly, without caring about the people there. They are the ones who established Israel by taking the land of the Palestinians. And now, suprise! There trouble in the area. Don't know where that came from...

    12. Re:Consistent and reasoned responses by DnA+Works · · Score: 1
      What the US (A) did was teach someone (B) how to use a gun, give them a gun and say "go kill this guy" (C). Now, after several years, more training, and several guns later, B turned around and shot A, as well as C. A is to blame only for starting B's training, not for **everything** that happened in the interval, as you apparently seem to think. B is responsible, sparky.

      US sponsored more acts of terrorism (though different) than most arab countries
      Yes, because only the last 30-40 years count, eh? The Arab countries haven't been performing terrorism before that point, huh? Whatever. You are looking at history through very something colored glasses. Get the right prescription, OK?

      Now, get a history book. Who is the most responsible for all the trouble in middle east?
      Religion. It starts, continues and ends with religion. Yeah, they've been screwed around by other countries but then again, everyone has screwed everyone else. Look up what the current Moslem texts say about the unbelievers.

      Any other specious arguements?

    13. Re:Consistent and reasoned responses by jmv · · Score: 2

      Now, after several years, more training, and several guns later, B turned around and shot A, as well as C. A is to blame only for starting B's training, not for **everything** that happened in the interval, as you apparently seem to think.

      Have I ever said B is not to blame or that A should take all the responsability? No. However, if you act like A, you should be aware of the risks it implies in the long term. In the '80 (right?), if looked good to sponsor Afganistan guerilla against Rissia... but they didn't think longer term...

      And I am not trying to say that arab countries are not sponsoring terrorism (sure many are, and it's a very sad thing). What I have a problem with is that many are pushing the idea that "arab=terrorism", to which I say "look at what YOU did in terms of terrorism".

      You are looking at history through very something colored glasses. Get the right prescription, OK?

      Why is it that I deserve an insult for everything you don't agree with? Have I unsulted you? Or do you feel threatened in your ideas?

      Now, get a history book. Who is the most responsible for all the trouble in middle east? Religion.

      Right. But who's responsible for bringing jewish people on the same land as muslims who were already there? europeans. Sure, there's always been some trouble there before, but they sure didn't help.

      Look up what the current Moslem texts say about the unbelievers.

      And what do they say? Have you ever read the Coran? I cannot comment since I have never read it and I'm not moslim. However, remember the crusade. It's long ago, but it shows that no religion can say it's better on these grounds?

    14. Re:Consistent and reasoned responses by DnA+Works · · Score: 1
      Why is it that I deserve an insult for everything you don't agree with?
      Perhaps it's not an insult against you but against the childish attitudes that I feel that you are embodying.

      Or do you feel threatened in your ideas?
      Little tip at no charge to you - this sort of argument makes you look small and ineffectual. You may want to minimize your use of it.

      That being said ...

      who's responsible for bringing jewish people on the same land as muslims who were already there
      Evolution? The Egyptians in biblical times? How far back in history are you looking? Not very far, apparently, as I was under the (possible) illusion that the Jews have been there as long as the Moslems. But hey, *I* could be wrong ...

      Have you ever read the Coran?
      Only excerpts (I have no interest in reading more) - the unbelievers are not people and are to be converted, by the 'sword' if necessary.

      However, remember the crusade. It's long ago, but it shows that no religion can say it's better on these grounds?
      Agreed. But then again, the Christians haven't crashed into any towers or exploded car bombs in busy streets lately of which I am aware.

    15. Re:Consistent and reasoned responses by jmv · · Score: 2

      who's responsible for bringing jewish people on the same land as muslims who were already there Evolution? The Egyptians in biblical times? How far back in history are you looking?

      Only ~50 years. You seem to think that the countries have been as the are for hundreds of years. That's not the case. Before World War I, there was only the Ottoman Empire, which was defeated and the US, UK and France divided the territory as they pleased. Israel (as we know it) didn't exist yet. It was only after WWII that they "gave" the palestinial land (how kind!) to the jewish people and Israel was born. The only problem is that there were people there: the palestinians. They lost their land, they lost everything. Anyway, I suggest you have a look at the history of the region. Even if it doesn't make you change your mind, it is something very interesting and insightful.

      Only excerpts (I have no interest in reading more) - the unbelievers are not people and are to be converted, by the 'sword' if necessary.

      Sounds a lot like crusades. Every (major) religion has this sort of things. Remember "An eye for an eye...", that doesn't come from Islam. Many people are trying to paint Islam as a religion of fanatics. That's not the case; well, no more than any religion (See pro-life extremists killing doctors, ...). The problem with the Israel-palestinian conflict is that the Israeli pushed the palestinians to a point where many feel they have nothing to lose. In those cases, expect the worse.

      However, remember the crusade. It's long ago, but it shows that no religion can say it's better on these grounds? Agreed. But then again, the Christians haven't crashed into any towers or exploded car bombs in busy streets lately of which I am aware.

      No, they killed thousands by the sword. What's worse it that those you "ordered" the crusades weren't "extremists", they were kings, and well respected people. That's much worse.

    16. Re:Consistent and reasoned responses by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

      Interesting how a conflict which has been going on for thousands of years can be caused by countries which weren't even in existance until recently.

      Idiot.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    17. Re:Consistent and reasoned responses by DnA+Works · · Score: 1

      The only problem is that there were people there: the palestinians
      The problem is that there were people there before the Palestinians; the Hebrew. I suggest that you might look at the ancient history; what you are suggesting is akin to the post-1776 Americans taking land from the English to give to the Native Americans. The latter *were* there first, the former just happened to be in possession of it most recently.

      Sounds a lot like crusades
      And every instance of Arab barbarism through the ages - but this isn't a discussion about which imaginary friend is better, it's a discussion about why this barbarous group of people is allowed to continue?

      Remember "An eye for an eye...", that doesn't come from Islam
      No, it comes from the Old Testament - there *is* a newer version. Most of you Arab apologists love quoting stuff from the Old Testament, while conveniently forgetting the "love your neighbour as yourself" New Testament. Nope, Islam is the religion that brought us the delightful concept of jihad.

      See pro-life extremists killing doctors
      Err, what 'religion' is this? Violent pro-lifers are as much Christians (remember the neighbor quote above) as the Palestinians dancing around over thousands of American deaths are true Islamic believers.

      The problem with the Israel-palestinian conflict is that the Israeli pushed the palestinians to a point where many feel they have nothing to lose. In those cases, expect the worse
      Again, that's your opinion. The Arabs are not against Israel occupying that ground, they are against the idea of a Zionist state altogether. They don't want the Isreali out, they want them dead. I don't blame the Israeli's for defending themselves against that kind of religion-fueled hatred.

      they were kings, and well respected people
      So, you're saying that the crusades (about 800 years ago) are similiar to the Bin Laden situation today - small fanatic groups killing others and inflaming the masses to cause others to be killed? Well, looks to me like that makes Christianity the more 'mature' religion, eh?

    18. Re:Consistent and reasoned responses by jmv · · Score: 2

      The problem is that there were people there before the Palestinians; the Hebrew.

      They were there 2000 years ago, and then they scattered all around the world. They sure weren't kicked out by the palestinians and that's the difference with native americans. If you leave an area and don't return there for 2000 years, does that allow you to kick (and kill) everybody there when you return? (If that's the rule, there's going to be a lot of action soon!)

      it's a discussion about why this barbarous group of people is allowed to continue?

      I won't even debate here, that plain racism.

      Remember "An eye for an eye...", that doesn't come from Islam
      No, it comes from the Old Testament - there *is* a newer version. Most of you Arab apologists love quoting stuff from the Old Testament, while conveniently forgetting the "love your neighbour as yourself" New Testament. Nope, Islam is the religion that brought us the delightful concept of jihad.


      First, may I remind you that this "old version" is still in use by judaism, while the "newer version" is used by islam. ...but that's besides the point. As for jihad, it is just the arabic translation of "crusade" and I am against both.

      They don't want the Isreali out, they want them dead. I don't blame the Israeli's for defending themselves against that kind of religion-fueled hatred.

      That's the problem with conflicts going on for too long. At first, they just wanted the Isreali out, but it slowly changed for the worse. It's sad, but unfortunatly human nature. Have you ever heard of Hebron? Population: 100200 100000 palestinians and 200 Israeli. There is a "curfew" that says that all 100000 palestinians have to stay inside during the day in order to protect the 200 Israeli that live there. Try going there for a couple years living like these palestinians do.

      As for this "religion-fueled hatred", try ask an Israeli if he thinks the palestinians should all be killed.

      So, you're saying that the crusades (about 800 years ago) are similiar to the Bin Laden situation today

      No, the crusades were much worse. They made a lot more deads and lasted a lot longer. Actually, I would consider them more as genocide than terrorism. Of course that was long ago, and some lessons have been learned, some not. But that was a bit OT anyway.

    19. Re:Consistent and reasoned responses by jmv · · Score: 2

      Interesting how a conflict which has been going on for thousands of years can be caused by countries which weren't even in existance until recently.

      May I remind you that all middle east countries were created less than a hundred years ago when the europeans divided the Ottoman empire. And all (most) the trouble there is now comes from there. The only trouble before there was before that was the crusades (europeans again) and the fall of the Eastern Roman empire (Constantinople->Istambul). The the *recent* trouble was caused by first, the abitrary division of countries (~1920) and then the creation of Israel (1945-1950?) by kicking the palestinians out.

      Idiot.

      Hey, thanks for showing your good manners!

    20. Re:Consistent and reasoned responses by nathanm · · Score: 2
      If (not the *if*) the actions came from Bin Laden, the U.S. has to realize that it is a "country that supports or harbors terrorists" in that it is the CIA that "made" Bin Laden, so he could fight the russians in Afganistan. The U.S. DOES support terrorism, as long as it is against other nations. Now that a U.S. sponsored terrorist turns against the U.S. suddently it becomes someone else's fault.
      No, we trained & equipped the Afghani Mujahedin to attack legitimate military targets, not innocent civilians. The Soviet Union military invaded Afghanistan in 1979, so we supplied the opposition with arms & training to fight the spread of Communism.
    21. Re:Consistent and reasoned responses by nathanm · · Score: 2
      Now, get a history book. Who is the most responsible for all the trouble in middle east? The allies (US, UK, France). They are the ones who divided the land arbitrarly, without caring about the people there. They are the ones who established Israel by taking the land of the Palestinians.
      The US was not very involved in the middle east when Britain & France setup their mandate systems and partitioned the land there.

      Also, the Palestinians have been offered a share of the land multiple times, starting in 1947, before Israel existed; again with UN Resolution 242 in 1967; and again in the last days of Clinton. They rejected it multiple times. Until a little over a year ago, the official PLO charter said they wouldn't rest until the state of Israel was completely destroyed. The Israelis have been willing to negotiate in the past.
    22. Re:Consistent and reasoned responses by nathanm · · Score: 2
      The the *recent* trouble was caused by first, the abitrary division of countries (~1920) and then the creation of Israel (1945-1950?) by kicking the palestinians out.
      Israel was created in 1948. The Palestinians were NOT "kicked out." They were offered to partition the land with the Jews in 1947, but rejected it.

      Jews & Palestinian Arabs coexisted mostly peacefully (except for the 1929 uprising & 1936-1939 Arab revolt, mostly against the British occupiers) from the turn of the century until the 1948 war when the surrounding Arab countries attacked Israel. Many Palestinians then fled Israel and became refugees in those Arab countries. They were not treated much better there, except Jordan, where they were offered citizenship. The other Arab countries kept them poor & in refugee camps.
    23. Re:Consistent and reasoned responses by jmv · · Score: 2

      Israel was created in 1948. The Palestinians were NOT "kicked out." They were offered to partition the land with the Jews in 1947, but rejected it.

      We canadians need a warmer place to live, so we're taking California and Florida from you. However, as an act of good will and generosity, we are offering partition the land with you. So we have a deal, right?

      Of course they refused! Who wouldn't? Also, note that Israel is quite good about security issues. See, they invade territory after territory, but that's only for their protection (like the 6-day war against Syria). Maybe they should take all middle-east... I mean... why take a chance?

    24. Re:Consistent and reasoned responses by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

      What, you think the Jews just moved in in 1948? I got news for you: they already lived there!

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    25. Re:Consistent and reasoned responses by sgtrock · · Score: 1

      Yup, we trained him and a lot of others to act as our proxies, primarily against Communism. Anyone remember a little thing called the Cold War?

      In addition, contrary to the beliefs of some misguided people, we have NEVER advocated the deliberate, wholesale slaughter of civilians by those proxies. They chose to do so on their own. Every last one that chose to do so was eventually abandoned.

      Yes, I know that our country has done things in the past that we can't be proud of. I'm also fully aware that over time, we have become far more humane in our target selection while at war. Schwartzkopf made a telling point the other night while being interviewed by Brokaw. During the Gulf War, we put troops at risk rather than attack possibly civilian targets. These bastards (his word, not mine) went out of their way to kill the highest number of civilians that they could. THAT's the difference between them and us.

    26. Re:Consistent and reasoned responses by nathanm · · Score: 2

      There were already ~300,000 Jews living in Palestine at the time. Israel wasn't who offered the partition, it was Britain before they pulled out. This was right after WW II & the Holocaust, so world opinion was heavily in favor of a Jewish homeland. Many Palestinians remained in Israel after the 1948 war & lived peacefully among the Jews.

      Israel has only invaded territories when they were attacked first, or about to be attacked in 1967. But, they have occupied land for far too long, and they've definitely built too many settlements.

    27. Re:Consistent and reasoned responses by jmv · · Score: 2

      Israel wasn't who offered the partition, it was Britain before they pulled out.

      I know, that's why (the thread started from that) I say that the europeans are mostly responsible for all the trouble in middle east (even before Israel, after WW I).

      Israel has only invaded territories when they were attacked first, or about to be attacked in 1967.

      For 1967, I think Syria looked for trouble. However, AFAIK (I may be wrong, though) just before they tried to invade Egypt without being attacked.

      But, they have occupied land for far too long, and they've definitely built too many settlements.

      That, I really agree with. Mostly with cities like Hebron where ~100 jews prevent ~100000 palestinians from living a normal life.

  46. Anyone else.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..find the current fortune cookie in rather poor taste? Yes, I know it a random selection, but it may be a good idea to kicker the selector over and check the next one isn't in poor taste for the next few days.

  47. Re:Seismic Observations (WTC - Impact & Collap by mkelley · · Score: 1

    If anyone looks at this, how does this rate on the rictor (sp?) scale?

    --

    m.kelley
    life is like a freeway, if you don't look you could miss it.
  48. S11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I noticed the date of the incident is September 11.

    This corresponds to the date of the demonstrations done against the World Economic Forum on September 11 a year ago.

    After searching on the Internet (google.com) a site turned up: www.s11.org. After going to the site I saw pages talking about plans in the future to go up against global coporations. S11 appears to be a group that harbors a strong hatred for global corporations and governments.

    One thing that struck me as unusual was one of the index pages had something written to the effect of "On September 11, 2000 at 9am we were successful in stopping the World Economic Forum." I found this unusual because on September 11, 2001 around 9am (NYT) the 2 planes crashed into the World Trade Center.

    Yesterday I did a whois (Internet) lookup of s11.org. There were a couple of unusual things about the whois record for s11.org. The record (at the time I looked at it) was created on September 11, 2000. The other unusual thing about the record was the expire date was set to September 11, 2001.

    I remember the contact for the whois record having a California address. A Los something city I cannot remember the name for.

    A few hours ago I attempted to go back to the s11.org site but was getting time out errors. After that I did a whois lookup on the same domain but the domain records had been changed. The whois record now shows a Last Update date of September 12, 2001 and is owned by a domain name squatter.

    It is quite unusal that the whois record for this domain name changed so suddenly at this point in time and is now owned by a different organization.

    Even though the site has disappeared, you can still see some cached pages of the original s11.org site by going to google.com and searching for s11.

    You can also see a graphic of the same 'global justice' graphics used on the S11 site at another site:

    www.channel6000.com

    One other set of unusual information that seems to indicate a well-planned attack are the relationship easily found between flight numbers of the hijacked planes and the date:

    The flights that were hijacked, from United and AA, were numbered as follows:
    11, 93, 175, and 77 11 = Yesterday 9+3 = 12 = Today 1+7+5 = 13 = Thursday 7+7 = 14 = Friday

    1. Re:S11 by cybrthng · · Score: 2

      http://groups.google.com/groups?q=s11.org&hl=en&rn um=1&selm=7YvU4.3688%247V2.158561%40newsread2.prod .itd.earthlink.net

      Interesting post about s11 efforts in groups.google.com.

      Sure is a strange group.. dunno if they're tied in, but one hell of a conspiracy theory

    2. Re:S11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ready. Set. Let the conspiracy theories begin!

    3. Re:S11 by Nate+Eldredge · · Score: 1

      Why are those dates unusual? Aren't domains usually registered for six months or a year at a time?

      If S11 does stand for September 11, then September 11, 2000, seems like a perfectly reasonable time to register it.

    4. Re:S11 by SiW · · Score: 2, Informative

      Interesting, but coincidental. The domain expiration was no conspiracy - it was a year after registration. The s11 group was formed to protest an Australian conference last year that just happened to be September 11-13.

      I'm more interested in the September 11th theories relating to the formal creation of Israel and the Israeli hostages taken on the same date at the Munich Olympics, but again they could just be coincidences.

    5. Re:S11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i dont beleive how paranoid some of you people are becoming, is EVERYTHING a conspiracy theory to you? Have some sense, that is just speculation and coincidence, today is the 12th, and i have yet to see any more actions... drumming stuff like this up is exactly what they would want, to strum up chaos among the citizens of the country! People dont need fear in this, but rather to cope with it and deal with this tragedy. Furthermore, I feel that the worst of this incident is over, and the healing needs to begin. The healing process also needs one important part: the swift and brutal retaliation to the people that did this: and to the countries that are harbouring terrorists knowingly, they are no better than the perpetraitors of this heinous act. Justice must come out of this, and in the end we will remember that no crime goes unpunished. I fear that in this apparant calm before the storm emotionally that people will really react a great deal when the number of those lost is revealed, people know the world trade center and pentagon were attacked, but all we know is casualties of firemen, which was about 300. That in itself is an incredible number, and it shows how terrible this act was, and what it caused to the people that were trying to help those in need among the fiery rubble that remained. My heart goes out to the many families that have lost loved ones, and to those who dont know what to do... all they can do is keep in mind that wherever they may be, that they should know that the united states of america will not take this lightly, and swift justice should, nay, MUST be served.

    6. Re:S11 by pegacat · · Score: 1

      Yup - this is a false alarm I'm afraid. I was at the S11 protests last year; it was a series of fairly peaceful demonstrations here in Melbourne, Australia, protesting against globalisation. There was a big world trade organization summit on at the local casino. Think a much quieter version of Seattle :-).

      As far as the site goes, it was set up a few months before Sept 11, 2000 to co-ordinate the various protest groups, street theatre, marches 'n stuff. It went pretty quiet after the demos, but may have got a little busier a few weeks ago as a small "remember S11" aniversary protest was planned (outside the Melbourne Nike store, I think).

      Anyway, s11.org is a pretty harmless group, mainly uni students and young social activists. So please not to be nuking Melbourne on the off chance we're harbouring terrorists :-)....

      --
      Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird.
    7. Re:S11 by R@Bastard · · Score: 1

      Also, the Pentagon had its' ground-breaking exactly 60 years ago on the 11th.

      --
      Mucous membranes are the part of your brain that, like, make you think about mucous. --Beavis
  49. another link by Maditude · · Score: 3, Informative

    Found this link on Slate:

    http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/visions/Publications/te rrorism.htm

    Written back in '98 apparently, it gives some good insight into plans for dealing with this sort of thing -- I suspect that the "monitoring" aspect of it will get a huge boost from yesterday's attacks.

  50. Re:Ambulance Chasing by ekrout · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Are you joking? If it weren't for mirrors of news stories, images, and video from the disaster, many people wouldn't have been able to find out what exactly happened. Every single traditional news outlet basically failed yesterday, and if it weren't for mirrors of such sites' data, we wouldn't understand the events of 9-11 as clearly.

    Do you personally feel that we should forget about what happened? I think we should all be reminded every day about what these cowards did to the United States, in hopes of rallying the troops, so to speak, against the perpetraitors.

    --

    If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
  51. Add a Red Cross Ad Banner by waldoj · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Over at nancies.org, we made a Red Cross banner and put it into rotation, which is (IMHO) even better than donating whatever paltry income that sites make from advertising these days.

    http://www.nancies.org/images/banners/redcross.gif

    Anybody is welcome to use it, of course. We linked it to redcross.org, but the Amazon.com thing may be better.

    -Waldo

  52. Dissenting opinions equal cowardice? by tester13 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For the record, I personally am not sure what the United States should do about these attacks. I do however think that some thought should be applied rather then just bombing everyone that moves regardless of civilian casualties.

    I live in Brooklyn NY, and I witnessed the second WTC tower fall yesterday from the sidewalk in front of my house. There is a Palestinian refrigeration supply store next door to my apartment. They were as upset about the attacks as you are. However, they also feared for their safety and elected to close there stores and go home for the day (as did all the stores in my neighborhood owned by Arabs).

    My point is that if we are to do something, it should be a calculated helpful thing to people, not just the obligatory military response. I'm not saying that a military response is not justified I just thing that calmness (i.e. not calling people cowards that disagree with you) should be the order of the day.

    Rudy Giuliani's speech urging restraint and togetherness was the right message.

  53. In memory... by IdJit · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In the aftermath of yesterday's gruesome terrorist attack, I'd like to recommend that we fly black ad banners on our sites for a few days in memory of the victims and their families.

    Our hearts and prayers are with them.

  54. People react the same to bombs outside the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you bomb innocents in other countries, as is the US habit after these incidents, they will most likely reason exactly like you, refuse to be "taught a lesson", and devote their lives to striking back at the country who attacked them.

    In fact, chances are some of those suicide bombers were produced in previous US and Israeli attacks to "teach terrorists a lesson".

    The proper Kaczinsky analogy is not "should we not have locked him up??" but "should we have bombed his home town?"

    ]As a foreigner living in the US, I feel I have to post this as AC.]

    1. Re:People react the same to bombs outside the US by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1

      The proper Kaczinsky analogy is not "should we not have locked him up??" but "should we have bombed his home town?"

      If Kaczinsky was being harbored in a particular house, compound, etc, then yes, they would be as guilty as he. It's called "conspiracy".

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    2. Re:People react the same to bombs outside the US by toast0 · · Score: 1

      what if it was known that he was harbored in a particular city, but not known exactly where in the city?

      would that justify bombing the city? or random searches? (we believe ted is in this city, and since you're in this city, lets check your house)

  55. Nasa Satellite Images of Smoke plume by msheppard · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Check here for Nasa images of the smoke plume from MODIS.

    --
    Krispy Cream is people
    1. Re:Nasa Satellite Images of Smoke plume by msheppard · · Score: 2

      The same site now has images from the Space Station. I wonder what it must feel like to be orbiting our world at such a time.

      --
      Krispy Cream is people
  56. two biggies... by davey23sol · · Score: 3, Informative

    FAA keeps flights down... looks like indefintely.
    http://www.cnn.com/2001/TRAVEL/NEWS/09/12/faa.flig hts/index.html.

    FBI thinks they have names of hijackers...
    http://www.theindychannel.com/sh/news/stories/nat- news-95625820010911-070921.html.

    --


    "Yes.. no matter what the culture, folk dancing is stupid." -MST3K
  57. Dont go nuts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First of all I would like to say that I believe that the people responsible for this should be skinned alive and dipped in a vat of lemon juice. But we also NEED to hear why this was done, if it was an act by insane religious zealots then nuke em, but if this was an act by someone with a legitimate gripe against the US then we need to ask ourselves "What are we alowing our politicians to do in our name?" This should be a call to all Americans that it is time to make our intelligence community accountable for their actions abroad, they have been warning us for the last 30 years and the entire American nation is to blame for this happening because we silently condone the raping and pillaging of entire communities in the name of American business interests.

  58. Re:Cowards agree by marcop · · Score: 2

    I agree completly. However, I would want our government to make sure that adequate evidence is first presented. Bombing terrorists groups now may result in allies viewing US actions in a negative fashion. If Bin Ladden is shown to have had a role in this then I would give Afganistan a brief time to turn him over. If they didn't then the US should "ride into town, and kick some bad-guy ass".

    I am glad to see Nato and many of its members stepping in with support for the US.

    http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/09/12/nato.us /

  59. It's Up To The Taliban, Really by Steve+B · · Score: 2
    If the evidence continues to build in the direction it has been pointing, the government of Afghanistan should be given 24 hours to decide whether it wants to be on the side of the community of law-abiding nations and hand bin Laden & Co. over to the US for trial, or whether it wants war.


    Their choice, and their responsibility, not ours.

    --
    /. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
    1. Re:It's Up To The Taliban, Really by jnik · · Score: 2
      If the evidence continues to build in the direction it has been pointing, the government of Afghanistan should be given 24 hours to decide whether it wants to be on the side of the community of law-abiding nations and hand bin Laden & Co. over to the US for trial, or whether it wants war.

      24 hours nothing. The Taliban was warned months ago that if bin Laden was connected to any terrorist activity in the US, Afghanistan would be held responsible. This has been reiterated over and over in the past 24 hours: the US will draw no distinction between the terrorists and those harbouring them.
      If bin Laden is confirmed as the culprit, there will be exactly zero additional warning before the US, NATO, and the world move against the Taliban.

  60. systems worked well, end of hijacking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because of the magnitude of loss, the common assertion is that security is too lax. For the sake of balance, I claim security is excellent. You can't prevent all acts of terrorism. You can only make it hard. There's no evidence that yesterday's attacks were easy. They were reduced to using little knives.

    The attacks yesterday actually are the end of hijacking. Up until yesterday, people on a plane could assume they would live through it by cooperating. Now, people on the plane will fear they'll die even if they cooperate, and be used to kill thousands more. Three guys with little knives won't be able to take over a plane full of passengers. They may kill many passengers, but the hijackers will be beaten into bloody pulp.

    Immediate reaction is to end curbside check-in at airports. Um. That wasn't the problem. End curbside check-in, more people carry luggage onboard. *That* was the problem.

    Yes, of course, let's be even more careful about airline security. But maybe the place to start is by hiring more and better people, and giving them better training and working conditions. (As opposed to curtailing freedoms and spending uncountable billions on worthless anti-missile systems.)

    1. Re:systems worked well, end of hijacking by ClarkEvans · · Score: 1

      Mod this one up.

  61. Harry Browne speaks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When Will We Learn?

    by Harry Browne

    The terrorist attacks against America comprise a
    horrible tragedy. But they shouldn't be a
    surprise.

    It is well known that in war, the first casualty
    is truth -- that during any war truth is forsaken
    for propaganda. But sanity was a prior casualty:
    it was the loss of sanity that led to war in the
    first place.

    Our foreign policy has been insane for decades. It
    was only a matter of time until Americans would
    have to suffer personally for it. It is a terrible
    tragedy of life that the innocent so often have to
    suffer for the sins of the guilty.

    When we will learn that we can't allow our
    politicians to bully the world without someone
    bullying back eventually?

    President Bush has authorized continued bombing of
    innocent people in Iraq. President Clinton bombed
    innocent people in the Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq,
    and Serbia. President Bush Senior invaded Iraq and
    Panama. President Reagan bombed innocent people in
    Libya and invaded Grenada. And on and on it goes.

    Did we think the people who lost their families
    and friends and property in all that destruction
    would love America for what happened?

    When will we learn that violence always begets
    violence?

    Teaching Lessons

    Supposedly, Reagan bombed Libya to teach Muammar
    al-Qaddafi a lesson about terrorism. But shortly
    thereafter a TWA plane was destroyed over
    Scotland, and our government is convinced it was
    Libyans who did it.

    When will we learn that "teaching someone a
    lesson" never teaches anything but resentment --
    that it only inspires the recipient to greater
    acts of defiance.

    How many times on Tuesday did we hear someone
    describe the terrorist attacks as "cowardly acts"?
    But as misguided and despicable as they were, they
    were anything but cowardly. The people who
    committed them knowingly gave their lives for
    whatever stupid beliefs they held.

    But what about the American Presidents who order
    bombings of innocent people -- while the
    Presidents remain completely insulated from any
    danger? What would you call their acts?

    When will we learn that forsaking truth and reason
    in the heat of battle almost always assures that
    we will lose the battle?

    Losing our Last Freedoms

    And now, as sure as night follows day, we will be
    told we must give up more of our freedoms to
    avenge what never should have happened in the
    first place.

    When will we learn that it makes no sense to give
    up our freedoms in the name of freedom?

    What to Do

    What _should_ be done?

    First of all, stop the hysteria. Stand back and
    ask how this could have happened. Ask how a
    prosperous country isolated by two oceans could
    have so embroiled itself in other people's
    business that someone would want to do us harm.
    Even sitting in the middle of Europe, Switzerland
    isn't beset by terrorist attacks, because the
    Swiss mind their own business.

    Second, resolve that we won't let our leaders use
    this occasion to commit their own terrorist acts
    upon more innocent people, foreign and domestic,
    that will inspire more terrorist attacks in the
    future.

    Third, find a way, with _enforceable_
    constitutional limits, to prevent our leaders from
    ever again provoking this kind of anger against
    America.

    Patriotism?

    There are those who will say this article is
    unpatriotic and un-American -- that this is not a
    time to question our country or our leaders.

    When will we learn that without freedom and
    sanity, there is no reason to be patriotic?

    ---

    Harry Browne was the 2000 Libertarian presidential
    candidate. You can read more of his articles at
    http://www.HarryBrowne.org, and his books are available
    at http://www.HBBooks.com.

  62. Thank you, Slashdot... by update() · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Yesterday, while at was work with no TV or radio, my primary source of information was Slashdot, both what the editors posted and what readers added. It has to have been one of the highlights of the site's history.

    Taco's notions of journalism can sometimes be almost as shaky as his spelling, but I think he and Hemos both have an excellent sense of what to do with the tremendous platform they have and they showed it yesterday.

    Three other random thoughts:
    First, when I went to donate blood yesterday, I was very touched by the number of people who rushed to help, and in particular by all the foreign students there. (Japanese, especially.) We may all have our differences, but it's good to see that almost all of us are basically on the same side.

    Second, and this is kind of out of nowhere, hopefully this incident will take some of the steam out of "anarchist" rioting. If you have honest objections to the IMF, World Bank, Starbucks or whatever, by all means protest, demonstrate, get arrested, but please start leaving it at that. The "black bloc" folks may think they're the ultimate badasses with their slingshots and gas masks, but yesterday should have made it clear that there's two kinds of people in the world and they're over here with us.

    Finally, and I'm aiming this mostly at myself but encouraging others to join in -- yesterday brought home just how insane it is to get enraged over whether one should say Linux or GNU/Linux or what Craig Mundie said about Linux. The world needs free software, it needs fair use of information but it doesn't need more hate. Certainly not over software.

    1. Re:Thank you, Slashdot... by Leven+Valera · · Score: 1

      It was surreal. The disaster, frequent updates of critical information, no spelling errors, wow. If only every story was treated like that. :)

      --
      Woot w00t w007.
    2. Re:Thank you, Slashdot... by ElDuque · · Score: 1

      Agreed. This was slashdot's finest hour. A little slow, but on a 5000 comment day, that's acceptable. And there were a LOT of good comments, especially in the morning. News links after news links....which were, of course, modded up so I would see them. Good work yesterday and before that to create this place.

  63. Different Views by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would be nice to get some different views on this situation. These people had to have been pretty pissed at something the U.S. did to go to the effort to pull this off and on top of that kill themselves in the process.

    1. Re:Different Views by Oswald · · Score: 1

      You are exactly right. They are extremely pissed. That doesn't mean that there is any possibility of a meaningful and useful dialog. The sad truth is that human life and politics sometimes come down to a conflict that is at its roots no more sophisticated than a gang war or fighting dogs. People start fights over territory and wealth (and the breeding opportunities that go with them), and to preempt same from their neighbors. Then it escalates.

      If that seems oversimplified, give yourself a few more years to ponder the news.

      Sorry to sound like a stuffy old man, but there it is.

  64. Sure everyone ELSE will be blamed by humblefar · · Score: 0

    BUT the stupid government policies.
    US government supported terrorists in Afganistan,
    Kosovo and Chechnia. They did not strike
    on Laden earlier becouse they hoped Afganistan
    would do damage to the countries in Central Asia
    One cannot have it both ways - with one hand
    suport terrorist acts that are serving us and with
    the other defend from those attacking us.
    US was involved in the business of "selective
    terrorist breeding" - very risky business if you
    ask me. That's is precisely why the government
    wants to *listen* to the terrorists - to prevent
    *only* those acts that are against us.
    Time to think people. Just get it firmly
    in your heads that with little childish tricks
    like this we are going to spoil this great country.
    A lot of the spirit have been already poisoned by media
    and entertainment industries.
    And I am not even mentioning the Mid East policies.
    People - think, vote and fix your government.

    1. Re:Sure everyone ELSE will be blamed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody seems to listen to reason. Even at
      Slashdot. They all seem to be busy moarning
      and looking for someone they eventually could nuke.
      The masses are stupid. Even when shining up at /.

  65. Skyrocketing Gas Prices by Brownstar · · Score: 3, Offtopic

    I know this is off topic for this story, I posted this info on the story about gas prices but with the 700+ +2 comments I doubt many people saw it.

    On the radio in to work today they were interviewing Michigan's Attorney General, Jennifer M. Granholm, about the sharp raise in gas prices. According to the major gas distributors, the price of gas at the retail level should NOT be affected. Any gas stations that have raised their prices significantly are doing so illegally.

    She encouraged everyone that drives past gas stations, in Michigan, that have raised their prices greatly to report it to the attorney general website so that they can take action against said gas stations.

    She also said to remember which gas stations are doing it and never by gas from them again.

    I am also sure that the Attorney Generals of other states will also be looking in to similar cases in their states. The url for your state's attorney general is www.ag.state.$state.us and replace $state with your 2 letter abreviation.

    1. Re:Skyrocketing Gas Prices by tdrury · · Score: 2

      Firstly - to the crack-head moderator - how is this offtopic? It is a direct repercussion of the attack.

      To the original poster - raising the price of gas is not illegal unless the area is in a state of emergency usually declared by the Governor. Here is a link in my home town about possible price gouging.

      It is, however, amoral. I would love to see people take pictures of the price signs and the stores to be posted on the web as a "Hall of Shame" of selfish cretins that would take advantage of one of the worst disasters in American history. I would never, ever, buy from them again and pass the word along.

      -tim

    2. Re:Skyrocketing Gas Prices by Brownstar · · Score: 2

      While I'll admit I don't know the actual laws behind it. Michigan's Attorney General said it had something to do with a Consumer Protection Laws. And that her office would be taking in complaints and looking at possible legal action because of the gouging.

    3. Re:Skyrocketing Gas Prices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      St. Louis Post Dispatch had an article relating to this including a statement from the Missouri State AG - who stated in an interview on KMOX (a local Radio Station) yesterday evening that price gouging was in direct violation of MO state law. Here is a link http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/ news/862569F9005CA6AA86256AC4007B014B?OpenDocument &highlight=2%2Cgas%2Cprices?opendocument&headline= Gas%20prices%20spike%20at%20some%20stations%3B%20u nclear%20if%20related%20to%20terrorist%20attacks

    4. Re:Skyrocketing Gas Prices by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

      Raising prices isn't amoral, it's a consequence of basic economics. Demand rises, so prices go up. Obvious. People panicked FIRST, and THEN prices went up. It's a vicious circle, but prices will come down in a few days. In the meantime, buy as little as you can, and let the fools who try to stock up get gouged.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
  66. Truth is flamebait? by MatthewLovelace · · Score: 0, Troll

    Whoever modded that post down can kiss my ass.

    --

    ******
    "What makes you think I care about your opinions?"

  67. /. Pulls Through by Milican · · Score: 3, Insightful

    All I have to say is thanks to everyone at Slashdot for doing such a great job. Not just the Slashcrew who kept Slashdot alive during tremendous traffic, but to the many contributors that make this place a great community of information and a tremendous resource to us all.

    When ABC, CNN, and FoxNews were down Slashdot was there to disseminate mirrors, other official and unnoficial news sites (BBC, etc..), and countless valuable info. I know the servers were a little stressed, but overall I think this is a testament to the planning of the Slashdot site (network, servers, admins, VA Linux, etc..) and shows how the major news sites can learn a thing or two from us nerds :)

    JOhn

  68. America by Peridriga · · Score: 2, Interesting

    An act of unthinkable and horrific violence was brought upon our citizens today. An act committed by cowards. An act of unthinkable magnitude. The media is wildly speculating the complete ramifications of this act. I assure you, the impact will be huge. At this point in time the Asian markets are opening at a 5% drop (The lowest level in 17 years). The fiscal impact is simply the tip of the ice burg.

    Money, lives, and property are not the issue of the day (in my opinion). I personally lost friends to this tragedy and I do not wish to lower the value of human life in any fashion. In America values, ideals, and our rights have always taken a precedent over human life, and this is simply another example of this.

    All that is possible must be done to bring those responsible to trial. The must be punished for their actions but, done in a legal and just way. They have infringed on the rights of countless 1000's but, this DOES NOT give us the right to remove theirs. I whole-heartedly support the death sentence for all (those responsible and those who harbor them) involved but, we as a nation must do so in a fair and just manner. If we do not do so, all the lives lost today will be for nothing. They (whomever they are) will have won and triumphed over us. They have wounded us and we will have struck ourselves the fatal blow. We cannot remove the rights of the citizens' (any citizen, victim or attacker) of this country. Doing so simple crumbles the foundation on which this country was built on.

    We as American's must understand that this will take time. Tomorrow we will not wake up and see the men responsible in custody. This is for good reason. The reason we do not act out in overt aggression is because our country was founded upon the ideals against those actions. We would put ourselves on the same level as the cowards responsible.

    Today at least 4 men gave their lives for a cause they believed was just. We as Americans may not believe people could do such a thing. What we must understand is that Americans do this everyday, and especially on this horrible day. So far at least 250+ men and women died attempting to rescue the victims of this act of terrorism. These are the heroes. We shouldn't speak of this horrid act; we should speak of the bravery of the countless firemen, policemen, and random people that risked their lives for the sake of saving another. This is the pride of America today. This is the silver lining to the horrid cloud that has settled over our cities.

    Tonight, America sleeps, scared and confused. Tomorrow I hope America rises with a sense of unity and strength. I hope that this will be the tie that binds men and women of all ages, races, sexes, creeds, and beliefs together to help build our cities and our spirit back up higher then before.

    Sleep tonight praying for unison of the American spirit. Let us not wake and demand blood but, demand justice and peace. This is what America stands for today in my heart and I hope this is what it will be when I awake from sleep tomorrow.

    God Bless.
    And may all those who perished today have their place in our hearts as martyrs for America and their place in heaven.

  69. Re:This means war. by MatthewLovelace · · Score: 0

    "kill their hateful god"

    Amen. And after we treat Allah to a truly justifiable deicide, let's deal with the other two members of the Triumvirate of Hell that has plagued the West for 6000 years: Yahweh and Jesus Christ.

    It's time to put an end to these mystical religions, they only lead to massacres.

    --

    ******
    "What makes you think I care about your opinions?"

  70. raving 'n ranting by ipinkus · · Score: 1

    It'd be nice to see the towers repaired but they're quite beyond repair now. So you'll see either some monument, or some majestic memorial skyscraper erected a decade from now. Depending on the course of the next few months though, you might see a museum of innocence there in the future.

    I mean, even if it wasn't Osama Bin Laden, the public will demand that all terrorism is wiped out. Much backlash to follow on both sides.. A museum of "Life in America before WWIII".

    In any case, I have to let it sink in that this is real. This is actually happening. Our brains just aren't wired to classify something of this scale as "real". I keep filing it under Fight Club-esque... bah I'm going to go pop some pills

  71. Classic Slashdot... by DrPascal · · Score: 1

    The end of the article looks like this (ONLY on Slashdot...):

    ---
    {snipped other really serious WTC article links}

    United Airlines Boeing 757-200 photos: United Airlines Boeing 757-200 photos"

    < Programming Linux Games

    ---

    That just got a laugh out of me.

    --
    DrPascal: Not the language, the mathematician.
  72. Mass Sentator Kerry says: "Rebuild the Towers" by ClarkEvans · · Score: 3, Insightful

    AT 12:55 in the Senate today Senator Kerry just suggested that we should rebuild the twin towers. He went on to say that this is the only adequate monument that could possibly be raised, a tribute to our democracy and capitalism. He said to those who would mark the new building as a target: "We have no shortage of tall buildings or monuments; this is not a question of targets, it is a question of our strength and of our national resolve."

  73. Re:Er..thats enough? by NetJunkie · · Score: 1

    Or maybe you could make your own news site.

    This matters to everyone in the world.

  74. This comes from a Canadian newspaper. by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 5, Interesting

    America: The Good Neighbor.

    Widespread but only partial news coverage was given recently to a remarkable editorial broadcast from Toronto by Gordon Sinclair, a Canadian television commentator. What follows is the full text of his trenchant remarks as printed in the Congressional Record:

    "This Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as the most generous and possibly the least appreciated people on all the earth.

    Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy were lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts. None of these countries is today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to the United States.

    When France was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who propped it up, and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris. I was there. I saw it.

    When earthquakes hit distant cities, it is the United States that hurries in to help. This spring, 59 American communities were flattened by tornadoes. Nobody helped.

    The Marshall Plan and the Truman Policy pumped billions of dollars into discouraged countries. Now newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent, warmongering Americans.

    I'd like to see just one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United States dollar build its own airplane. Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tri-Star, or the Douglas DC10? If so, why don't they fly them? Why do all the International lines except Russia fly American Planes?

    Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or woman on the moon? You talk about Japanese technocracy, and you get radios. You talk about German technocracy, and you get automobiles. You talk about American technocracy, and you find men on the moon - not once, but several times and safely home again.

    You talk about scandals, and the Americans put theirs right in the store window for everybody to look at. Even their draft-dodgers are not pursued and hounded. They are here on our streets, and most of them, unless they are breaking Canadian laws, are getting American dollars from ma and pa at home to spend here.

    When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down through age, it was the Americans who rebuilt them. When the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke, nobody loaned them an old caboose. Both are still broke.

    I can name you 5000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble. Can you name me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble? I don't think there was outside help even
    during the San Francisco earthquake.

    Our neighbors have faced it alone, and I'm one Canadian who is damned tired of hearing them get kicked around. They will come out of this thing with their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled to thumb their nose at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles. I hope Canada is not one of those."

    Stand proud, America!

    1. Re:This comes from a Canadian newspaper. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The company I work for just posted this site for people to discuss their feelings and try and make sense of how this kind of thing could happen.

      Here is the link to September Crisis.

    2. Re:This comes from a Canadian newspaper. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are totally wrong, America consistently denies outside help with internal cautasrophies. The fires is california when the Japanese offered to help, the SF earthquake, several countries offered their help but we turned them down. Dont make it sound like we are the only victims in this, America may do alot to help people around the world but conversely we do more to hurt people.

    3. Re:This comes from a Canadian newspaper. by Salsaman · · Score: 2
      He has a point, but he's wrong about one thing:

      "Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tri-Star, or the Douglas DC10? If so, why don't they fly them? Why do all the International lines except Russia fly American Planes?"

      What about the Concorde (British/French)? What about the airbus (European)? He is showing remarkable ignorance and disdain by making that statement.

    4. Re:This comes from a Canadian newspaper. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was from 1973 ... it just seems applicable now as then.

    5. Re:This comes from a Canadian newspaper. by egg+troll · · Score: 0, Funny

      God bless you! When we pave Canada into a parking lot for Buffalo, we'll bypass your home!!

      --

      C - A language that combines the speed of assembly with the ease of use of assembly.
    6. Re:This comes from a Canadian newspaper. by guygimli · · Score: 1

      He is actually showing his age. The text is from a radio broadcast done in 1973. It was well received by the Americans and a recording of the broadcast was a large fund raiser for the Red Cross. A history and the recording are available here http://www.rcc.ryerson.ca/ccf/news/unique/american .html

    7. Re:This comes from a Canadian newspaper. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Airbus got started by disassembling a Boeing 727. That's not to say they are clueless - Airbus is a consortium of European aerospace companies who were/are very capable of designing aircraft. Just that they "caught up" to Boeing in the commercial airliner business in the 70s by reverse engineering.

      Concorde is financially unviable. The amount of fuel it consumes plus the small passenger load requires ticket prices on the order of US$5,000 per passenger just to break even on a trans-Atlantic flight. The noise it generates has banned it from all but over-water routes. Boeing was developing a supersonic airliner (the SST) at the same time as Concorde, but dropped it when they figured out it would be unprofitable. British Airways and Air France (and only those two) continue to operate Concorde because of the the symbolic stigma attached to having the "fastest commercial aircraft in the world" in their fleet. I'm willing to bet both companies have been operating the planes at a loss for decades.

    8. Re:This comes from a Canadian newspaper. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sheesh... people, please check your sources before posting! The article is interesting, but it has nothing to do with current events! As a previous poster commented, the article is from 1973. Gordon Sinclair died in 1984. Check out:

      The full, original script
      Information on Gordon Sinclair

    9. Re:This comes from a Canadian newspaper. by Hard_Code · · Score: 2

      "I'd like to see just one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United States dollar build its own airplane. Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tri-Star, or the Douglas DC10? If so, why don't they fly them?"

      Um, yes. European countries have plenty of their own planes. Maybe you forget that the Concorde is French? And if I recall correctly, the successor to the 767 is being designed by a European company (yeah, there is an American competitor, but I think the Europeans were first).

      "Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or woman on the moon?"

      Because it is a FOOLISH WASTE OF MONEY. Other countries have better things to spend their money on then one-upping the Soviet Union.

      --

      It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
    10. Re:This comes from a Canadian newspaper. by catscan2000 · · Score: 1

      Well, the Eurpoean Union has Airbus, and many airlines in Eurpoe fly those in addition to Boeings. Even American Airlines has some Airbus airplanes laying around somewhere (mostly Florida, if memory serves me correctly).

    11. Re:This comes from a Canadian newspaper. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For fucks sake, MOD THIS UP!

    12. Re:This comes from a Canadian newspaper. by 4thAce · · Score: 1

      ...from way back in 1973 according to this page [pigdog.org]. That explains why the author (who passed away in 1984!) seems not to have heard about the Concorde or Airbus.

      I did the google search myself and found the same huge number of copies of this same editorial.

      Disclaimer: I am not a Canadian. Nor am I a jingoist.

      --
      Inventor of the LOLbalrog meme.
    13. Re:This comes from a Canadian newspaper. by Karn · · Score: 1

      Unlike most of the posts on here, yours made me feel good :)

      Thank you for for once pointing out some of the good things our country has done. I guess it's only natural for other people to focus on the negative things the US has done.. Thanks.

      --


      Why do I keep typing pythong?
    14. Re:This comes from a Canadian newspaper. by Karn · · Score: 1

      Out of curiosity, are they still flying that thing around? Didn't airlines quit using it after a crash or two? I seem to recall that happening.

      --


      Why do I keep typing pythong?
    15. Re:This comes from a Canadian newspaper. by unitron · · Score: 2

      It actually made it into the Billboard Top 100, perhaps even the top 40, but it's been awhile since I had the Whitburn book handy.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    16. Re:This comes from a Canadian newspaper. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...

      Um, really, last I checked, Canada regularly sends down emergency teams to the USA whenever a big disaster strikes.

      ...

      Or, does that not count?

    17. Re:This comes from a Canadian newspaper. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      for all the wise asses lining up to do the opposite of what this article suggests, it was written in 1973 in response to post viet-nam anti-american sentiment.

    18. Re:This comes from a Canadian newspaper. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      my God, I cant believe this total spout of untruths, distortions of facts and utter
      biggotry...not too mention ignorance!

      No Wonder yanks dont like Canadians ;-)

  75. Re:Ambulance Chasing by Dashslot · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    I don't think anybody is going to forget this happened.

    I do think that nobody is going to see that web page before knowing anything about this tragic incident. Putting up a web page a day later isn't telling anybody what has happened.

    And lets be honest. If you want news you either turn on the TV, listen to the radio, or read the newspaper, read any of the above's websites, or speak to someone who has.

    Not go to some guys website who has a macabre collection of pictures taken from the aforementioned sites. As I said before, Ambulance chasing.

  76. The Response Must Be Methodical by Bookwyrm · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I see many folks advocating the immediate violent retaliation response, even before evidence is gathered and proof is assembled to identify the culprits. This is foolishness.

    The people behind the attacks obviously had excellent planning and coordination, and were totally dedicated. The response has to have better planning and better coordination, and be just as dedicated (though not to the point of suicidal attackers.) Knee-jerk reactions against an enemy that has demonstrated such ability to plan are foolish -- the enemy may already have planned for them -- and nothing would look as foolish as throwing military might around only to miss time after time.

    Reflexive, violent reactions are why a matador wins over a bull in a bull fight, despite the bull's larger size and greater strength. The attackers have demonstrated they have skill, planning, and patience enough to manage this attack -- the response *must* be just as planned and methodical to prevent them from doing any more.

    This does not mean a nice response, this just means it must be an *effective* response.

    There is more to this than just trying to find the leader behind the attack. The entire organization must be rooted out -- I would prefer to see that done first, in fact, so that the leader behind this can see that nothing of the organization, nothing he was in charge of, none of the people he led or trained will be left to survive his execution, that there will be no legacy left behind, while we rebuild and continue on.

    1. Re:The Response Must Be Methodical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I see many folks advocating the immediate violent retaliation response, even before evidence is gathered and proof is assembled to identify the culprits. This is foolishness.

      You are confusing three separate issues:

      1. Should there be a violent response?
      2. What should the target be?
      3. What should the plan be for the attack?

      It may be foolishness to discuss the second and third at this time, and it would certainly be foolishness to publicly disclose the anser to the third. But it is perfectly reasonable to discuss the first.

    2. Re:The Response Must Be Methodical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      generally the matador wins becoause of the 23 other men and horses with him, he does the kill, but the poor animal has been tormented and tortured by lots of "backup" before his grandstanding

  77. It's time for some religious INtolerance by Loundry · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    In World War II, the Japanese culture and the Japanese religion were the same thing. The Japanese thought that they were the supreme race, and that their emporer was a god. They treated the rest of population of Asia like they were mongrel scum and committed horrendous atrocities to those people.

    When the Japanese surrendered to the US, we (the US) basically rebuilt their country. Part of that involved discrediting their false and evil religion. We paraded their emporer around the country and allowed the citizens to touch him, proving that they could touch the emporer and survive.

    I think it's time we do the same thing with these so-called "rogue nations." I'm not arguing that Islam is evil, but the type of "Islam" that these terrorists follow most certainly is. They are inspired and driven by their evil religion to murder and injure innocent civilians. I have no tolerance for any religion that teaches its followers to murder and maim innocent civilians.

    If we want to stop Islamic terrorists, then we need to discredit their false and evil religion. I know this sounds like heavy flamebait, and before you moderate it as such, please attempt to understand my argument that the "Islam" that these terrorists follow is an evil and murderous religion. Thousands of innocent civilians are dead becuase of that religion. Islam is not inherently evil, but that does not mean that there aren't some sects of Islam that are. Just like there are some sects of almost any religion that are.

    --
    I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
    1. Re:It's time for some religious INtolerance by Leven+Valera · · Score: 1

      *cough*

      I'm sure a lot of you have heard of jihads. Give me a minutes here.

      A jihad is a holy war. Anyone who believes in the jihad, in the cause for the jihad, and loses their life for the cause, instantly goes to Paradise, passport approved by Allah. It's a harsh religion [remember hands being cut off for theft?], but it is necessary. Keep in mind that this is the Middle East, one of the most difficult and inhospitable areas on the planet. It's mostly desert, and life is tough. You need tough laws and guidelines.

      Terrorists love Islam, because once you declare a jihad, it's very hard to take it back.

      Christianity was much worse in terms of fanaticism. Remember the Crusades?

      --
      Woot w00t w007.
    2. Re:It's time for some religious INtolerance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not one or other religion that teaches to murder and maim innocents. Islam is a quite OK religion, if you think of what it asks from their followers. I've met some muslims, and they're as fanatic as you or me.

      The yihad is something that exists in the Islam, but it's not like "make war with everyone that thinks differently". Remember that muslims have been, ever since Islam appeared, great travelers and traders. They wouldn't be like that if their religion told them to smite everyone in sight :-)

      BTW, Christians comitted awful crimes in the Crusades. Things like stabbing babies and raping anything with two legs. But surely you're of some christian-related religion, aren't you? (I'm just guessing; I'm not saying it's bad or whatever :-)) Is it a "bad" religion?

      To short it out: it's not about religions, it's about radical people. That people would be evil whichever their religion were.

      Xouba,

      who's always happy to meet people that think differently :-)

    3. Re:It's time for some religious INtolerance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



      Explain to me exactly what makes thier religion any more false than yours? The president last night was on TV quoting books of mythology, and a newscaster on CNN actually said something along the lines of "even those that don't believe in God, need to believe at a time like this." well I dont think so. I don't believe in any of that silly mythology and I think it is equally invalid on all sides. And both the president and that newscaster (I turned before I could catch who it was) offended me last night. If someone can explain one good thing "praying" for those that died will do maybe I would have more respect for all your nonsensical beliefs, but I don't see how that can possibly help those people, and I know for me pretending to talk to some deity certainly isnt going to help.

      </rant>

    4. Re:It's time for some religious INtolerance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But right now it is America that thinks it represents the last bastillion of democracy and freedom. That is why it is so so hated.

      In the end the Japanese as a society did not think that they were superior, but they are a very patriotic race, and they band together much better than most western civilizations, some willing to do anything for Japan. However, the imperialists that came to power in Japan wanted to conqueor, and understandably, the Japanese people obeyed blindly.

    5. Re:It's time for some religious INtolerance by Merk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm a citizen of both the US and Canada, and I draw a different conclusion here. If you asked around the world today and said "what country thinks they are the supreme country and their president is the most powerful man in the world", most people would point to the US. If you asked "which country treats the population of the rest of the world like mongrel scum and commits horrendous atrocities on those people", many people would point to the US.

      Maybe this will finally wake the people of the US up to the fact that even the most friendly neighbors (Canada and Mexico) are often pissed off at the way the US treats the rest of the world. "The American Way" is not the only way, and isn't the same as "the right way".

      Even the fact that you suggest that somehow the US might have the option of enforcing it's views on which religions are "A-OK" and which are "unamerican" shows the kind of arrogance the rest of the world can't stand.

      The destruction of the WTC and the Pentagon were horrible tragedies, but they were the direct result of the US pushing the rest of the world around with its monetary and military might.

      Instead of asking "who can we kill to avenge this?", maybe you should ask "why would someone hate us enough to do this?"

      Bye bye Karma, but this rant was necessary.

    6. Re:It's time for some religious INtolerance by remande · · Score: 2
      If I'm reading you correctly, you are saying that there is "Terrorist Islam" and "Mainstream Islam".


      Do you really think that you can discredit Terrorist Islam?


      The Romans couldn't discredit Christianity, even when they used their followers as streetlamps and lion food.


      We can't even discredit Scientology!


      I don't think that this will work.

      --

      --The basis of all love is respect

    7. Re:It's time for some religious INtolerance by Loundry · · Score: 1

      Do you really think that you can discredit Terrorist Islam?

      Yes. That's what we did to the Japanese religion, and it worked. I don't think that the faith of Islamic terrorists is any stronger or weaker than the faith of the Japanese citizens. I think something about having your country owned by another is naturally faith-shattering, particularly when one's faith is joined at the hip with military might. That's something that Islamic terrorists have in common with the Japanese of WW2.

      The Romans couldn't discredit Christianity, even when they used their followers as streetlamps and lion food.

      Torturing followers will not work: religious extremists love to be persecuted. They feel like it makes them right! Go over to WorldNet Daily and view the daily links there which read, "Christian persectuion: Learn the TRUTH." But showing people that their religion is false will work. I'm not familiar enough with fundamentalist Islam to know how this is best done, but there must be a way.

      We can't even discredit Scientology!

      I don't think we've hardly tried! Remember, the discrediting of the Japanese religion was a military effort, and it worked. Let's not give up before we've tried. We've done it successfully before and I think we can do it again. The lives of innocent civilians depend on it.

      --
      I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
    8. Re:It's time for some religious INtolerance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The civilian's that starve and die in iraq because the usa is not allowing the people iraq to sell there oil at a fair price. But giving them rations in exchange for oil, which do not allow all the people to eat. Now seeing the suffering has made the terrorist angry towards the usa, which might have something to do with this situation. There are many other situations like this some worse and some better but usa has hurt allot of people. They to want revenge but they are not as powerful as the usa and cant declare war. So they become terriosts, to get the revenge or justice as president Bush put it.

    9. Re:It's time for some religious INtolerance by Loundry · · Score: 1

      Terrorists love Islam, because once you declare a jihad, it's very hard to take it back.

      I agree: the source of the evil is the religion. This is why we need to discredit the religion. We did this to the Japanese and we need to do it to the Afghanis as well.

      Christianity was much worse in terms of fanaticism. Remember the Crusades?

      Of course I do! I don't mean to exonerate Christian fanatics by condemning Muslim fanatics. It just so happens that Muslim fanatics happened to just attack the US in the worst terrorist attack ever, so they're getting the brunt of my ire.

      --
      I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
    10. Re:It's time for some religious INtolerance by Loundry · · Score: 1

      If you asked "which country treats the population of the rest of the world like mongrel scum and commits horrendous atrocities on those people", many people would point to the US.

      You're absolutely right: our "selective policeman of the world" policy has earned us the hatred of millions.

      Maybe this will finally wake the people of the US up to the fact that even the most friendly neighbors (Canada and Mexico) are often pissed off at the way the US treats the rest of the world. "The American Way" is not the only way, and isn't the same as "the right way".

      But you must admit that while many countries hate the American way, they also eat it up. The French are notorious for this: they claim to hate Levis and McDonalds and Coca-Cola, but they still consume it anyway. There are many reasons why people hate Americans, and not all of them are valid or justified.

      Even the fact that you suggest that somehow the US might have the option of enforcing it's views on which religions are "A-OK" and which are "unamerican" shows the kind of arrogance the rest of the world can't stand.

      Except that it wasn't arrogance which blew up the world trade center. It was terrorism. Terrorism that teaches people to maim and murder innocent civilians. It is not arrogant for me to say that a religion that teaches those things is evil. A person can't hide behind "religious tolerance" in order to kill innocent civilians, and it's insane to suggest I am "arrogant" for believing that.

      The destruction of the WTC and the Pentagon were horrible tragedies, but they were the direct result of the US pushing the rest of the world around with its monetary and military might.

      First, this is not true. The hatred comes from a combination of things, not just the actions of the US, and not the least of which is the belief in an evil, violent, murderous religion. Second, even if it were true, it would not justify the killing of thousands of innocent civilians. You act as if this is "eye for an eye," and it is not.

      Instead of asking "who can we kill to avenge this?", maybe you should ask "why would someone hate us enough to do this?"

      I never advocated killing anyone. I advocate the destruction of evil religion. And it is the evil religion that is advocating killing people, and innocent civilians at that.

      Bye bye Karma, but this rant was necessary.

      Perhaps you thought it was necessary, but your argument is largely centered around "You're an arrogant American asshole." That argument is getting very old, and very tired. Americans don't have a monopoly on arrogance. I do not excuse our meddling in the sovereignity of other countries for any reason except when they attack us. I am a Libertarian and I despise what the Republicrats did in Central America in the 1980s.

      Muslim fundamentalists think Americans are literally from the Devil. They hate us and want to kill us. The hatred, violence, and murder comes from the religion, and that's why the religion needs to be destroyed. I don't think my argument is unfair or illogical. Please don't attack me; attack my argument. You will get much father with me that way!

      --
      I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
    11. Re:It's time for some religious INtolerance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "And both the president and that newscaster (I turned before I could catch who it was) offended me last night."

      Oooh, you were offended. Poor you. Now the rest of the world doesn't give a shit about if you're offended or not. Your being offended doesn't harm you one bit--and you sit around lashing out at what gives people comfort in the face of the death of thousands. Maybe you could show a little respect even in the face of your own blatant hatred of religion. Especially this religion that has helped America become the nation that it is.

    12. Re: It's time for some religious INtolerance by Inthewire · · Score: 1

      Nomadic punishments often substitute physical punishment for incarceration. It's hard to build prisons out of tents. Not that this is as relevant today as it once was...just thought you'd like to know the source of the rules.

      --


      Writers imply. Readers infer.
    13. Re:It's time for some religious INtolerance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I belive you people do not make diffrence between
      Jihad ("The Holy War in The Name of God The Allmighty")
      and terrorism.

      Here are some links for you to read about Jihad
      and compare it to terrorism. Jihad is more restricted
      than any war that was not Jihad.

      In Jihad civilians are not allowed to be killed,
      not even the plants. Jihad cannot be started to
      take over some country, it can only be started in
      selfdefence.

      Before you ignorant people accuse muslims for
      terrorism, and accuse Islam being wrong, go read
      what Jihad and Islam is.

      -
      Jihad
      Jihad 1
      Jihad 2

      It's the terrorists who are to be attacked. It doesnt
      matter in what name they do it.

    14. Re: It's time for some religious INtolerance by Leven+Valera · · Score: 1
      Nomadic punishments often substitute physical punishment for incarceration. It's hard to build prisons out of tents. Not that this is as relevant today as it once was...just thought you'd like to know the source of the rules.


      I didn't know that. Makes a lot of sense, though.
      --
      Woot w00t w007.
  78. I read it was $750 million, and would cost $1.5 billion today.

    That is a lot, but with (I estimate here) 100 million taxpayers in the US, we are looking at $15 a head.

    A small price to pay to help show the world we will not be cowed by terrorism.

    Many people (Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, and others) could even actually pay for such a thing with their own personal funds, as mind boggling as that may seem.

    It can be done.

    We might also want to consider sending a few billion dollars to Israel.

    --
    Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    1. Re:WTC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      on the israel front, i think no. we should be as scrupulously neutral as possible. i sympathize with both sides in this war, but sending them money to continue it will only delay their coming to terms with the fact that they have to fucking grow up and learn to live with each other! we should not subject ourselves to further terrorist action by getting involved in other people's religious wars!

    2. Re:WTC by sulli · · Score: 1

      $1.5B? No problem. It's half what we send to Israel each year (to your other point).

      --

      sulli
      RTFJ.
    3. Re:WTC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI, depending who's counting, the US sends between $3 and $9 Billion to Isreal per year. That only counts government subsidies -- there's also considerable private donation.

    4. Re:WTC by Ben+Hutchings · · Score: 2

      The WTC was insured for that full amount. Hopefully terrorism was not on the list of exclusions.

  79. "This was an attack against freedom". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    These are not freedom fighters

    Sure they are. Firefighters fight fire, what do you think freedomfighters fight?

  80. Just clearing the rubble will take months to years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Empire State building took 2 years of cement trucks running every 15 minutes 24x7 to construct. Use this as a benchmark to estimate how long it will take just to clear the rubble of the World Trade Center.

  81. An Act of War by ctimes2 · · Score: 1

    An Act of War requires the appropriate response: War. This was the act of a terrorist, and of course requires that a declaration of war be handed to them - but how do you do that when they claim no nation?

    I'd like to offer a suggestion - All of them. This may be the act of one terrorist group, but in a very real way, all terrorist groups are to blame. The premise of a terrorist act is one part revenge, one part to call attention to their cause. It has worked in the past because no one has been able to 'draw an appropriate line' that shouldn't be crossed without consequence.

    We have plenty of intelligence on suspected or known terrorists. In kind, to this attack, we first declare war on ALL of them, and then declare war on those who harbor, support (financially or otherwise), or train these groups. Once war has been declared on these nations [of which I'll mention a few in a second] they receive the opportunity to have their nation removed from the declaration by handing over or providing evidence of the demise of those individuals we know or suspect of terrorist actions. Every last one of them. And until those requirements are met, that nation is at a state of war with the US and will suffer attacks at our hands.

    For those nations who have no intention of helping find these groups, we attack them first in full force and occupy their country until the conditions are met. Their major cities will be held under house arrest until the terrorists are brought to us for investigation, and punishment where a crime can be proven. Those nations who are hesitant will be next, and so on, until every nation realizes that to allow these groups to plan in their back yards, they risk occupation and war with the USA. The Muslims are not to blame, by the way, but there are those in power in these countries who have responsibility for protecting them (I'm sorry to say it, but Yasser Arafat has in the past and present protected known terrorists). They must be held accountable, and war is the only way to get that accountability.

    The offending nations for these terrorist acts are (short list) Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Columbia, Ireland (I know, who'd have thought? But they too have threatened America about our support of England, and bombed to get the word out - they are terrorists, and after yesterday, I have no sympathy for them), North Korea, and even our own country that allows known domestic terrorist factions to live peaceably while they plan. During a time of War, these people become the enemies of our nation, and our nation has a right and an obligation to defend itself 'against all enemies, foreign and domestic'. If this is to be their declaration of War against the US, then let it be War.

    Ctimes2

    PS - please don't think for a second that I _WANT_ a war, there is a very good chance I'll have to fight in it on the front lines. I'm a rifleman in the US Marines, and would much prefer to stay home and enjoy this country I love. But I find it very hard to see us still trying to figure out what's "appropriate" and "just" when my fellow Americans are being pulled from the ashes on our own soil.

    --
    My cube. My friend. My solace. My prison.
    1. Re:An Act of War by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So all of them are evil, huh? What about those terrorists who didn't like the way England treated their colony, and made the country you now defend? How do you know, from what we see in our cozy living rooms on CNN, who's right and who's wrong?

    2. Re:An Act of War by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      But I find it very hard to see us still trying to figure out what's "appropriate" and "just" when my fellow Americans are being pulled from the ashes on our own soil.


      You cannot justify arbitrary violence with more violence, especially against potentially innocent people. If the USA were to unilaterally decide to murder every known and "suspected" terrorist, you will have to take out a significant number of AMERICAN CITIZENS. Are you willing to "temporarily suspend" their civil rights for this action? If so, how long before some other incident deems the same action necessary? And again? And again? You are on a "slippery slope", as they say. Tread carefully, if you give up your liberty for safety now, there is no going back without more bloodshed.

    3. Re:An Act of War by ctimes2 · · Score: 1

      Geez, I don't know, maybe because they blew up our buildings, with our people in them, on our soil. I may be watching from my living room, but I'm pretty sure those buildings didn't belong to those terrorists, or their people.

      Ctimes2

      PS - Those terrorists who made the country I now defend also had their buildings burned by England. If my government [now] was burning my buildings, I'd feel the same way they did. And that was an internal struggle. I suspect your point was that the IRA is also having an internal struggle, but they have in fact threatened the United States.

      --
      My cube. My friend. My solace. My prison.
    4. Re:An Act of War by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wasn't talking about *these* terrorists, I was talking about your blanket statement of killing *all* terrorists, and pointed out that things aren't so cut and dry. How can you be so sure every terrorist in the world needs to die? How do you know you don't agree with some terrorists? I'm most definitely for bringing the perpetrators of this heinous crime to justice, but blanket statements about most *anything* are almost always wrong. (well, except for that one ;)

    5. Re:An Act of War by ctimes2 · · Score: 1

      Like I said - it's not about justice. It's about defending our country against it's enemies. Civil rights depend on having freedom. When you strip one citizen of their freedom in order to protect the civil rights of another, someone has still lost their freedom. IF they're not a threat to the other citizens of the US, they're not at risk.
      Organizations like the Arian Nations, extreme factions of the pro-life groups, etc. are a danger to US citizens, and are known to have supported, planned, or carried out terrorist acts in America. They should be treated _not_ as Americans but as enemies of our nation, because they are. It's tantemount to treason. If you claim(on an ongoing an organized basis) that even one citizen of America is not worthy of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness for an arbitrary reason (race, religion, etc), you are an enemy of our nation.

      --
      My cube. My friend. My solace. My prison.
    6. Re:An Act of War by ctimes2 · · Score: 1

      [lol!]
      I didn't mean kill them all, I meant demanding they turn themselves in, get turned in by the countries harboring them or we invade to find them. In this way we secure those who would perpetuate violence for their cause. An action that extreme (and it really doesn't get more extreme than that) will undoubtedly result in more violence, but an action that extreme will also make the risks involved with supporting terrorist actions to high. At least that's my hope.

      I also believe that the cost of this action will be extremely high, possibly even the destruction of our country. But I also think that without it, the hope of America (liberty, justice for all) will be completely unachievable, we will have to live in a restrictive society out of fear rather than one of hope and freedom. And since we're a people who tend to believe in liberty or death, it seems to me a solution that would work.

      I know, it's extreme to the nth power, but nothing else has worked, and I don't think anything else will. So... let's be extreme.

      Ctimes2

      --
      My cube. My friend. My solace. My prison.
    7. Re:An Act of War by spitzak · · Score: 2

      The terrorists who bombed the WTC think that their "buildings were burned" by the USA (or by USA's support of Israel). It does not matter whether this is true of not: they feel it exactly the same as the American Colonists did. Trying to differentiate them is not that easy.

    8. Re:An Act of War by ctimes2 · · Score: 1

      Actually it is - we never bombed England. We bombed them on land we felt was ours. The Middle Eastern factions feel no such thing. They feel that we've delivered death to them, and are lashing out [or returning the favor if you want to look at it that way]. That's where it gets complicated (did we provoke them or not).

      Quite frankly, it doesn't really matter because this isn't about who's right, and despite our policies in the middle east, they are not trying to free themselves from us.

      It's about defending our country and countrymen from those who would do us harm. Yes, we've often been dirty sons-of-bitches to the rest of the world. But we must defend our own in any case if we're ever going to live free.

      Ctimes2

      --
      My cube. My friend. My solace. My prison.
  82. more pics by cetan · · Score: 2
    I just wanted to add my pics into the mix. These were forwarded to me so I posted them on my site:

    http://www.cetan.com/wtcpics/

    Thumbnails and large images.

    --
    In Soviet Russia...michael would be rotting in Siberia!
  83. The Long Tomorrow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Long Tomorrow ... some folks in the Middle East are cheering. For now.

  84. www.crystalflame.net mirroring lots of content by Fiery · · Score: 1

    I'm mirroring what I can at crystalflame. Hopefully this will provide some usefulness to y'all for getting access to these pictures.

  85. Idiot racists by jiheison · · Score: 1

    Thanks for making it obvious who the real threat to humanity is.

  86. Re:Ha ha... by unitron · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    What a shame you couldn't have been right there on the scene to experience it as up close and personal as possible.

    --

    I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  87. Re:US Imperialism and anti-US sentiments worldwide by Christopher+Whitt · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The thing is, the US can't win. If we don't act, then we are accused of "not caring about anything that doesn't happen in the US". If we do act, then we are accused of imperialism.

    Perhaps the rest of the world perceives the US to only act internationally for its own interests. This would explain the "can't win" situation. In other words, if the US only intervenes internationally when it will protect US economic or other interests, then the "they don't care, damn imperialists!" attitude may be justified.

    Think Afganistan, Kuwait, Sudan, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Central America and all the other self-serving and sometimes less-than-successful US actions internationally.

    I, personally, am not anti-US, but I think many of you Americans are quite blind to the justice of your actions around the world, at times. Kudos to the many posters who argue reasonably and encourage us all to see the many sides to this issue.

    Christopher

  88. Government involved in PA crash? by devnull_2k · · Score: 1

    This is what it seems to me. First of all, i watched this all day long. Mysteriously, the 8 planes, with 3 unaccounted for changed to 4. No mention was made to the other planes after about 1 00. We had a plane crash outside of Camp David which was quickly dismissed as a hoax (?). Personally, i think these planes (or if camp david plane never existed, at least PA plane) were brought to the ground by force. I've heard a number of people on the radio share my opinion.

    I read on CNN that a cell phone call made from the PA plane said that an explosion was heard, and smoke was seen. Where is that article now? I can't find it. I'm very suspicious about what went on.

    Don't get me wrong. If that plane was shot down, they did what they had to do. And don't get all defensive and American. CNN is a great news source, no question. I just can't find this article, and regardless of what you say, I did read it.

    1. Re:Government involved in PA crash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The mis-count was due to simple confusion. The "camp david" part of the story was most likely some reports guess as to the target nearest to the plane that crashed in PA.

      During the heat of the moment, there were probably many overlapping reports. Initially, they were all counted as seperate events, and only later did they figure out that a bunch of people were all talking about the same plane.

    2. Re:Government involved in PA crash? by DenisD · · Score: 1

      From yesterday from about 1 AM until 7 AM German time (which is GMT+1, should be 1 AM Eastern) German news tv-station "N24" reported repeatedly that the Pennsylvania plane was taken down by UASF fighter jets. The report was presented in a way a confirmed, unspectacular, every-knows-already way. It said that the plane headed for Camp David, or White House or AF-1 or whereever, was intercepted and did not respond to any orders, given by radio and visually. It then was targeted and shot down over an uninhabited area.
      This report could not be not seen again later than that hour nor was in any way corrected or relied upon.

    3. Re:Government involved in PA crash? by DenisD · · Score: 1

      USAF, that is...

  89. WArs without risks by aTMsA · · Score: 1
    Firstly i want to say that i mourn the death of all the people killed yesterday, and i want to make clear i don't think that terrorist acts like that one are justified. However, i want to place this incident in the light of the current international situation.

    Many months ago, when yugoslavia was being bombed, there was a lot of talk in the media and here on ./ about "easy" wars for the usa, where they only had to spend some money on missiles, and not any human lives(that is, american human lives). That was absolute nonsense, and now it shows.

    First, i want to tell those people that reclaim vengeance--"those who did it will have to pay for it"-- that the people who did it are already dead, they killed themselves willingly to strike hard on the USA. That is easily said, but you have to stop and think what kind of background a person like this one has, surely not a happy one with family and friends and material life assured, his life must have been very painful. Now I'm not telling you "poor terrorists, they had a very bad childhood", my poin is, where can you find people desperated like this, in great quantities(i think 20 is a great cuantity, for items like this)?

    In wars. Wars destroy the lifes of many people, killing friends, family, and destroying all that one loves, and leave people that has no purpose nor will to live, aside for venjeance, and USA has been waging wars in many countries on the world, be it lightning "surgical" operations, bombings, invasions, or comercial blockades(this is the worst slower way of killing nations, IMO). ANd have created a lot of people like this. Now one of these individuals alone may be incapable of doing anything by himself, but when he finds others like him, and organizes, he is the worst enemy, for he has nothing to lose.

    As I said first, there are no wars without risks, even when you are so tecnically superior that you're confident not even one of your soldiers will die battle, you are creating desperate people with thirst of vengeance, and what happened yesterday was something that while it could be seen clearly coming, hubris has veiled it until it happened. Now, there are dead civilians, american civilians, killed in a counterattack(who did it? dunno, too many enemies made during too many years...), still a mote in the millions USA has killed in other countries, but enough to show that there no are risk-free wars.

  90. SIMPLY KILL THESE BASTARDS by DA_MAN_DA_MYTH · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    s was stolen from the New York Post

    By STEVE DUNLEAVY
    New York Post
    September 12, 2001

    THE response to this unimaginable 21st century Pearl Harbor should be as
    simple as it is swift - kill the bastards.

    No, I don't mean hunt them, arrest them, extradite them and prosecute them
    in a court of law.

    I mean a far quicker and neater form of retribution for this cabal of
    cowards. A gunshot between the eyes, blow them to smithereens, poison them
    if you have to.

    President George W. Bush should right now be putting his name to a fresh
    document - one that rescinds Executive Order 12333, signed by President
    Gerald Ford on Feb. 18, 1976.

    It reads in part: "No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United
    States should engage in assassination or conspire to engage in
    assassination."

    Right for that time, wrong for this time.

    [You can sign an online petition urging repeal of this executive order by
    going to http://www.libertypetitions.com]

    Train assassins (we've done it before), hire mercenaries, put a couple of
    million bucks up for bounty hunters to get them dead or alive, preferably
    dead.

    As for cities or countries that host these worms, bomb them into basketball
    courts.

    No, it won't bring back the thousands of innocents and the brave cops and
    firefighters lost, but it might stop the sacrifice of other innocents.

    "This is an act of war of an enormity that is staggering," Sen. John McCain
    of Arizona said yesterday.

    Former Secretary of State Gen. Alexander Haig said: "We should be ready to
    take resolute action, which we have failed to in the past."

    The point is that Osama bin Laden has been at war with us for a decade -
    make no mistake, he's behind the attacks.

    At the beginning of the year, he issued a video to his followers urging them
    "to penetrate" the United States.

    Only three weeks ago, he was quoted in an Arabic newspaper saying he was
    preparing a big action against our country.

    He is the sole individual who has the billions of dollars, the training
    camps and the fanatics to have perpetrated this sophisticated bloodbath.

    Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich said yesterday: "This wasn't
    planned in a handful of homes by a handful of fanatics."

    When we put a rocket in the pocket of Moammar Khadafy, he went as quiet as a
    mouse.

    If the CIA can't find this ameba Osama Bin Laden, leave it to someone else.

    We should give the Taliban, which protects this monster, 24 hours to clear
    the city of Kabul of innocent civilians and then start the process of urban
    renewal with high-altitude bombing.

    Then we should go into the interior, hunt down the desert rat and execute
    him and his followers on the spot.

    And if Saddam Hussein makes so much as a peep, do him, too.

    The time has come.

    --
    "It takes many nails to build a crib, but one screw to fill it."
    1. Re:SIMPLY KILL THESE BASTARDS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So how, exactly, does this make us any different from them? We Americans are so quick to argue our superiority over everyone else in the world; but as soon as something tragic happens we turn into raving lunatics. How does carpet-bombing all of the Arabs bring back those who died in the WTC? Their whole section of the world has been in battle for as long as recorded history, you expect bombing them is gonna make them stop?

      I agree with you on the issue of assasination, there are times when it is the only way to do what needs to be done; but I don't like where you go from there. Assasination is a surgical strike against the person who wronged us so completely. Just bombing everything in site makes us no better than them.

    2. Re:SIMPLY KILL THESE BASTARDS by DA_MAN_DA_MYTH · · Score: 1

      You bring up a good point...

      Check out this link. The way to disable these nuclear bombs is to neutralize them. Take out there key to them (There scientists who learn how to use this nuclear capabilities). Also do you think that if we don't retailate they are going to say gee, we shouldn't use that nuclear weapon and not become a martyr for Allah because the US was nice enough to let this last action pass by... Bullshit. Get your thinking straight. Take out the bombs before they can use them.

      --
      "It takes many nails to build a crib, but one screw to fill it."
    3. Re:SIMPLY KILL THESE BASTARDS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd say that escalating the response is more likely to bring on the chance of worse atrocities. If you start acting in terms of zero-sum games.. your opponent will, too. Perhaps there's a reason that there've been no nuclear explosions in New York, and it's nothing to do with the intelligence services being vigilant (not that vigilance gave them much of a chance this time, but that's a different matter).

      Nuclear weapons are weapons of last resort not only because they're so massively destructive; there're not that many of them around. That, and whacking scientists isn't ordinarily hugely realistic; for all the gung-honess we've seen since the early 1990s, Osama bin Laden still lives. What chance do you think assassinating some scientist in the depths of Afghanistan will have? And precipitating a chain of nuclear events will, sooner or later, mean that there won't be much of a world left to fight over. I suggest you get your own thinking straight; whatever it is that these people are fighting for, it isn't just for a happy afterlife.

      The dick/flag-waving has to stop sometime.

    4. Re:SIMPLY KILL THESE BASTARDS by DA_MAN_DA_MYTH · · Score: 1

      Gung honess since the 1990s? I don't remember us reacting that much in the late 90s, here is one more link you should check out. Remember those years when the Lebanese were bombing our embassies and commiting random terroists attacks? What did Regan do? He bombed them into submission. You letting this get by shows that you don't mind these attacks going on, so AC show me a solution, and I will get behind it. I love people that critique actions or policies but never seem to give out their own opinions, those are the people that usually don't vote. :)

      I am proud to be an American, and if part of that is waving my flag or dick, it ain't going to stop. Deal with it.

      --
      "It takes many nails to build a crib, but one screw to fill it."
    5. Re:SIMPLY KILL THESE BASTARDS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok.. First things first. There was that little attempt at killing Osama ben Laden courtesy of some cruise missiles sent to a training camp, and sending yet more cruise missiles to what turned out to be an asprin plant in Sudan.

      Which Lebanese? Incidentally.. there was only ONE major anti-US bombing in Lebanon, and that forced the US out. The attempts to shell parts of Beirut from the sea afterwards were a classic example of pissing in the wind, and were recognised as such at the time. I'd suggest a reading of Robert Fisk's Pity The Nation, if facts were ever what you were interested in.

      American != Moron. American.Moron(), on the other hand...

  91. Does it really matter if Bin Laden did it? by captaincucumber · · Score: 1

    I don't. I think the lesson here is that we've been too leniant. We know he was behind other terrrorist attacks, we know the Taliban sheltered him, to me that's all we need to know to start the carpet-bombing. Ok, maybe not carpet-bombing, but every military and goverment building in all of Afghanistan should be blown out of existance. No distinction between terrorists and those who harbor them said Bush and I actually agree with him.

    1. Re:Does it really matter if Bin Laden did it? by fredbsd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, there is a problem with this.

      Please don't get me wrong. I agree we should bomb the shit out of those responsible. If it's Bin Laden, draw and quarter the prick.

      The problem is that there is resistance to the Taliban in Afghanistan. If we go and bomb everything, we will be most likely bombing innocent people in the process. Yes, I am aware everyone who died yesterday was innocent. And yes, my heart is in my throat as I write this. But we have to be selective and not start killing for the sake of killing.

      If it is Bin Laden, then we should give Afghanastan an ultimatum: give him up or else. If they don't, then go in blazing. Not the other way around. But this time, follow through!

      After this is over, we definitely need to review our foriegn policy vis a vis Israel. This is one of the biggest reasons innocent Americans are being targeted.

      There are innocent Afghans who probably would like to see the Taliban gone as much as we would. My fear is that we end up killing those people as well.

      -Fred

    2. Re:Does it really matter if Bin Laden did it? by Steve+B · · Score: 2
      The problem is that there is resistance to the Taliban in Afghanistan. If we go and bomb everything, we will be most likely bombing innocent people in the process.


      Well, then, if they won't give up their trash, take out their infrastructure to the point where a troop of Cub Scouts could overthrow what's left of the Taliban armed forces. That would hurt the guilty where they live (especially when the resistance got hold of them) and be beneficial or at worst neutral toward the innocent bystanders.

      --
      /. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
    3. Re:Does it really matter if Bin Laden did it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think carpet bombing is called for here. When barbarians kill your civilians, the only way to strike back is by killing theirs.

      These people breed and train from birth to death to destroy America. Just look at all the Palestinians chearing. I'm disgusted with the thought that I was actually feeling sorry for them. They're evil people, and evil people need to be killed.

      This is kill or be killed.

    4. Re:Does it really matter if Bin Laden did it? by fredbsd · · Score: 1

      What infrastructure are you referring to? Afghanistan has literally nothing left to take out due to the years of warfare in their country.

      The Mujahadeen are one of, if not the toughest fighting forces on this planet. While we sit here in the relative comfort of our homes debating what to do, these guys are in a constant state of preparedness. It won't be a simple matter of bomnbing them into oblivion. They are already there.

      -Donald (or Fred, take your pick)

  92. I hope you kept copies... by cr0sh · · Score: 2

    And forwarded them on to your nearest FBI office - you may have something, maybe, maybe not - but by your fuzzy recolection of the address on the WHOIS record, it sounds like you don't...

    :(

    --
    Reason is the Path to God - Anon
  93. nope by dalinian · · Score: 1

    I think rebuilding them wouldn't be such a good idea. I for one will never want to work in any place as central as this.

    Workers and offices need to be spread more evenly. It is impossible for terrorists to attack then, if everyone's working at home using the net.

  94. Re:Ambulance Chasing by ekrout · · Score: 1, Flamebait
    OK, well, you can blame me, as well as TIME, CNN, MSNBC, Slashdot, [H]ardOCP, etc ...

    You get the point. 99% of the people have thanked me for providing the resource; if you don't like it, I'm sorry.

    --

    If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
  95. Not only that, almost every channel showed news by Cletus+the+yokel · · Score: 1

    TBS, TNN, TLC, even Speedvision switched to non-stop news. This is unprecidented AFAIK.

    --
    Wanted: One witty yet thought provoking .sig - Apply here.
  96. Re:This means war. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have no problem with people having faith or even beliving in some god. My point was that certain basic tenets of their values are inherently incompatible with peacefully coexisting in a complex world. They must be assimilated and their children indoctrinated with Democracy and Capitalism.

  97. Boston Police raid!! Westin hotel! by Masker · · Score: 5, Informative

    AP is announcing that a police/FBI raid is occuring at the Westin hotel right now: Story HERE!

    --

    ---------The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

  98. Our Sentate -- Clouded In Talks of Revenge by ClarkEvans · · Score: 1

    I am listening to our Senate on CSPAN at this time. It is repetitive. Each senator talks of anger, fear, resolve, compares to Pearl Harbor. I hear talks of revenge, "they will pay the highest price", "make those who harbor these criminals comply", "The first attack will not be the last. We must prepare ourselves for the worst. And take this fight in places that we are not prepared." Not that these talks are bad; but they did not seem to be balanced with concern for democracy. They seem to be driven from rage.

    In particular, there was a complete lack of talk regarding our "country image". This is no longer the 70's when we could fund dictatorships with arms and money. We must be far more careful and use our money and power not to opress, but as a force of freedom. Clearly our behavior in the middle east could be much better.

    Put yourself in palenstinian shoes. Imagine your father being humilated in front of you (stripped and then walked on or something that stupid) and then shot with an American M16 with American Apache helicopters over head. What do these people begin to think? Imagine having to wait through a 2 hour check-point just to get to work, and then 2 hour line up on the way back; showing your id, randomally corralled and cavidy searched. Seriously. You would grow up completly numb. Completely without value. Irrational.
    Sound like our terriorists, hunh? What happens if we actually *made* those terrorists with our own actions? What do we have to say for ourselves?

    I say now is not the time for comdemnation, but a time for reflection. Let us not judge those less we walk in their shoes and drink from their cup. Let us not restrict the freedoms of others less we loose our democracy. Let us follow the doctrine of the second testiment, the god of compassion. Let us not give fishes, but teach those in need to fish. Let's stop being so selfish and self-righteous. Only when we have humility can we truly be in the position to defend ouselves to the world, and then we won't have to. Reasonably people will abhor talks of terrorism against the united states.

    Kind Regards,

    Clark Evans

    1. Re:Our Sentate -- Clouded In Talks of Revenge by remande · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Put yourself in palenstinian shoes. Imagine your father being humilated in front of you (stripped and then walked on or something that stupid) and then shot with an American M16 with American Apache helicopters over head. What do these people begin to think? Imagine having to wait through a 2 hour check-point just to get to work, and then 2 hour line up on the way back; showing your id, randomally corralled and cavidy searched. Seriously. You would grow up completly numb. Completely without value. Irrational.
      Sound like our terriorists, hunh? What happens if we actually *made* those terrorists with our own actions? What do we have to say for ourselves?


      If the above happened, then we screwed up, big time. And we must learn from this.


      I say now is not the time for comdemnation, but a time for reflection. Let us not judge those less we walk in their shoes and drink from their cup. Let us not restrict the freedoms of others less we loose our democracy. Let us follow the doctrine of the second testiment, the god of compassion.


      I am a Catholic, and I believe in compassion. That is why I feel we need to destroy those responsible.


      I do not ask for vengeance; that's not my call. I ask for whatever action is necessary to prevent this from happening again. Thus we show compassion for the next round of terrorism victims. If you can come up with a more effective way than rendering those responsible incapable of repeating their crimes, I ask you to speak up now.


      It's like police. You can sit there, and explain how the Man has beaten you down, how the government has made you into the menace you are. The cop doesn't care, because he does care about the civilians he is protecting. And whatever you say, all he wants is for you to drop the gun. Now.


      To some people, this is about vengeance and judgement. To me, this is about prevention. Protecting our civilians is what our military is for. To say that we shouldn't counter is to say that we should never have responded to Japan back in the forties, it is to say that we should let these people walk all over us.


      People will die. Innocent people will die. I will gladly kill a hundred to save thousands. That is Christian calculus.

      --

      --The basis of all love is respect

    2. Re:Our Sentate -- Clouded In Talks of Revenge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somehow, I doubt the Man you claim to follow would commit such acts of violence and take the lives of more innocent people. It's a sad, sad state of affairs when Christians rationalize this kind of behavoir.

    3. Re:Our Sentate -- Clouded In Talks of Revenge by remande · · Score: 2
      Somehow, I doubt the Man you claim to follow would commit such acts of violence and take the lives of more innocent people. It's a sad, sad state of affairs when Christians rationalize this kind of behavoir.


      More blood will be shed, no matter what we do. If we act, we may kill dozens. If we do not, others will kill thousands. Christians cannot stand by and watch evil occur. If the only way to stop a great harm is by causing a small harm, then harm we must.


      Christianity has never been entirely pacifist. The last days of Christ appear that way, but that was because Jesus knew that he was the one who had to die. When a Roman soldier asked Christ what he needed to do to enter the kingdom of Heaven, Jesus said nothing about leaving the army. He told the soldier to be honest and fair in his dealings.


      If it is Christian to abhor the use of military force, why does nobody speak out against good Christian nations holding military forces?


      All this being said, we must be very careful in our use. If we strike back in vengeance, we are likely to get full of ourselves, kill a lot more than the target, and both defy the will of God and create more enemies to strike back.


      If you know a way to stop this threat without the use of deadly force, please let us know. If you don't, ask yourself whether the Christian thing to do is to let them strike again.


      As Christians, we must forgive our attackers. As Christians, out of love for our neighbors, we must make sure this does not happen again.

      --

      --The basis of all love is respect

  99. CBC's idea, not ours by Smallest · · Score: 1

    i was watching CBC last night and they were playing up a "canadaian connection" (mostly about the guy trying to get from BC to WA in 12/99 and about the airline hijacking a year or so ago) - but none of the US networks that i saw even mentioned canada.

    -c

    --
    I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
  100. Re:Er..thats enough? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since when is civilization==amerika ?

  101. my questions about the attack by sds · · Score: 1
    Pentagon was hit 40 minutes after the second WTC. Why wasn't it protected by fighter aircraft at the time of the attack? 40 minutes should be enough to get f15 flying!

    other questions

    1. Re:my questions about the attack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      how far was the nearest air force base and how long does it take planes to get there?


      or


      conspiracy


      Perhaps Bush planned and funded this entire incident to force the United States to take a hard turn to the right, politically. Nothing like a big war to fatten up the coffers of the military-industrial complex!

  102. We MUST rebuild by Niles_Stonne · · Score: 1
    I am definitely for the rebuilding of the towers... Whatever they are replaced with should become an image of several things:

    Power. The power of our country, and it's ability to create superior technology.

    Remembrance. The new building should pay respects to those that died in this horrible incident.

    Perspective. We should not dwell on this for the rest of our lives...

    Peace. It needs to be a symbol of peace.

    Not sure how to get all that into a single building, but I am sure that it can be done.

    There is nothing that says that a building can not be a monument as well.

    --
    Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but copyright will always protect me.
    1. Re:We MUST rebuild by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure how to get all that into a single building, but I am sure that it can be done.

      Nice idea, but completely impossible. Why? Mainly because the power of the U.S. that you want to glorify is so at odds with the peace of the rest of the world. A lot of people on this planet aren't thrilled with the U.S. (Hell, a lot of Americans aren't thrilled with the U.S.) And they've got plenty of good reasons to. The U.S. has sponsored terrorism throughout the world for decades. So, for as much as you hear about Pearl Harbor, this isn't it. It's Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

      Taken in that context, the U.S. would, ideally, seriously reconsider its foreign policy. Realistically, however, this incident will likely mark the start of an age of nationalism, xenophobia, isolationism, and hatred unrivaled in recent history.

      ...or World War III and nuclear holocaust. Bush Jr. wants a war, just like daddy. So instead of rebuilding it, which is a ridiculous idea when looked at from any perspective but fanatical, perhaps it should be cleared out and covered over in a black glassy surface- much like what the surface of the earth will look like after retaliation after retaliation leads to nuclear annihilation. A monument to a future we'd hopefully like to prevent, if you will. And carve, in giant letters, in every language, some meaningful commentary on the situation. "Violence breeds violence" is nice and simple. "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" from Ghandi is perhaps better.

      Just something to think about, after everyone's calmed down. I'm just hoping everyone *does* calm down before this escalates into something much worse.

  103. Amen by Ars-Fartsica · · Score: 2
    Note that /. is filled with idiotic devil's advocates who feel there is some sort of intellectual accomplishment in sitting on the other side of the fence, regardless of how inane their position is.

    Remember that /. is more or less a place to pick arguments, and that is what I saw yesterday on this site. Please tell me how you can watch people jump out of the world trade center in saddened panic and then respond with the devil's advocate position.

    1. Re:Amen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those people are not playing devils advocates. They are fearing WW3.

    2. Re:Amen by hellsnail · · Score: 1

      America too, controls much of the earth standing on the same side of the fence as the people who perpetrated the wtc bombing. You must wake up to the reality of America's responsibility; many of us are.

      Friends--I urge you all--listen to what Noam Chomsky has to say. You will find nothing but affirmation of your current opinion within the popular media.

      Try this from salon

  104. Canada Is Entirely Responsible For This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There can be no doubt in my mind that Canada is the source of this great terrorist evil. While the rest of you are off blaming those in the Middle East, I think we should turn our suspicious gazes to the north. Here's why I think we should blame Canada!

    First of all, their rapid offer to help aid our wounded is clearly a sign of guilt. Their troubled consciousness for doing this to us prompted them to lend a hand. Not only that, it's clearly a tactic to deflect blame.

    Canada is responsible for several other terroristic attacks on the US. Don't believe me, eh? Was it not Canada that produced and then sent to us Celine Dion? How about Trey Parker and Matt Stone? They came from Canada and even to this very day, their efforts persist to corrupt and dirty the minds of our innocent children with foul language and toilet humor. They even ADMIT this in a feature length, Hollywood production!

    Look at those beedy eyes! Just look at them! Are those not the eyes of terrorists!?

    The Canadian Menace MUST be stopped, and at all costs! Otherwise, horrendous tragedies such as those we witnessed yesterday all across the eastern United States will continue. I urge our leaders to take whater actions are necessary! You want a huge glass parking lot in the Middle East? PAH! I say we flash their tundra regions to steam!

  105. NYC is not Oklahoma City by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look, the outpouring from Slashdot is nice and all but NYC!=OKC. We saw catastophe, we cried, and now we're trying to figure out when we can get back to our offices (mine is 7 blocks from the towers).

    Last night I went to a bar and while alot of us were glued to the TV and making phone calls, others were shooting pool and having an okay time.

    NYC prides itself on being tough-as-nails and kudos to Giuliani for conveying that to America. You saw no photo-ops of him surrounding himself with school kids for a "moment of silence" like GWB when what was needed was action.

    1. Re:NYC is not Oklahoma City by Lonath · · Score: 1

      Yeah but this is more of a national tragedy. You may not have known anyone in the OKC building, but almost everyone knows someone, or is within a hop or two of knowing someone who died.

    2. Re:NYC is not Oklahoma City by FFFish · · Score: 1

      Guiliani has impressed hell out of me. He was in the thick of things, dealing with issues as they were thrown at him and simulataneously dealing with the media.

      He must be a wickedly smart man, and his hands-on management style is indeed impressive.

      --

      --
      Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
    3. Re:NYC is not Oklahoma City by sulli · · Score: 2
      I didn't know anyone IN the OKC building, but I knew people in the area who were affected - a customer of mine knew many with the FBI who were victims and survivors. I have many friends with family who were in, and escaped from, the WTC. I bet almost everyone who has responded today is in a similar situation.

      Arlington, VA, home of the Pentagon, is my hometown. My mother heard the explosion from just a couple of miles away.

      This is a truly national tragedy. Whatever they do with the site, if they rebuild or not, they will surely include a memorial to those who have died, which is the right thing to do.

      --

      sulli
      RTFJ.
    4. Re:NYC is not Oklahoma City by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And my feeling is that a wall is not a memorial where a building is. Every major structure in NYC is a part of us and the skyline is like a family member. The towers missing is like seeing that friend with an arm missing.

      There will be a memorial but it'd be a shame not to have something in the skyline where those building stood. Our skyline is a signature whereas OKC's is not; that is why I feel a memorial alone in that space is not appropriate.

      AC

    5. Re:NYC is not Oklahoma City by SueZVudu · · Score: 1

      This isn't a contest. There's no NYC-OKC rivalry going on here. For crying out loud, people, are you suggesting that we Oklahomans are wimps because we were SAD when our FRIENDS and FAMILY DIED? Screw you. I knew people who died in the Murrah Building. I don't know anyone who died in yesterday's attacks, but that doesn't mean that I have no sympathy for their friends and families. It hurts when people you know die. It hurts when your security is shaken. Don't get caught up in this kind of tough-guy bullsh-t.

    6. Re:NYC is not Oklahoma City by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thread was about memorial vs. rebuilding; not NYC vs OKC.

      That tough-guy bullshit (as you call it) is referred to as pride around here. Myself and alot of people I know (still don't know if they all made it out) would be disgusted if the media played the same saccharine BS they did with those OKC montages with a soundtrack of "Lightning Crases" playing in the background.

    7. Re:NYC is not Oklahoma City by SueZVudu · · Score: 1

      I just don't think that it's healthy for people to deny that they've been traumatized, hurt, and frightened by what's happened to us all. Just going on with regular life after something like this isn't just unhealthy, though; I personally think that it's disrespectful. The Israeli government made today and tomorrow national days of mourning, and there will be no weddings, bar mitzvahs, bat mitzvahs, etc. during this time. I think that's a proper way to deal with this. We need to admit that we're sad, angry, frightened, etc. That's okay. That's a normal human reaction. That doesn't make the terrorists more powerful. It just makes us human. Acting like nothing happened and going on with normal life so quickly, however, isn't pride; it's denial. We in Oklahoma dealt with our tragedy by acknowledging our fear and anger. We mourned for our dead in our own "saccharine" ways, and we maintained pride in our city. Maybe you need to listen to someone who's been through this before, instead of criticizing us so quickly. And regardless of what the thread was about, the post to which I responded did bring out an OKC-NYC comparison, so I feel that my response was justified.

    8. Re:NYC is not Oklahoma City by Mordac · · Score: 1

      New Yorkers are just another species when compared to others. Just like you feel its wrong to compare the incidents, its equally unfair to expect them to mourn the same way. There is their backbone and pride. Its just a different way, no one should be suprised to see them rebuild the towers as a literal "up yours" to the terrorists. After all this is the city and the people who as pedestrians would flip off a truck driver (in his 18 wheeler.)

      The incidents are not a like, and the people are even more different.

    9. Re:NYC is not Oklahoma City by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the support. I'm the AC who posted the first comment and I didn't want to entertain the prior posting w/ a response to his "denial" comment. I've had loss in my life before WTF and it makes me stronger.

  106. SubHG/TszHoG-EffU denies any involvement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The SubHG/TszHoG-EffU, a Bonn-based underground movement recruiting itself largely from Islamic Studies students, has denied any involvement with the attacks made on the WTC and the Pentagon yesterday. In fact, they also deny that they are involved in any way with the hiding and mysterious disappearance of Osama bin Laden.


    These claims, while highly doubtful, make it clear that again, terrorism is highly elusive and difficult to grasp. Anyway, slashdot them out of existence.

  107. similar plot was known since 1995 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    check it from here:
    http://www.inq7.net/nat/2001/sep/13/nat_4-1.htm

  108. Re:Ambulance Chasing by Russ+Nelson · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    I'm not sure you know what ambulance chasing is. It's when a lawyer offers legal services to someone who's just been in an accident.
    -russ

    --
    Don't piss off The Angry Economist
  109. What about Zionist fanatics? by Robber+Baron · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Ask yourself: Who has the most to gain if the US directs it's anger and military might against the Arab world?

    --

    You're using her as bait, Master!

    1. Re:What about Zionist fanatics? by wass · · Score: 2
      While you're at it, why not also blame the Lichtensteinians, as they clearly have the most to gain, if the major European powers and Americans team up against the Middle East. They'll be able to increase their land size significantly in the ensueing chaos.

      Why don't you stop the conspiracy theories for a short while and let the facts of the disaster unfold, instead of trying to incite more hysteria No attack this big can go unnoticed without leaving behind enough fingerprints to point to those responsible.

      --

      make world, not war

    2. Re:What about Zionist fanatics? by rho · · Score: 2

      Very, very unlikely. Israel has the might, the ability, and the will to turn everything from the Mediteranean to the Indian sea into a big sheet of glass. They don't need to be so circumspect.

      Remember, the Islamic world is derived from the lineage of Ishmael, and the Jewish world from Isaac -- the sons of Abraham. No hate is worse than the hate between blood.

      --
      Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
    3. Re:What about Zionist fanatics? by unitron · · Score: 2

      Whoever still has petroleum to sell at $100 or so per barrel.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    4. Re:What about Zionist fanatics? by chromophore · · Score: 1

      Israel would not continue to exist as it does today without the continued support of the American govt, and donations from world jewery, most of whom reside in the US. Even the craziest Zionist fanatic knows this (in fact, many of the craziest zionists are Americans...)

      --
      Better living through chemistry.
    5. Re:What about Zionist fanatics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Israel has attacked Americans before (on purpose). Witness the attack on Americans during the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, on the USS Liberty: http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/04/23/liberty.attack/

      and the account of a former Mossad agent, that Israel was the one that actually bombed the West Berlin nightclub that killed American servicemen -leading to the bombing of Ghaddafi: http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0495/9 504058.htm

      Read the books by Viktor Ostrovsky, former Mossad agent: (1) By Way Of Deception (2) The Other Side Of Deception

      Granted, that is an account by a former agent, which can not (or will probably ever be) substantiated, but it will be quite eye-opening to Slashdot readers and the world in general. Israel even tried to ban the book's publication.

      The one related to the your current president's father should be interesting to everyone.

    6. Re:What about Zionist fanatics? by fprintf · · Score: 1

      Clearly the Chinese, or the Indians or the Japanese or anyone else from a Tom Clancy novel.

      --
      This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
  110. Wear red, white and blue on Thursday! by cybrthng · · Score: 2

    With the request of many radio stations and mass emails going around, i too hope you will wear red, white and blue tommorow and replace your favorite sports flag with the american flag.

    If not for the "pledge" to the united states, then do it for the honor, valour and unity of everyone working together.

    1. Re:Wear red, white and blue on Thursday! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you and your blind patriotism can kiss my ass.

    2. Re:Wear red, white and blue on Thursday! by cybrthng · · Score: 1

      Another Coward with nothing better to say??

      Not everyone has absolute faith in this country, but you can have faith in many people coming together and uniting to help out one another..

      but i guess thats wrong for you.. too much of a pussy to post with a name of anysorts since you obviously don't stand by your opinions.

  111. In this case, yes. by Ars-Fartsica · · Score: 2
    No one is claiming we should pave the world in response to this attack, but it is cowardice to claim that we should not protect ourselves since there is an outside chance we might somehow disturb someone who isn't directly guilty.

    This country is going to have to return to the harsh lessons of previous wars: if you want to make an omellete, you have to break some eggs.

    1. Re:In this case, yes. by Danse · · Score: 2

      but it is cowardice to claim that we should not protect ourselves since there is an outside chance we might somehow disturb someone who isn't directly guilty.


      Is "disturb" a euphimism for "kill?" I would hope not.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    2. Re:In this case, yes. by Ars-Fartsica · · Score: 2
      Is "disturb" a euphimism for "kill?" I would hope not.

      Please don't be naive about the role of innocents in conflict. During the revolutionary war, civil war, and all wars since then, innocent civillians have been targetted, exploited, and murdered for military gains. There has never been a conflict where the contrary holds. Grow up and get used to life in a dirty, bloody world.

    3. Re:In this case, yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be a "yes" then.

      For eye-for-an-eye's have it!

    4. Re:In this case, yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you're in the front lines when they come for more "innocents." What a pathetic troll you are.

    5. Re:In this case, yes. by Danse · · Score: 2

      Grow up and get used to life in a dirty, bloody world.


      Tell that to President Bush, Congress, and the American people who keep whining about how war came home to sit on our doorstep yesterday. They keep talking about how evil and cowardly it was. Why don't they just grow up and realize that this is what war is and for the first time in a long time, we're seeing it up close.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
  112. Helping the victims by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Please send this letter or something similar to your representatives in Congress. Email is largely ignored, so I recommend printing and mailing.

    Dear [Senator / Representative],

    People in Egypt and other countries were filmed celebrating the September 11 attacks on America that destroyed thousands of lives.

    These countries receive billions of dollars in foreign aid from us--paid for by those whose lives were destroyed or altered forever by the attack. Their celebrating of these horrible acts show total disrespect and disregard for human lives, not to mention a complete lack of appreciation for the support that has continued to benefit them.

    I strongly urge you to stop financial aid to these countries.

    The money should instead go to victims and their families, not to those who celebrated their untimely deaths. And, of course, the money should be used to rebuild the destroyed properties and pay for the expensive investigations and other actions that must take place.

    The hard-earned money of those who died should NOT go to those who celebrated their deaths.

    Encourage your family, friends, coworkers and neighbors to do the same. Billions of dollars will be needed to rebuild the damage. Donating money is a good deed, but the United States must use these billions that we now need, not send it to those who celebrated carnage and destruction.

    1. Re:Helping the victims by fraktalisman · · Score: 1

      I wonder how many people were really celebrating in the Middle East.
      If 99% of a population are mourning and 1% are celebrating, the media will obviously film those 1% because this is something spectacular.
      I experienced this quite often at political demonstrations here in Germany: 9000 peaceful demonstrators, 2 people throwing stones -> next day's headlines: "Violent demonstrators throw stones at police"

      I totally agree that those celebrating people should not get yours or my money. I even think they (personally) would not even want it.

      Donate your money to the Red Cross or to organizations that YOU trust.

      After the devastation in NY many people were quickly taking the initiative to help "their brothers and sisters" which is a good thing to do. For the Middle East, too, local initiatives are much better than money being passed from one government to another.

      --
      http://www.fraktalisman.de
    2. Re:Helping the victims by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least one person in new york was seen and heard dancing and singing "america gets what it deserves" as the planes were hitting the WTC. Should our government stop sending aid to New York then too?

  113. Troubling reaction to tragedy by El_Smack · · Score: 1

    Excite.com has a poll about what freedoms people would compromise to be free from attacks like this. Travel, Speech, Privacy, None, All or Not Sure. Only 54% said "None". 9% said "All". It is to be expected that people are scared and jumpy right now, but I hope these poll numbers change for the better over the next couple of weeks.

    --


    There are 01 kinds of cars in the world. The General Lee, and everything else.
  114. We must smash! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We must smash the people responsible.

  115. does out-symbolizing terrorists make sense? by alienmole · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Rebuild them taller. That's the only thing to do. Show the cowards that we'll just get bigger when they hit.

    The terrorists attacked WTC for two reasons, the first of which is that it was symbolic. The second reason is that it would cause massive loss of life.

    Now, back some decades it apparently seemed important, for some reason, to build the tallest towers, etc. In fact, a similar argument was used to go to the moon. That's all well and good, but haven't we moved past that?

    Malaysia is the latest nation to believe that having the tallest building somehow enhances its national prestige. Is the U.S. really so insecure that it feels it has to compete with nations like Malaysia on this basis? Or is it a case of needing to impress the primitive folk, both within and without our country?

    Wouldn't it be better to focus our energies on protecting our borders, skies and buildings in a way that doesn't diminish the freedoms of the residents of the U.S.?

    I'm not saying symbolism isn't important to the human psyche, but perhaps if we got past the "mine is bigger than yours" phase, it might change the nature of the battle for the better.

    1. Re:does out-symbolizing terrorists make sense? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're just saying that because your tower isn't that big.

    2. Re:does out-symbolizing terrorists make sense? by Tiny+Elvis · · Score: 1

      I feel strongly that a large part of the psychological healing that the American people need to experience will ONLY come after those towers are rebuilt. Also I feel they should be built so in some way they are better than before. This is not just about who has the biggest tower; this is more like a bully who pushes you down at school to remove your dignity. Do you from then on crawl around on your knees for his enjoyment, or do you stand up and show him you are not afraid? Our national dignity depends on rebuilding in a huge way.

    3. Re:does out-symbolizing terrorists make sense? by rjsjr · · Score: 1
      Malaysia isn't the latest state to want to claim the throne of tallest building. There is a very serious proposal to build a new skyscraper in Chicago that will unambigiously capture the crown for Chicago again. Last I heard the project was moving forward and in the process of securing financing.


      Regards, RJS

    4. Re:does out-symbolizing terrorists make sense? by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

      I agree. We should outlaw all structures over four stories tall, so that massive loss of life cannot be caused by airplanes crashing into them.

      Idiot.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    5. Re:does out-symbolizing terrorists make sense? by alienmole · · Score: 2
      Did you even understand what I was saying? Or are you unable to accept even the slightest questioning of a concept you apparently take on faith?

      More likely, you know I'm right and don't want to admit it to yourself.

    6. Re:does out-symbolizing terrorists make sense? by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

      No, I just happen to believe that spitting in the face of the people who did this is more important than a minor improvement in safety.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    7. Re:does out-symbolizing terrorists make sense? by alienmole · · Score: 2
      You completely missed the point of what I was saying. I'm not talking about safety at all. Reread my original message.

      The point is that what you calling "spitting in the face" is a primitive, "mine-is-bigger-than-yours" instinct that we should have left behind in the schoolyard.

      Our "national dignity" (to use another poster's phrase) doesn't depend on how big our buildings are! It depends on who we, as people, are. On whether we're smart enough not to play schoolyard games with terrorists, for example. By all means, the terrorists should be hunted down and brought to justice, or exterminated as the case may be, and host countries should be appropriately dealt with. But building bigger buildings just to show how great we are? What a pathetic excuse for a national self-image that implies!

    8. Re:does out-symbolizing terrorists make sense? by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

      From your original post:

      Wouldn't it be better to focus our energies on protecting our borders, skies and buildings in a way that doesn't diminish the freedoms of the residents of the U.S.?

      Why else do we protect our borders, skies, and buildings than for safety? It sure sounds like you're talking about safety.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    9. Re:does out-symbolizing terrorists make sense? by alienmole · · Score: 2
      You've taken one sentence out of context. My message was saying that rebuilding another, possibly bigger and better, World Trade Center is a meaningless symbolic act, on par with the actions of tinpot semi-dictators in third-world countries (I used the example of Malaysia).

      In the sentence you quoted, I was actually referring to the diminished freedoms that we are likely to experience in the aftermath of this disaster. Building big buildings while we diminish our freedoms makes it seem to me as though the terrorists have won: they are setting the agenda, changing our lives. The terrorists destroyed something more important than any building: they destroyed the sense that America was virtually impervious to major attacks from external sources. The aspect of my message dealing with safety deals with that: that, to me, is what is important to rebuild.

  116. Bangor, Maine by Lover's+Arrival,+THX · · Score: 0
    I think they we're plotting to take out our hero, Stephen King.


    That, or my ex-boyfriend.

    --
    You like to talk of sex and fucking
    But indeed, I'm a whore, so do me now!

  117. you dolt by ctimes2 · · Score: 1

    The USA has invaded Canada 5 times throughout our history... we lost every time. Besides, they make good whiskey so leave 'em alone!

    Ctimes2

    --
    My cube. My friend. My solace. My prison.
  118. Blaming the internet? by bribecka · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    mkelley writes: "This is only the beginning folks...looks like the internet is going to be blamed for this...Wired has a story that is sure to cause panic. This is going to be the goverment's way to push wiretapping into your email and web surfing. In this time of crisis, people in high places are going to use this to get their agenda through."

    This is about the most arrogant view on this that I can imagine--that your privacy is more important than human life. In my opinion, if installing Carnivore/etc and monitoring my emails would help save the possibly 10,000+ lives that were lost yesterday, I am all for installing it.

    Nothing, and I mean NOTHING (including my privacy), is worth the deaths of that number of innocent civilians. Keep your politically-motivated banter to a minimum in this time of crisis. Privacy means nothing anymore. Two days ago, maybe protecting your emails was a big deal, but after yesterday, I would gladly trade my future privacy in return for the lives of all those poor people who died and for the future security and safety of my family.

    --

    Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?

    1. Re:Blaming the internet? by Intrinsic · · Score: 1

      Thats exactly the response they want from you and the rest of plp who have no clue.

      Everytime a crisis happens the goverment uses it to take away rights that are important to us.

      Im all for fighting crime, but Im defantly not for spying on every US Citizen without just cause, no matter what happens.

      Quit letting your emotions control your judgement.

    2. Re:Blaming the internet? by MentalPunisher2001 · · Score: 1

      If you lose you freedoms, this country will no longer be worth fighting for.
      Think before you type, fuckhead.
      The guys who wrote the constitution were FAR smarter than you, you are letting your emotions get in the way of rational thought (and government).

    3. Re:Blaming the internet? by bribecka · · Score: 1

      It's hard to not let emotions take control when the guy who sits next to you at work can't get in touch with his sister-in-law who worked in the WTC. I understand your points, and when I chill a bit more I probably even agree, but I get somewhat angry when everything here at /. becomes a conspiracy, especially at a time like this.

      As for some of the other replies, I don't think I'll go kill myself because someone who calls themselves "Fleet Admiral Ackbar" tells me to.

      --

      Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?

    4. Re:Blaming the internet? by The_Steel_General · · Score: 1
      What if it is that privacy -- the freedoms that we have -- that will prevent this in the future?

      I have a theory -- a rough, unpolished one -- that the risk of terrorism is inversely proportional to the freedom a people possess. Unoppressed people have no need to attack others. Free people under the rule of law respect their lives and the lives of others.

      (Yesterday's events have shaken this theory a bit, but only a bit. I believe that the plan succeeded as it did only because no passengers on the planes guessed what their final destination would be. There is a rumor that the Pennsylvania crash occurred where it did because some passengers did make assumptions about their chances, and prevented the plane from going farther. I predict that future hijacking attempts -- for any reason -- will fail because everyone would believe that a successful hijacking implies the death of all aboard.)

      Allow others control over your privacy, and you give them power over you -- and over others that may not be so accepting of that position they hold. If freedom of speech is muzzled, someone may decide that there are other ways to get a message out. The more often a police officer is able to pull someone over and initiate a search, the sooner someone will decide that the government/police/people is a problem.

      The more power that is handed over, the more likely it is that someone will be annoyed/disturbed/angry enough to take action. This may be the most practical reason to be truly cautious when considering losing any part of your freedom.

      TSG

    5. Re:Blaming the internet? by bribecka · · Score: 1

      I think this is a fair theory. Maybe people didn't like my original post because as of yesterday I was ready to close the borders and tell the world to fuck off. At that point, I figured "there are enough places in this country to keep me busy for the next 50-60 years, so fuck the world."

      I've retreated from that as the events of yesterday go farther and farther into the past, but I think that you're right, there are thresholds of that people have for how much liberty must be given up to insure safety. If that's so, I'm leaning towards giving up a hair more...right now at least--check with me tomorrow and I may be saying the opposite. Confusing time.

      --

      Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?

  119. Re:Ambulance Chasing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I'm currently living in France, and only get French television.

    Without the mirrors, I wouldn't be able to find out what is happening, and what happened.

    I'm very thankful and don't think of it as "Ambulance Chasing" at all. Of course, even if I disagreed with the non-macabre pics being mirrored, Ambulance_chasing would not be the term used.

  120. Totally tasteless joke, please mod down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Where was King Kong when we really needed him (to swat airplanes)?

  121. Illuminati? by 216pi · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Did anybody sum up the date?

    2+0+0+1 +9 +11 = 23

    Oh.

    1. Re:Illuminati? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And did the Lloigor escape from the Pentagon?

    2. Re:Illuminati? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They did break the geometry (I believe), and the military is saying there's no hope for the 200-ish people who were trapped in it. They're giving the WTC victims two weeks, why not at the Pentagon? It's yog sothoth.

      Fnord.

  122. Re:Cowards agree by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 1

    However, I would want our government to make sure that adequate evidence is first presented.

    The thing is that we already have plenty of evidence of past acts of terrorism from Bin Ladden. Getting him know and then later finding out it wasn't him would not be a great loss. While we are at it, we should go ahead and use this time as an oportunity to cleanse the world of as many known terrorist as possible.

  123. Knee Jerk != Good by el_flynn · · Score: 1

    I'm a graduate from a US university, and am currently back in my own country. I had a chat with my (former) boss in the US a couple of hours ago, and although this may be generalizing it a bit, but from what he says the current sentiment of the common man is that of retribution and retaliation. Especially amongst the highly patriotic, and it's tough not to be patriotic in times like these.

    My fear is that the general public, with emotions on full throttle, may tend to overlook the fact that not all muslim people think the same way as Osama bin Laden. Being a muslim myself, I am of the opinion that the senseless taking of countless lives is not something to be proud of.

    There are already cases of this scapegoating and finger-pointing taking place. This is in Kansas City, as far removed from NY as you can get. So imagine what the muslim community in NY, who in and amongst themselves MAY have friends and family who are victims of the attack, may be facing.

    I just hope this doesn't bring about a new rash of racism and hate-mongering among the population.

    --
    The Wknd Sessions - Malaysian and South East Asia independent music
  124. Hints of War by zpengo · · Score: 2

    Slant-Six is running some interesting articles about the situation, including a summary of the hints the government has been giving us that war is nearly inevitable.

    --


    Got Rhinos?
  125. Please consider MODDING PARENT UP. by Balinares · · Score: 2

    Geeze, I was wondering when someone would say something like that. And I DO say this as someone from a country that has supported bombings in Serbia, among others, something for which I feel deeply ashamed of my country.

    The motherfsckers behind the WTC attack *MUST* be found, prosecuted, executed. Not because we hate them, but because they're dangerous, because crime calls for justice. Because we can't let this go unpunished. Because we have to set an example. And we need that example to be one of justice, not vengeance.

    As much as gut reaction makes me want to torture them with my bare hands. I have very dear friends in NYC.

    If we go after the civilian populations as well, we'll only prove them they're right to think of us as oppressors who don't care for their lives. And then, we won't be worth a dime more than the WTC attackers.

    --

    -- B.
    This sig does in fact not have the property it claims not to have.
  126. List of buisnesses at the WTC by kobaz · · Score: 4, Informative

    if anyone wants to know, here are lists of the buisnessness at the world trade center

    1 World Trade Center (North Tower): http://www.morrisville.edu/Library/wtc/tenants1.ht ml
    2 World Trade Center (South Tower): http://www.morrisville.edu/Library/wtc/tenants2.ht ml

    --

    The goal of computer science is to build something that will last at least until we've finished building it.
  127. Breed crows and they�ll devour your eyes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The myth of Frankenstein, the monster that turns against its creator. Facts:
    - Still dont know the perpetrators
    - Bin Ladens fight in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union was funded/supported by USA when it suited its purposes, the same can be said of Sadam Hussein fighting Iran or General Noriega in Panama.
    - As a result of its policy during and after the cold war, America has direct/indirectly waged wars in foreing soil: Vietnam, Nicaragua, Granada, Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Palestine, Colombia. The public opinion has always been kept ignorant of the real issues/causes of the problem, everything is reduced to a goodie/baddie situation. War and its horrible consecuences are always somewhere far away.

    - Americas latest policy of isolation has obviously not worked, long-ignored problems have come home. Now the pain that other countries have felt for generations is known on the land that has caused a lot of it. Globalisation to the full meaning of the word.

    - America has lately been behaving like a rogue-state: not signing the Kyoto Agreement, not signing the non-proliferation of biological weapons agreement, starting the star-wars fantasy missile shield program. All this is contributing to the scalation of the arms race again all over the world: China will increase its defence budget, one of their enemies India will follow, then Indias enemy, Pakistan will follow, etc. It looks like the goverment wants to go back to the paranoid 50s, this will make the arms industry very happy.

  128. Stupid Question by snorb · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Why aren't high rise buildings like the WTC equipped with parachutes so that people stuck at the top have at least a small chance of getting out alive? Is it prohibitively expensive or impractical for some reason? Even in the case of a normal fire, you're not going to be able to get down through the floors which are burning.


    Terrible.

    1. Re:Stupid Question by linzeal · · Score: 1

      No, No, this is a good idea. But instead have large "life parachutes" which could hold 100 or so people in them with seats and harnesses. Course that would mean one or so for every floor ? Would this work, or would capitalism (cost) get in the way of saving capitalists?

    2. Re:Stupid Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or at least have those hundreds of service people (firemen and policemen) who have to go up into these tall tall buildings in times of danger have parachutes added to their emergency uniforms - They could've then had the opportunity to jump too when the building started to collapse if near a window and grab someone else to safety too.

  129. Such quick round-up of information worries me by hardburn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Having people brought in so soon (either for questioning or as suspects) worries me a lot. These attacks show a very high degree of sophistication, and not just in their timing (as many news orginizations have bleeted out of late).



    First, you have the fly-by-wire system, installed on all big commerical jets, which just plain won't let you fly the plane into a building. This system has to be disabled without completely destroying your ability to manuver. I have been told that there are very few people around who know how to do this. This person would either have to know which planes would be used for the job in advance and then disable those planes while they are sitting on the ground (while also getting around security on the ground and getting into the hanger, and also not doing so much damage that it would be picked up on preflight checks). Alternativly, the person to disable the system could be on the plane during flight, in which case he/she probably knew they were on a suicide mission. The list of people who can carry out such a job AND are willing to commit suicide must be very, very small.



    Secondly, there is a matter of how to hit the WTC. Those buildings were designed to take an aircraft smashing into them, so just flying them into a random position isn't enough. What really made the towers collapse (so say the structural engineers) was the fires breaking out and weaking the steel supports at the top, thus forcing the bottom to take on more weight. To do this, you want a plane with lots of gas in it to cause a bigger fire. Indeed, the planes involved were going to the other end of the country, and would thus have lots of gas on board.



    There are probably lots of other details I'm missing, but this is enough to show that these attacks are far more sophisticated then a lot of people know.



    Now you want to tell me that these highly planned attacks became so sloppy in implementation that people are being rounded up the day after? Given, humans make mistakes (or maybe the FBI got lucky), but this still seems unlikely. This is what worries me. I think the FBI is starting a witch hunt and will arrest anyone, and the American public will back the entire thing.

    --
    Not a typewriter
    1. Re:Such quick round-up of information worries me by connorbd · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't know -- is it a troll if the information is just a little off?

      "Fly-by-wire" means the controls are connected by an electronic connection to the control surfaces instead of a physical connection, no more, no less. The system you are referring to is a warning system, not a control system, and I suspect it was probably going crazy in the cockpit when it hit.

      As for the rest of it, I really don't think this was a sophisticated attack at all; even a dozen militia rednecks from Kentucky could have pulled this one off. Granted, we know the hijackers were of Middle Eastern descent -- a few could have been American citizens, but that's sort of irrelevant -- but I'm saying that it *could* have been a domestic operation. All that was needed was a sufficient number of people willing to be duped and die for a cause. Give them innocuous weapons (box cutters) and a connection to get the (rumored) mace on board and you're all set. Some smarts are required, but only on the parts of a couple of the conspirators.

      In a world where politics has become so polarized, I don't think that would be too tough for anyone.

      /Brian

    2. Re:Such quick round-up of information worries me by Zachary+Kessin · · Score: 2

      The 757/767 Are not Fly by wire jets. And even if they are that does not mean much. All fly by wire means is that there is not direct mechanical connection between the yoke/stick and the control serfaces. There is a computer in the middle somewhere. However even on a Fly by wire jet you push the yoke to the side and the airplane banks. You Can hand fly them and they will go where you want. All you have to do is know how to turn off the autopilot, and hand fly it. Which is not that hard. Actualy I've been told that the big Boeings are not hard to fly.

      Remember they did not have to know how to take off or land, just navigate to a target. And Navigation is not that hard. Esp on a sunny day when you can do it by looking out the window.

      --
      Erlang Developer and podcaster
    3. Re:Such quick round-up of information worries me by Maigus · · Score: 2, Informative

      Your information about fly by wire is very incorrect. All that system does is remove the need for actual physical mechanical connections between the control apparatus (yoke and throttle among other things) and the system being controlled.

      The computer can optimize the system and help the pilot do some things more correctly and efficiently (recover from stall) but it does not have any idea about surrounding obstacles.

      The people who flew the aircraft need not have trained much more than picked up a copy of a Flight Simulator. As they did not need to take off or land the knowledge necessarry for someone already familiar with the mechanics of flight could have adequately familiarised themselves for the task at hand in a few days.

      Their biggest concern would have been how to hit the tower as efficiently as possible so that they could be going at maximum speed with maximum fuel on board.

      The only example of trained piloting that I'm aware of is the plane which attacked the Pentagon. From the reports, they flew very close to the ground in an attempt to reach the building as stealthily as possible. To perform those maneovers with a commercial jet would have taken some real training.

    4. Re:Such quick round-up of information worries me by beanerspace · · Score: 1

      I'm not so worried. As with ANY crime, you want to get to the evidence and suspects earlier than later ... especially before the trail gets cold.

    5. Re:Such quick round-up of information worries me by linzeal · · Score: 1

      I'm from kentucky and pretty far from a militia redneck. IF one thing people need to learn today is to stop stereotyping, to nitpick.

    6. Re:Such quick round-up of information worries me by connorbd · · Score: 2

      I wasn't talking about people from KY in general, I was talking about militia rednecks from KY. I could have just as easily said Kansas, or Nebraska, or New Hampshire...

      /Brian

    7. Re:Such quick round-up of information worries me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why don't you just say "militia redneck" then?

      cheers from louisville.

    8. Re:Such quick round-up of information worries me by connorbd · · Score: 2

      Touche.

      (And now to try and get this comment up without hitting the lameness filter...)

      /Brian

    9. Re:Such quick round-up of information worries me by hardburn · · Score: 1

      My information comes from this kuro5hin post; when I posted the parent, I hadn't seen any of the replies to that post. It might be just hearsay as well. Additionaly, the K5 post doesn't specificly mention the fly-by-wire system, just the avionics, which I had assumed was tied into the fly-by-wire. Perhaps this was wrong.

      What is more, some of the replies mention that FCC rules specify that such systems must be able to be disabled quickly in the event of a malfunction. I remember a video of the first public demenstration of fly-by-wire; the plane disappeared into some trees a few seconds after take off, then you see a very large ball of flame coming out of the forest.

      --
      Not a typewriter
  130. Amateur Journalism by zpengo · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    There's an article about this on my site called Amateur Journalism Feeds a Confused World . Yes, I'm spamming my own site, but I think it's at least partially relevant here.

    --


    Got Rhinos?
  131. Hide the Nuke in 2 tons of Cocaine by scotpurl · · Score: 1, Troll

    then it'll get right through the U.S. Border.

    You don't need missiles to bomb the U.S. You just need a pickup truck to carry what you smuggle in.

  132. On the original construction... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cryptome is run by a New York architect, John Young. He has posted interesting comments on the contraversy surrounding the original buildings. They're a good read.

  133. One for the Gipper.... by Gehenna_Gehenna · · Score: 1

    In a related story, frustrated hacker takes out www.taliban.com as reported here.

    --

  134. Great Flash Graphics by dschuetz · · Score: 5, Informative

    So far the best graphics I've found, far surpassing any of the lousy diagrams I've seen on CNN, come from the Spanish paper El Pais. This page includes two interactive, animated flash documents (Grafico -- currently the first two pictures) which shows the paths of all four planes, the way they hit the buildings, and how the supports in the towers got severed, leading to the collapse.

    Helps if you know spanish (which I don't), but the pictures speak for themselves.

    The actual animations are at http://www.elpais.es/multimedia/internacional/plan tilla10.swf and http://www.elpais.es/multimedia/internacional/estr uc.swf .

    1. Re:Great Flash Graphics by multimed · · Score: 1

      I saw a couple of architectual engineers who were skyscraper experts on TV last night. I was wondering how the buildings collapsed because when I left for work, both looked structurally rather stable to me. They contradict what you mentioned about the supports being severed as what led to the collapse.

      The towers withstood the initial impact about as good as possible. The WTC had steel beams every 3 feet which is 3-5 times closer than most buildings. The problem was the fires. While steel is extremely strong, extended periods of extreme heat weaken it. They said that these buildings were built to withstand an airplane crash or a fire--assuming it was an office fire--paper, furniture etc. The steel is coated with something to protect it from getting too hot and weakening. But the temparature of the fuel burning made a temperature of 1100 + degrees for an extended period of time. Eventually the steel weakend and under the weight of the building above the fire, it burned.

      They said that it is possible to cover the steel with a material which could withstand the heat from an airplane fuel fire but it wasn't really thought about and might become a cost versus chance of this happening.

      Finally they said that the attack was either extremely lucky or well planned. If the planes would have hit much higher (especially the first one) the weight of the top would not have been enough to collapse the whole thing. If they hit much lower (especially the second one) they would have hit the extra re-inforced beams that go from the ground partway up the building and would have been more able to support the building even when weakened by the intense fire.

      steve

      --
      Vote Quimby.
  135. All known supporters of terrorists must be hit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I fully support the destruction of all supporters of terrorist actions.

    You can deal with nations and people who have economic issues at stake. You can't deal with those who's only goal is to see you dead.

    I don't see this as a difficult moral issue. You have a neighbor who has said he will do everything he can to kill you. Wipe him out and wipe out those that support him.

  136. Harry Browne's position by vldmr_krn · · Score: 2, Informative

    Libertarian Party's Harry Browne's position.

    "Your comment violated the postercomment compression filter. Comment aborted"

  137. Newspapers have a responsibility by alienmole · · Score: 2

    The problem is that many who read those newspapers are going to be influenced by them in various ways. If a newspaper allows itself to be used as a vehicle to express irrational and unrestrained anger and hatred, then I think it should make it clear that this is what it's doing, in the (probably vain) hope that readers won't be led to believe that what they're reading are reasonable responses to the situation.

  138. correction... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The date on that page is wrong. It is listed as "September 9, 2001". It should be "Sept 11, 2001"... On September 9, 2001, they celebrated the fact that they had taken their first bath this year.

  139. The Survivor Register by jphr3ak · · Score: 1


    I think it is a bit irresponsible to place a link to this site, given that there is no way of ensuring accountability for the "safe" handling of the personal information provided to it.

  140. Helping by jjr · · Score: 2

    In efforts in trying to help
    We will donate to the redcross from every t-shirt sold
    or please donate directly to the redcross either by blood or money

  141. Draft NATO proposal by stup · · Score: 1
    Recently on cnn.com (sorry CNN).

    The draft proposal would look to invoke NATO's self-defence charter, diplomatic sources and State Department officials told CNN. The proposal, put forward by NATO Secretary-General George Robertson, would call for support of Article Five of the alliance's charter, which is the basic reason for NATO's existence. It spells out the requirement that if one of NATO's members is attacked, all its allies would defend it.

    One official put it this way: "A hit for one is a hit for all."

    So if Dubya gets all hot in the head, the rest of the world will start building up steam. The article does go on to say that the US will have to "give it details of who had been responsible", but how much evidence they'll need we don't know. A few documents in a car pointing to Osama bin Laden, and away we go.

    This cartoon on Monday seems unfortunately timely now.
    StuP

  142. Bullshit by ctimes2 · · Score: 1

    It's an act of war. Innocent until proven guilty? innocence is the first casualty, which we lost yesterday. Evidence is not required - we know who our enemies are and hardly need proof to go to war with them. Due process, justice, equal treatment under the law? Those are rights we garantee to our citizens, not the enemies of our nation. Yes, people are calling for open, unabashed barbarism. Civilization is a false impression you've been given by your 50" flat screen HDTV, we all still run around in loin-cloths (albeit brand name loin-cloths) bowing to higher powers and fearing the dark. We are barbarians.

    War is not a monopoly owned by the likes of Stalin, Hitler, Mao or anyone NOT American - it's a violent form of conflict. This one is more than justified, it's required. If an action calls for war, let it come. Do not hide behind a curtain of 'justified reaction, respect for man,' or any of that other bullshit. There will never be, nor can there ever be 'justice' for what happened, but we can exact retribution. Without that, our nation has lost it's resolve.

    Yes, it's barbaric. So be it.

    Ctimes2

    --
    My cube. My friend. My solace. My prison.
    1. Re:Bullshit by ChrisDolan · · Score: 2

      "we know who our enemies are and hardly need proof to go to war with them"

      OK, then tell me: who are they? What is their address? What are their names? Who are we at war with? You don't know, do you?

      Right now we are at war with Fear. Later today, or in a few days, we may know precisely who the enemy is. Until then, declaring war is absurd.

      Civilization is not an illusion. Some people act barbarous at times. Society tries to prevent them from harming others, but often it fails. That doesn't mean you give up on it.

    2. Re:Bullshit by ctimes2 · · Score: 1

      A partial list can be found here - but there's plenty of information all over the web about who our enemies are and who's supporting them.
      http://www.fas.org/irp/index.html

      --
      My cube. My friend. My solace. My prison.
    3. Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know, but have USA forgotten about
      internation laws that apply to all nations
      in the world?

      Do you people really belive you are the
      internation laws? To you really belive
      its up to you to decide which should die
      or not?

      Im against terrorism, and I want to have
      these terrorists caught and killed for
      what they did. But its not up to US
      americans to decide whenever to do or not
      to do ethnic cleansing.

  143. Re:Ambulance Chasing by unitron · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    The term that rather sour dispositioned individual should have used was firetruck chasing.

    --

    I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  144. Reopening the US Airspace by Zachary+Kessin · · Score: 2

    AOPA Has information on when the airspace system will be reopened. I expect it will be a few days till its back to something like normal over much of the country and the weekend till its OK in New York and Washington DC.

    And I would expect the state of emergency in NYC to continue threw Rosh Hashonah next week. It will be quite strange driving into New York City this Friday for Shabbos and Yom Tov.

    --
    Erlang Developer and podcaster
    1. Re:Reopening the US Airspace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We must destroy all Islam. We must kill all Arabs. Until the Mohammedans are exterminated, there will be no peace.

  145. How is it... by greysky · · Score: 1

    ...that although the country - if not the majority of the world - can be brought to a standstill by this tragedy, yet I still get my full daily dose of spam in my inbox?

    1. Re:How is it... by NetJunkie · · Score: 1

      I was wondering the same thing last night. While watching CNN I got 3 ICQ spams.

  146. How hard is this really? by sterno · · Score: 3, Insightful

    While there is a certain amount of complexity involved in this, I wouldn't say that this is beyond Bin Laden's capabilities. Remember that a few years back they managed a coordinated attack on two embassies in Africa within minutes of eachother. So they definitely are capable of the logistics necessary to pull off this kind of attack. Let's look at what is really required to pull this off:

    1) Terrorists with the ability to fly an airplane, a skill that can be readily obtained at any number of places given money to pay for it (and certainly Bin Laden has cash).
    2) Knives. Knives are VERY easy to get onto a plane. I have more than once wondered why nobody questioned my bringing of a pocket knife, etc, on board. When I heard about what happened my first assumption was that it had been done with knives (not good for taking on counter-terrorists, but if you don't plan to ever land the plane they are very effective).

    Now, given that, the actual hard part is setting up the terrorist cells to pull this off and plan the operation. It was probably executed by four seperate cells opeating independently but with a coordinated schedule. It's likely that each cell had NO IDEA that other planes were involved. Somebody centrally plans where to strike, which planes to take, and then just issues orders to the cells.

    Don't get me wrong, Iraq is definitely on the top of a short list of suspects, but I don't think Bin Laden can be reasonably rules out given his history. At the same time, I agree that we shouldn't leap to conclusions.

    --
    This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
    1. Re:How hard is this really? by zulux · · Score: 2

      Two tails of airport security:

      One domestic flight, I was rummaging through my bookbag to find a book to read, and too my horor, I found the HUGE envelope-opener I has stashed there a few weeks before. The thing was a hidiously ugly thing that someone carged in Africa, and was made out of a really hard wood. Defianly, it could be a weapon. This was about five years ago - I hope thing have improved. My girlfridns land-lady is a small Amrican of Japanese decent, and has on her keychain a small stick of wood that has rings carved out of it for a good grip. You grab with a fist and a little nub of wood sticks out the top of your fist - it's used for pericing the skull. She had to hand it over to airport security once, and they stuck it in a huge cardborad box to be checked in as luggage.

      --

      Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

    2. Re:How hard is this really? by Omnifarious · · Score: 2

      If you train well in martial arts, even your own body can be enough of a weapon to subdue a frightened group of passengers. The only way to prevent that is to manacle people into their seats.

      Get over prevention. It can't be done. Anybody in security knows that any system can be cracked by someone sufficiently clever and imaginative. The only prevention is to decrease motivation.

    3. Re:How hard is this really? by smarner · · Score: 1

      They did apparently know of each other - - at least to some extent. The open mic on one of the planes picked up the highjackers saying they had other planes/pilots.

    4. Re:How hard is this really? by josh_miller · · Score: 1

      >coordinated schedule. It's likely that each cell >had NO IDEA that other planes were involved.

      There's a report that the guy flying flight 11 said something like "We've got more planes" just before it hit. Hopefully this implies lax security among the cells, or no cells at all - making it easier to trace them back to their origin.

    5. Re:How hard is this really? by WNight · · Score: 2

      There was a great interview on CBC radio (Canadian) last night with a retired pilot (just recently) and various "experts".

      The pilot said it was dead simple to control a jumbo jet once in the air. He said that they're easier to steer than small airplanes. The only difficult part he said they faced was navigating from the hijack site to the crash site. He then went on to say that this would be fairly easy because he would guess they kept the pilots alive until they reached the destination city.

      He said all they'd have to do would be order the pilots to divert to the airport in that city. The pilots would comply, thinking they'd land safely and the terrorists would be taken out with minimal loss of life once on the ground.

      He added that from an approach to the airport in NYC, you can (could) see the WTC towers, at that point a child could have carried out the mission.

      If you notice from the videos, the planes didn't hit in the same place on both buildings. I'd assume that if they were skilled they'd have both tried to destroy the same piece of building, be it a corner, or the central supports. They also hit fairly high. If they'd hit near the ground, almost everyone in the buildings would have been trapped and it's likely to have triggered a collapse much more quickly.

      This to me says that it was fairly unskilled people flying, who were given fairly general instructions.

      As the for knife...

      I've taken a knife onto a major airliner many times. I've got a mini-leatherman on my keychain which has been seen a few times and ignored. I've also got a Leatherman Wave which I carry on my belt. I always pass it through the scanner and they've only twice mentioned it, both times it was good enough to put it in my carry-on. The rest of the time I've put it back in its case on my belt.

      I didn't do this maliciously, I just never thought of it. To me it's a tool, that has a knife blade. It wasn't until I was on the flight once that I realized what they had allowed me to carry on. And then I just assumed what everyone did... what good is a knife, hijackers use guns...

      I'd imagine that any physically imposing group of people could have accomplished this, just be scary enough that people won't try to rush you, and have a nice story like "We're landing in NYC and bargaining for the release of ..." or something.

    6. Re:How hard is this really? by chompz · · Score: 2

      on PBS last night tom clancy was talking with the reporters and he was happy to point out how easy it is to actually fly an airplane, landing is the difficult part that takes practice, and if I remember right, none of these planes actually landed...

      --
      Spring is here. Don't believe me, look outside!
    7. Re:How hard is this really? by nanojath · · Score: 1
      None of us are experts, this is all speculation. I guess I'd rather see this kind of conversation than the "nuke 'em all" knee-jerk or the "can't we all just get along" pollyana bull.


      What my thinking is is this: it is not that hard to get an edged weapon on a plane. Indeed, I've carried many the pocket knife on board with me, in flight bag or pocket. I've even dropped a small pen-knife in the change tray and picked it right up on the other side unmolested. This is to say nothing of plastic, glass, wood or ceramic knives. But sucessfully subduing four planes full of passengers, getting into the cockpit, and incapacitating the pilot is another thing. People will argue this back and forth, and who really knows how hard it is, but my gut instinct is that this takes well-trained individuals.


      I find the argument that it doesn't take much to fly a plane fairly suspect. People assert this very freely. When I watch that video though it doesn't look like an amateur flying that plane. Now, that's no more an expert opinion than all those who are saying that it's not so hard to fly. But noone can argue that these planes, starting on different courses and trajectories, were were maneuvered in such a way as to strike both towers of the WTC in what proved to be catastrophic strikes, seemingly strategically placed, in very close sequence. The size of the planes, the full fuel loads, the placement of the strike brought those massive towers down in a way none of us will ever forget. Anyone who is trying to claim that that blowing up a couple of car bombs at the same time is anywhere on the same order of magnitude of difficulty is just being stupid.


      Anyway, we can all play armchair NSA all day, but I think at the least, covert military sponsorship needs to be near the top of the list. Let's all just hope (and pray if you're so inclined) that our intelligence, security and police forces can give us a well established and unambiguous answer to some of these questions.

      --

      It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries

    8. Re:How hard is this really? by 10+Speed · · Score: 1
      What would you like to do if, firstly it is Bin Laden (and there still is no proof and all the anti-Aribic sentiment I am hearing scares me) and secondly he is discovered hiding in an American city?

      Would destructing of the city still be called for?

      His group is a small faction...I am sure he has supporters in American cities and I am equally sure not all of them are Arabs...

    9. Re:How hard is this really? by WotanKhan · · Score: 1

      Heck I flew to LA out of Logran Airport a couple of months ago, with a 3" pocketknife in my buttpack. I realized in the security check that I'd forgotten to stow it in my checked luggage, and decided to just see if they noticed. The xray attendant seemed to pause on it, but it went through.

    10. Re:How hard is this really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is why more people should study martial arts, so you can defend yourself.

      I've been training in it for several year myself but am only an intermediate currently. I believe I could have taken out 1 or 2 of the lightly armed hijackers before being taken out myself.

    11. Re:How hard is this really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember being questioned rather heavily about a pair of scissors, not all that long ago.

  147. Kill All Islam. Destroy Every Muslim. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Our "Todo" list:
    1. Kill all Arabs.
    2. Kill all Mohammedans.
    3. Kill all Muslims.
    4. Kill all Islam.
    5. Kill all Camel Jockeys
    6. Nuke their countries to an ash heap.
    7. Nuke them again.
    8. Death to all Arabs.
  148. Canadians needs to be less sensitive. by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 1

    Canadians alway seem pissed off if the US media pays too much or not enough attention to them.

    I have been monitoring alot of online, TV and radio media in the last two days and have not heard Canada mention once except that International flights are being routed to Canadian airports. Thanks you. As one poster noted here it was the CBC (the state sponsored media that is making a big deal of this).

    So cool your jets a little. The US media has not mentioned Canada's generous offers since they are little busy right now. BTW they have not much mentioned offers from either countries either.

    Oh yeah, please ignore some of the other ignorant, immature responses to your post, stupidity of the character knows no bounds.

    1. Re:Canadians needs to be less sensitive. by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      Canadians alway seem pissed off if the US media pays too much or not enough attention to them.


      The whole point of mentioning the relief efforts in Canada was that while the US media has found no time to mention that (which is totally fine and I wouldn't expect it because it's about helping, not about getting credit for it), they DO find time to mention that the terrorists may have come through Canada, and when they compress the story down into a point, that point stands above all of the rest (despite also hearing that they had New Jersey licenses and they were staying in Portland, Maine: Compress that story down and that gets excluded and it ends up being "Terrorists came from Canada"). No matter what you think the US has a really, really bad habit of always looking externally to throw blame. I'm reading now that these people may have gone to school in the US, and some may actually have been US citizens, but that's just too hard to fathom so look outside the borders and fire up the cruise missiles.


      So cool your jets a little. The US media has not mentioned Canada's generous offers since they are little busy right now. BTW they have not much mentioned offers from either countries either.


      No they haven't, but then again they don't share thousands of miles of border or the biggest trade relationship with other countries either. Yet I'll guarantee you that when they do mention other countries it will be Germany, or France, etc. (This has already happened already BTW) The US of A is an incredible country and I have a lot of friends there, but if you don't believe that the US tries to understate Canada then you are blind, and when we are given attention it's to mention that terrorists happened to fly through here, or for a journalist to actually ask our Prime Minister if we're GETTING FOOD to stranded airlines on our runways ("Uh, sorry we don't have any extra. They'll have to starve"). That is where the paradox lies: Either ignore us, or don't ignore us, but don't just bring up our name in a negative way.

  149. IRC Feeds for CNN or another news ticker? by razorjack · · Score: 1

    Can anyone provide me some links or server and group names?

    1. Re:IRC Feeds for CNN or another news ticker? by teaserX · · Score: 1

      try chat.cnn.com #CNN_Newsfeed

      --
      We really need your help
      http://www.gofundme.com/help-sherry
  150. Re:Ambulance Chasing by Earlybird · · Score: 2
    • Every single traditional news outlet basically failed yesterday, and if it weren't for mirrors of such sites' data, we wouldn't understand the events of 9-11 as clearly.
    Interestingly, the major news outlets that didn't fail was the Washington Post. Why? They use the Akamai infrastructure, which provides distributed caching of static content. The Post pages were quite nippy, even during the first hours. (Ironically, one of the victims of the WTC crashes was the co-founder and CTO of Akamai.)
  151. Useless Revenge Is No Win by John+Goerzen · · Score: 2
    Comments like these make me quite sick. You should know better.

    What does revenge possibly solve? Killing is wrong, period. Killing more people is not going to bring back those already fallen. Killing more people is not going to make the world a better place. We must take a stand that violence must end, that we will not take it, and that we are not going to stoop to their level.

    Have you seen the situation with the Palistinians in Israel? Israelis have been targets of terrorism for decades, and have been "retaliating" for these attacks for decades as well, with bombings, missile attacks, land troops, etc. All that has happend is an increase in hostility and loss of life on both sides.

    There are ways of preventing this that actually work. Let's not make the situation worse by causing yet more death and destruction. The world had enough of that yesterday. We need no more today.

    1. Re:Useless Revenge Is No Win by JokerBoy3 · · Score: 0

      Wrong. Force is the only thing proven to work. We haven't had problems with Hitler or the Japanese since WW2. Force worked very well on them.

    2. Re:Useless Revenge Is No Win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Killing is wrong, period"

      Please, yet another spineless idiot. Go back to watching Barney and leave dealing with reality to us adults.

      To prevent such attacks in the future, we need to make sure that the punishment for such deeds is overwhelming devistating.

    3. Re:Useless Revenge Is No Win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What is is that makes you feel that this is wrong?

      Why indeed do you feel that this attack was wrong? Do you have a belief that the lives of Americans are more valuable than the lives of others? That it is more wrong to kill Americans than foreigners? Why?

    4. Re:Useless Revenge Is No Win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In general, it is wrong to kill anyone.

      Obviously there are exceptions to this rule. Self-defense is the clearest example. Another example would be fighting an oppressive, totalitarian government (e.g. Nazi Germany).

      Since there are always fringe groups with real or imagined grievances, one must be prepared to defend oneself against attack, with deadly force if necessary.

      So, just as it would have been morally preferable to kill Hitler before he started WWII, it would have been preferable to kill the hijackers before thousands were killed in NYC.

    5. Re:Useless Revenge Is No Win by thrasymachus · · Score: 1

      "Killing more people is not going to make the world a better place."

      actually, killing those people who plan the murder of thousands of civilians does make my world a better place.

  152. try again by CmdrPinkTaco · · Score: 2, Interesting
    --
    Please give your mod points to others, Im at the cap. They will appreciate it more
  153. Why didn't the passengers resist by Hard_Code · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I keep thinking about how these events could have been thwarted. We probably cannot prevent every single hijack attempt, especially not such a sophisticated one. But my mind keeps wandering back to the fact that the hijackers only had razors and knives. I can't believe fellow Americans would allow a few hijackers armed with knives to take over a whole plane, containing 60 or 70 able-bodied persons. A report on Poliglut indicates that people DID attempt to overcome the hijackers on the plane that was headed toward Camp David. The only thing I can think of is that the passangers were not told they were going to be killed, so were just going along with it. However, this is refuted by the calls the flight attendent on flight 77 (I think) made, indicating that the terrorists "put" everybody, including the pilot, at the back of the plane, and then *told* them to call their loved ones to tell them they were going to die. I don't understand how two or three terrorists can simply move the entire 60-70 people to the back of a plane (armed only with knives mind you), and *then* tell them that they were going to die, with not ONE person attempting to overcome them. I'm boggled, and hope that in a similar situation I would do my best to thwart the hijackers. Perhaps, like on the Camp David plane, the hijackers told the passengers they had a bomb and thus the passengers did not want to try anything funny. But if you're being told you are going to die anyway, who cares...might as well try...

    I really hope that Americans tried to do something...

    --

    It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
    1. Re:Why didn't the passengers resist by zachemlamka · · Score: 1

      I understand the points that you have made, as I too agree that I believe I would attempt to resist in this situation.



      That disclaimer aside, I would like to plead that it's nearly impossible to comprehend the mindset that a victim would be in in this situation. It's likely that, in most cases, some sort of authority syndrome would occur, and the victims would hope that by "being good" they would avert their own immenent death, keeping in mind that reports seem to indicate that many had witnessed flight attendants stabbed to death



      Most people had heard news of suicide attackers long before this event, however, I contend that few (outside of the regions most afflicted by this type of violence) actually comprehend this behavior, or think it likely. Most of the victims on planes would probably have rather tried their luck with a 'crazy hijacker' flying the plane, rather than untrained individuals from their own ranks, under the assumption that the hijackers are not necessarily likely to sacrifice the entire jet

    2. Re:Why didn't the passengers resist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the hijackers told the passengers they had a bomb and thus the passengers did not want to try anything funny.

      This is the only possible explanation. I know in my heart that I would have rushed them, even if I had to do it alone. My fit 200 lbs and 10 years of martials arts training would have made at least a minor impression. People of my type are certainly not uncommon. Surely there would be a few every plane.

      So, if I knew that I was going to die, they would have to kill me to keep me from resisting. I would only have restrained myself if I thought that my actions would endanger someone else.

      The reason that this worked is that it hit us in a collective blindspot. I had read that Tom Clancy book and it registered with me how destructive a fully fueled airliner could be where it used in a kamikazi fashion. Even knowing that, I doubt that I would have risked my and others lives trying to subdue hijackers if I thought there could be a bloodless end to it. The problem is that we have been conditioned to be passive in the face of aggression. We subdue ourselves because we hope for the best. We want to save *every* life.

      Now, having said all of that, had I witnessed the killing of one of the stewardesses, I would not have restrained myself. I would have killed all of them or died trying.

    3. Re:Why didn't the passengers resist by beanerspace · · Score: 2

      Up until yesterday, it was not in the American mindset that a hijacking would mean they were instantly sentenced to becoming a human bomb that would be used against their neighbor.

      As for me, healthy or trained or not, I'm going to find the hot coffee pot, splash it on the first chicken-shit-bastard-scum terroist and if I'm still standing, bonk the others on the head with it.

      Hopefully I'll have someone like you behind me so you can finish the work over my dead body.

    4. Re:Why didn't the passengers resist by GungaDan · · Score: 1

      The terrorists indicated to passengers that they had a bomb. The (possibly fictitious) bomb would have been detonated if any resistance was encountered. Additionally, hijacking has traditionally been a form of hostage-taking, not mass murder. The passengers most likely held out some hope that if they complied, they might be released safely when the plane landed (wherever the hijackers were taking it). This was an especially devious and loathsome yet novel strategy employed by the terrorists, and it proved at least 75% effective.

      --
      Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
    5. Re:Why didn't the passengers resist by Ray+Yang · · Score: 1

      You have to remember that this sort of attack is not planned for. Normally, when a plane is hijacked, the hijackers are planning to use the people on board as hostages, and they get their demands met that way, so plane crews are specifically taught *not* to resist people who are holding weapons on them (or who may have bombs) in order to prevent a larger tragedy, like the whole plane going down. The standard procedure is that the plan lands w/ the hijackers in control, and they negotiate them out (and/or storm the plane), in a controlled environment. The idea that somebody would hijack a plane to fly it into a building is new. Needless to say, I think we're going to see some changes in the procedure for hijackings after this.

    6. Re:Why didn't the passengers resist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      I think we're going to see some changes in the procedure for hijackings after this.


      Agreed. I see a new job opportunity for retired secret service and special ops folks. One per plane. Seated in the rear. In plain clothes. Armed with piston loaded with low velocity expanding rounds.

      Orders: Kill all would-be hijackers immediately. Minimize collateral damage but do not delay execution.

    7. Re:Why didn't the passengers resist by msouth · · Score: 2

      A few points in addition to the comments already posted, whic are very good.

      When you are on the plane and they say "we have a bomb", you have to think thinks like "if that is a bomb, and I decide to try to be a hero, I might end up killing everyone on this plane".

      You can't see out the front or into the minds of the hijackers and know what the planned cost was. It's not that easy.

      --
      Liberty uber alles.
    8. Re:Why didn't the passengers resist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see your point and I do agree that the decision is difficult. But my mindset would change as soon as the first hostage dies. I am no psychologist, nor do I claim to have any special insight in this regard. I just know this, if I witness coldblooded acts of violence, and the threat of similar treatment is made to the rest of the people on the plane, our lives are already lost. If we choose to, we can stand up and reclaim them. There is no "playing the odds" once the first murder occurs.

      I have received self-defense firearms training. One of the big questions that you have to answer when carrying a weapon is when to use it. Do you use it when someone busts in, blows the ceiling out of the Shop&Rob with a shotgun and demands the money from the cash register? Of course not. It is not my job to defend the cash register. Assume that the person has no evil intent beyond theft. Drawing your weapon only makes the situation more dangerous. The robber gets nervous, and people get killed.

      But, if the same someone walks through the door and blow the head off of one of the cashiers and orders the other to empty the cash register...do I shoot him? You damn bet I do.

      The rules change once blood is spilled. A murderer does not have a "good" side. A wise person would assume the worst and act accordingly.

    9. Re:Why didn't the passengers resist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This whole mindset is caused by policies such as those banks and convenience stores now have, where clerks are required to not resist robbers because the store owners might be sued by bystanders. If instead we made such policies and lawsuits illegal; we might end up with more dead clerks and customers at first, but far less in the long run.


      Taking no risks is in itself a long term risk to peaceful society.

    10. Re:Why didn't the passengers resist by rjamestaylor · · Score: 2
      Now that we know terrorists will use the plane as a huge bomb to kill thousands of other innocents and not just hijack the plane, taking hostages to get publicity for their causes this will not happen again. No, from now on when a person threatens to hijack a plane every able person on board will recall Sep 11, 2001 and give their life. Moreover, the pilots will ditch the plane if there is even the hint of the terrorists trying to take over flight operations.

      Your mindset is influenced by your knowledge of the outcome of the hijackings. Never before has anything like this been attempted. I doubt any popular fiction has had the same concept -- yes, I know about the JAL 747 in Clancy's book (title?) but the protagonist there was the official pilot of the foreign aircraft, not an onboard terrorist. Working with what information they had of the intentions of terrorists they would have been broadsided -- as you would have, too.

      Hijackers will never be treated the same again.

      --
      -- @rjamestaylor on Ello
  154. GIVE MONEY, BLOOD, TIME TO YOUR LOCAL RED CROSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To give money via Paypal: http://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=p/gen/rel ief-outside

    relief@paypal.com

    This money will go directly to the American Red Cross National Disaster Relief Fund and is tax-deductible.

    To give money: write a check and mail it either to your local chapter (made out to "National Disaster Relief Fund") or to the national address at:

    American Red Cross
    PO Box 37243
    Washington, DC 20013

    To give blood immediately: GO TO your local American Red Cross blood donor center, expect waits. Check news media and/or the Red Cross Web site (http://www.redcross.org) for details. Note that many local chapters have Web sites which have local information and are not overloaded. If Red Cross donation centers are full, check local hospitals and news media for blood drives.

    To give blood in a few days: call your local American Red Cross chapter for information or make an appointment through the national number 1-800-GIVE-LIFE.

    The desperate need for blood will continue for weeks.

    To donate your time or services: go to your local American Red Cross chapter HQ and volunteer your services, they are swamped.

    If you have _real_ intel regarding NYC or Washington DC, something you saw personally (please don't waste their time):

    https://www.ifccfbi.gov/complaint/terrorist.asp

  155. AGREED!! Re:Cowards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree.

    We are at WAR. This is not an ideal world. This is very much a very flawed world and one of the unfortunate side-effects of this fact is the necessity to wage warfare. I am absolutely appalled at any person, regardless of nationality, who could have any other reaction to this mess other than to strike back and strike back hard, for the sake of humanity! This is a time for sacrifice. These people have shown us they are willing to die for their cause, which apparently is to destroy us. And I don't think I need to remind anyone here that with the advancement of technology, these people are only going to have more tools at their disposal. Unless you want to eliminate your liberty and freedom, including the freedom to freely disseminate knowledge and technology, we must eliminate these people as soon as possible before they literally take the whole world down. These are drastic times calling for drastic measures.

    Yesterday, many hard working American people made the ultimate sacrifice in their pursuit of liberty and freedom --they gave their lives. I can only pray that they now truly realize the value of that sacrifice. It is now our responsibility as survivors to carry on that legacy. So, instead of arguing about whose fault it was and whose to blame, why don't you get off your ass and decide what your sacrifice is going to be. We are in a war and time is running out.

  156. But who would want to work there? by Gorimek · · Score: 2

    I'd most certainly pass. I leave death defying defiance to hotter heads. Pick your battles.

    1. Re:But who would want to work there? by andy@petdance.com · · Score: 2
      I'd most certainly pass. I leave death defying defiance to hotter heads. Pick your battles.

      It's not as if the 50,000 people who worked there on Monday were unaware of the attack in 1993...

  157. Re:Harry Browne's position -- Very Good Read! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow. Great summary, I have perhaps a new hope for the Libertarians!

    ...

    When Will We Learn?
    by Harry Browne

    The terrorist attacks against America comprise a horrible tragedy. But they shouldn't be a surprise.

    It is well known that in war, the first casualty is truth - that during any war truth is forsaken for propaganda. But sanity was a prior casualty: it was the loss of sanity that led to war in the first place.

    Our foreign policy has been insane for decades. It was only a matter of time until Americans would have to suffer personally for it. It is a terrible tragedy of life that the innocent so often have to suffer for the sins of the guilty.

    When will we learn that we can't allow our politicians to bully the world without someone bullying back eventually?

    President Bush has authorized continued bombing of innocent people in Iraq. President Clinton bombed innocent people in the Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Serbia. President Bush Senior invaded Iraq and Panama. President Reagan bombed innocent people in Libya and invaded Grenada. And on and on it goes.

    Did we think the people who lost their families and friends and property in all that destruction would love America for what happened?

    When will we learn that violence always begets violence?

    Teaching Lessons

    Supposedly, Reagan bombed Libya to teach Muammar al-Qaddafi a lesson about terrorism. But shortly thereafter a PanAm plane was destroyed over Scotland, and our government tried to convince the world it was Libyans who did it.

    When will we learn that "teaching someone a lesson" never teaches anything but resentment - that it only inspires the recipient to greater acts of defiance.

    How many times on Tuesday did we hear someone describe the terrorist attacks as "cowardly acts"? But as misguided and despicable as they were, they were anything but cowardly. The people who committed them knowingly gave their lives for whatever stupid beliefs they held.

    But what about the American presidents who order bombings of innocent people - while the presidents remain completely insulated from any danger? What would you call their acts?

    When will we learn that forsaking truth and reason in the heat of battle almost always assures that we will lose the battle?

    Losing our Last Freedoms

    And now, as sure as night follows day, we will be told we must give up more of our freedoms to avenge what never should have happened in the first place.

    When will we learn that it makes no sense to give up our freedoms in the name of freedom?

    What to Do

    What should be done?

    First of all, stop the hysteria. Stand back and ask how this could have happened. Ask how a prosperous country isolated by two oceans could have so embroiled itself in other people's business that someone would want to do us harm. Even sitting in the middle of Europe, Switzerland isn't beset by terrorist attacks, because the Swiss mind their own business.

    Second, resolve that we won't let our leaders use this occasion to commit their own terrorist acts upon more innocent people, foreign and domestic, that will inspire more terrorist attacks in the future.

    Third, find a way, with enforceable constitutional limits, to prevent our leaders from ever again provoking this kind of anger against America.

    Patriotism?

    There are those who will say this article is unpatriotic and un-American - that this is not a time to question our country or our leaders.

    When will we learn that without freedom and sanity, there is no reason to be patriotic?

  158. No news in Boston by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The boston newspapers web sites are down.

  159. Re:true, but canada still sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And you're a AMERICAN?? No wonder NY got bombed.

  160. Several with something sharp and 50+ people... by Svartalf · · Score: 2

    Guess who'll win if the 50+ people have the guts to rush them all at once. This boils down to people thinking that they'll be allright because the nice terrorists will let you go once they get what they're asking for- that's what we've all been told.

    In that situation, you're in reality dead until out of dumb luck they let you go or you're rescued by someone else- or you win your life back.

    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
  161. Understand the feeling, but no... by GCP · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's very important that we not let terrorists pull our strings. Certainly, closing up newly discovered vulnerabilities is reasonable -- depending on how it's done -- but the best "revenge" really will be to not be swerved an inch by this attack.

    --
    "Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
    1. Re:Understand the feeling, but no... by DA_MAN_DA_MYTH · · Score: 1

      And let it keep going on, thanks but no thanks.

      Action must be made to protect our beloved soils. You do understand that a nation that lives in fear cannot be free. (I don't see anyone in a hurry to jump in a plane anytime soon, let alone work in a high rise) We as Americans, from the time we were very young have been told that we live in the land of the free and the home of the brave. Brave action must be taken against these forces that oppose our freedoms and our way of life. No matter if we start bombing or no we have to send in troops to eliminate the troops eliminate this threat. Period. Or else a reign of terror will continue, much like Saddam has ever since we have chosen to contine to let him live.

      --
      "It takes many nails to build a crib, but one screw to fill it."
    2. Re:Understand the feeling, but no... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Stop being such a fucking idiot. If you want to advocate murder and genocide (eliminate the palestinians?!!!) then move to Afghanistan and join bin Laden. I'm sure you will feel right at home once you learn the language.

      Fucking moron. I hope nobody thinks this asshole reflects real Americans.

  162. A Prayer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lord,

    The world is an ugly place today. We see the destruction and pain that evil has visited here. You are with me and with us all, but as we look back at the aftermath, it is easy to be fearful. Take this fear from us. Replace it with the quiet assurance that nothing escapes Your view. Nothing happens without a reason. Show us how to look to You for protection. Remind us of the faith we may have lost. Ease the pain; qwell the fears. Pour down Your love into each heart and let that love bind us together as brothers and sisters.

    Amen

  163. Parallel by zachemlamka · · Score: 1

    Putting questions of blame aside for a (very brief) moment, I would like to mention that I've always found it interesting to substitute "Emmanuel Goldstein" for "Osama bin Ladin" in all news stories

    1. Re:Parallel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are a worthless human being. Leave.

  164. Evidence? by Feelgood · · Score: 1

    I was just wondering what others thought of the "evidence" they have found in the rental car and the luggage that didn't make the connection flight - things like a copy of the Koran and Arabic flight training materials. As coordinated and planned as this attack was, I find it hard to believe that the attackers would leave such obvious clues behind. Maybe, just maybe, they would leave stuff behind that would point where many want to look anyway, regardless of if it actually was indicative of who they actually are?

    1. Re:Evidence? by awkman · · Score: 1
      As far as the evidence discovered in the luggage that did not make the connection, I'm sure the thought was that the luggage would make it onto the plane and then be destroyed in the crash, leaving no evidence at all.

      If the items found in the rental car turn out to be related to the attacks, I agree it seems sloppy for such a well-planned operation, but at this point, I think we'll take any clues we can get.

  165. War is a dirty thing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I personally spent ten years in the US Navy so I am talking from experience and not out of my ass. There is nothing that saddens me more than a bunch of american candy asses crying about civilian casualties. Targeting only hostile govt and military facilities does very little to change a nation. In order to have the desired effect the hostile nation must feel the pain deeply to resolve change. To cause this much pain civilians govt and military targets should be treated as equal and I think in this case will be. War is not pretty, it is a tool. How many innocent lives where taken yesterday? Should we care about civilian casualties, no I am totally for indescriminate targeting of anyone or any nations involved in this.

    I also call for a immediate deportation of all H1B and foreign VISA holders.

    1. Re:War is a dirty thing! by akeRoo · · Score: 1

      You are so right.... Targeting Pearl Harbor really did nothing to change our nation.....

    2. Re:War is a dirty thing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I also call for a immediate deportation of all H1B and foreign VISA holders.


      Oh yeah? we'll get right on that, thanks for the heads up...
  166. Good updated article at abcnews.com by Villain · · Score: 2, Informative

    This Article has some good updated info on what the US has found out about the terrorists so far.

  167. Come on!!! by Mindjiver · · Score: 1

    So you think all people in Egypt and other countries in the region was celebrating? Then you are really stupid. I wouldnt be suprised if there are as many happy americans as there are egypts!

    Get your We-are-better-then-you-attitude outta here!
    That what go in to this situation in the first place!

    --
    I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
  168. Navigation not a problem by edremy · · Score: 2
    Buy a handheld aviation GPS. $1000 for a nice one that will happily tell you exactly where to point the plane and let you know if you're off course to teh left or right.

    Given that one of the pilots appeared to be a student at Embry-Riddle, he's be familiar with the devices.

    Eric

    --
    "Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
  169. your an asshole! by lowell · · Score: 1

    asshole!

  170. Pessimistic thoughts... by mackman · · Score: 2

    I'm not saying this is going to happen, in fact, I think it's unlikly, but what did the US do after it dropped the first atomic bomb? Dropped another. Why? To show that we could do it again. Result: Japan surrendered.

    I keep thinking to myself that the reason no one has stepped forward and claimed resposibility is that the attack isn't over. Once airlines are running again, I fear a second wave of terrorism.

    If you think about it, the FAA would have to ground planes until they are able to establish new security procedures nation-wide. That alone would badly damage our economy. Not to mention that I'm sure none of us would feel safe at home or at work for awhile.

    Just my horribly pessimistic 2 cents.

  171. This is the start of www 3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As history will remember it, it is the begining of www 3. It is time to learn drills..for you will be called next. Let us hope we will win this won without much lose of life.

    1. Re:This is the start of www 3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're overreacting. Previous world wars have involved all the major powers of the world fighting against each other. Currently, all the major powers of the world are supporting the united states, with the exception of Iraq and probably Afganistan (they "feel our pain" but they haven't extridited Bin Laden for questioning yet).

  172. why wasn't the 2nd plane shot down, or intercepted by dario_moreno · · Score: 1

    The article in the Boston Herald states
    that a voice from the first plane said
    "we have more planes". Why, in the 15 min
    delay until the second plane approached,
    (and the third, and the fourth...) weren't
    any planes scrambled , at least to intercept
    the liners, if not to shoot them down
    above crowded areas ? I know from personal
    sources that there used to be a permanent
    guard by two Mirage fighter planes at a small
    airfield two minutes from Paris...but this
    dates back to cold war era, maybe such measures
    were abandoned until yesterday.

    I also remember from some Forsyth or Clancy book
    that all flights in USSR had a steel door,
    to the cockpit, permanently closed
    during flight, and some armed KGB man
    near to this door. Time to revive such measures ?

    The Nostradamus verses are very disturbing.
    At least, it seems from that source
    that eventually the
    West will triumph of the Muslims...

    --
    Google passes Turing test : see my journal
  173. Your rage is clouding your judgement by BeBoxer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why should we increase our support of Israel ten-fold? So that we can get attacked again? It's high time we realize the we are vulnerable, and will always be vulnerable as long as we maintain an open society. Does that mean that we shouldn't respond to this latest attack? Of course not. But at the same time, we should realize that our foreign policy is literally driving large numbers of people into suicidal frenzys!

    Rather than go into a blind rage of fury, we need to look long and hard at how the rest of the world views our policies and talk about whether the risk those policies create offsets the benefits. We may very well find that the lives lost in NYC yesterday are the price we pay for cheap gas. After all, oil is the only reason we give a damn about the middle east. I know I'm being overly simplistic, but the reality is that our actions have consequences. We need to be willing to talk openly and honestly about these things. Letting the rage of the moment cloud our judgement in this time of crisis is the worst thing we can do.

    1. Re:Your rage is clouding your judgement by rabidcow · · Score: 1

      Why should we increase our support of Israel ten-fold? So that we can get attacked again? It's high time we realize the we are vulnerable, and will always be vulnerable as long as we maintain an open society. Does that mean that we shouldn't respond to this latest attack? Of course not. But at the same time, we should realize that our foreign policy is literally driving large numbers of people into suicidal frenzys!

      So you propose that we show the world that terrorism is a viable way to control the United States' foreign policy?

      Personally, I don't know what should be done, but whatever is done will send a message, and those in charge must carefully consider what message they want to send and what other consequences there are.

    2. Re:Your rage is clouding your judgement by BeBoxer · · Score: 2

      We would be foolish to not let the reality of terrorism affect our foreign policy. I didn't say we should let terrorists set our foreign policy. Are you saying that the deaths of thousands of civilians are an insignificant side-bar which should not be allowed to impact how we conduct our foreign affairs? The fact that our current policies have led, however indirectly, to the deaths of thousands of innocent American civilans certainly needs to be taken into account. I mean, you seem to be arguing that we cannot, under any circumstances, allow terrorism to control foreign policy. That argument is basically saying civilan deaths at the hands of terrorists are not important, and do not warrent any consideration in our foreign policy. But of course, that isn't what you mean. I think what you might actually mean is: terrorism should only make our foreign policy more violent. We should never allow the deaths of civilans to make us want to take a more peaceful path. Is that more what you are arguing?

      Really, I don't see how any one can argue with the fact that our current foreign policy has led to thousands of civilan deaths, and we should take that fact into account going forward. It's pure folly to not let recent events guide us going foward. You act like it's a good thing for us to stumble forward ignoring the bodies that we are literally tripping over, because to do otherwise would be to give terrorists control. Wake up. Yesterday, they were in control. The sooner we acknowledge that we are not all powerful and adjust our policies accordingly, the better off we'll be in the long run.

  174. What would ground support be good for? by iabervon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I know that ground support for most such things would be very important, but it really seems like these people wouldn't have needed any help once the planes were in the air, and wouldn't have needed more people in advance.

    People have sited the close timing of the attacks, but that would only take an afternoon with a set of flight schedules. Getting groups of people on a set of planes at the same time is the sort of thing that anyone planning, say, a family reunion can pull off, and get on one of the planes themselves.

    The weapons seem to have been small blades attached to plastic handles. These are neither hard to come by, nor hard to get in sufficient quantity, nor hard to get by security (someone clean-shaven who doesn't want to check luggage?), nor hard to assemble.

    The hard part really would be getting a group of people who could fight effectively with knives and could frighten people into obeying with some people who could fly airliners, who were willing to die intentionally, without tipping off any intelligence agencies; but if the group has formed, there's no need for more people left behind (aside, perhaps, from a spiritual leader; but the leader doesn't need to have any idea what's going on).

    Probably the hardest thing would be thinking of the attack in the first place-- noticing that it would be easy to take control of an airplane, and that an airplane would make a very effective weapon. But again, there's no reason that the person who realized this couldn't have been one of the people who went along.

    We will probably find out that the terrorists had families and friends, and that some of these had some idea about the plans, because even determined terrorists can't always keep a secret. But, for instance, bin Laden probably actually didn't know what the plans were, or exactly who was involved, even if the terrorists turn out to be from his group, precisely because he wouldn't want to be vital as a living person to the success of this and other acts; he'd want to be able to say that the reason it worked was simply because there are people who are both clever and sufficiently angry at the US, and that, as long as the US behaves badly, this is certain to happen every once in a while, even without any obvious leaders.

  175. Your government is your life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am not a criminal. There is no reason for the government to be interested in my electronic communication. If allowing the government to "potentially" eavesdrop in on my conversations prevents a tragedy such as the one we have witnessed then I am all for it. I am not one for conspiracy theories, I have faith in the morals of high-level American individuals/agencies, I am Australian.
    Pessimism will always exist, it is healthy to be pessimistic of your government, however, when that pessimism leads to the clouding of judgement and stagnation of necessary action, the results may well prove fatal.
    Have faith in your leaders, always question their decisions, but never consider your individual concerns over that of your your nation as a whole.

    1. Re:Your government is your life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. I have always held my privacy and rights with regard to encryption in high regard. However, this attack was an act of war, and in wartime I believe the government has every right to intercept communications, criminal or otherwise.

  176. US foreign policy has fed those snake for years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now snake bites its masters hand. Anybody surprised?
    Blame those criminals who are responsisble for this development.

    The writing was on the wall since 1992.
    Nobody cared to read it. And even now nobody cares.
    Praying isn't enough when it comes to decision making.
    Thinking may help. Better the US may chose friends more
    carefully next time. But as it looks, the next explosive relationship
    is ready to go.

  177. It's unfortunate... by artemis67 · · Score: 2

    that the passengers on the other planes didn't act similarly. However, the word is that the terrorists on the other planes were telling the passengers that they would be alright if they were obedient.

    Have we entered into an era where we can't ever again make assumptions about the safety of the passengers? These terrorists have now demonstrated what to do and how to do it; no doubt there will be many, many copycats.

    Sad to say, but in a hijack situation, maybe passengers should probably assume they are already dead and do everything possible to bring down the plane before they become a flying bomb. And I hate to say it, but we may have even entered a time where the military would be negligent if they didn't shoot down a hijacked plane heading towards a metropolitan area.

    1. Re:It's unfortunate... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No doubt the first thing this man was told when he called on his cell phone is the fate of the other three planes, I don't think the other three had any way of knowing what they were in for until the very last minute.

    2. Re:It's unfortunate... by alcmena · · Score: 1

      His plane went down first. I too had thought that it was the last to go, but the Camp David plane was actually the first to go.

    3. Re:It's unfortunate... by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

      I have said for years that in the event of a hijacking, all passengers are immediately declared dead.

      At that point, if any can be brought back from the dead, that's great, but it shouldn't be expected.

      That wouldn't help this situation, but a policy like that may have helped to prevent it. Look at how countries like Saudi Arabia, Israel, and France handle hijackers. Hijackers tend to avoid those countries these days.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    4. Re:It's unfortunate... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, the idea comes to hijack a plane, circle over Boston and wait for the USAF to shoot you down and do the dirty work for you?

      Score!

    5. Re:It's unfortunate... by 4mn0t1337 · · Score: 1
      Stay off of the crack. That is reserved for the moderators. ;)

      Here is the flight path for all 4 planes. UA93 crashed almost an hour and a half after the first plane down (AA11), and half an hour after the 3rd plane (AA77).

      --

      ______
      Once: you're a philosopher. Twice: a pervert.

    6. Re:It's unfortunate... by artemis67 · · Score: 2

      Well, that would be a weak plan. The civilians would have ample time to evacuate, and the fighters would have the luxury of forcing the plane down on their terms.

  178. crazy idea by lazn · · Score: 2, Informative

    I know that arming crew members with standard firearms is too dangerous in a plane (explosive depresurization etc) but what about giving them something like this (tranquilizer gun): http://www.pneudart.com/projector/proj_179b.html

    Especially if there were at least two people armed with those on each flight. (say pilot and head steward/stewardest)

    It give them a chance to stop such future trageties in the future.

    Just a thought.

    ==>Lazn

    1. Re:crazy idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically, they are Flight Attendents.

  179. nitpick about millions [OT] by alienmole · · Score: 1
    One thing that bin Laden has going for him is millions of dollars. He is the heir of a wealthy Saudi construction magnate, and his worth is somewhere in the millions.

    OK, I'm nitpicking, so don't get too excited, but this reminds me a little of Dr. Evil in the Austin Powers movies, asking for "one million dollars" in ransom money.

    A reasonable well-off middle-class retiree in America has millions of dollars in retirement savings. I know a couple of people with net worths in excess of $10 million. None of these people would get very far in funding terrorism except on a very small scale, because a million dollars just isn't that much money any more.

    As the Economist magazine put it recently (I'm probably paraphrasing), $100 million is "fuck you" money. Much less than that and you can barely afford to buy and maintain a decent jet, for example.

    Media reports recently are saying Bin Laden is worth a billion or more, although I don't know the details. He apparently issues grants to credible terrorists who apply to him with a workable plan, sort of like a terrorist version of an angel investor (I guess that would be a devil investor?)

    1. Re:nitpick about millions [OT] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I knew venture capitalists were evil.

    2. Re:nitpick about millions [OT] by phutureboy · · Score: 1

      How much funding does one really need for this?

      Flight training school: 4 * $3500 = $14000
      Cardboard cutters: 8 * $5 = $40
      One-way plane tickets: 8 * 150 = $1200

      So we're looking at roughly $15,000 U.S., plus some miscellaneous expenses like rental cars, hotel stays, etc.

      They probably spent a bit more... just pointing out that something like this could be pulled off on a budget. Especially if you use someone else's planes instead of buying your own.

    3. Re:nitpick about millions [OT] by alienmole · · Score: 2
      How much funding does one really need for this?

      Flight training school: 4 * $3500 = $14000
      Cardboard cutters: 8 * $5 = $40
      One-way plane tickets: 8 * 150 = $1200

      You forgot:

      A dozen suicidal terrorists: priceless.

    4. Re:nitpick about millions [OT] by phutureboy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I left that out for a reason :P

    5. Re:nitpick about millions [OT] by alienmole · · Score: 1

      What can I say, I'm crass and insensitive enough to have fallen into your trap... :P

    6. Re:nitpick about millions [OT] by zeitgeist77 · · Score: 1

      Well, flight training school for a cessna is 3500 bucks. Flight training for a turbofan aircraft (usually done in 737s) is orders of magnitude more. I read some where it was 300 bucks a MINUTE for turbofan time. Can guarantee that's accurate, but i would say around 100,000 is what it would cost to train from scratch a turbofan qualified pilot. Still, a drop in the bucket versus multiple millions of dollars, and the kind of hate needed to do this.

      all said, i hope the fucker and his money burn

  180. Battle lines of the 21st century... by MadAhab · · Score: 1

    ... have been drawn, and at this point is seems stupendously clear that it's radical, fundamentalist Islam against the rest of humanity --- including millions of Muslims who don't subscribe to their medieval rhetoric of religious war against everyone else. Unfortunately for the rest of the world, the war has been declared. After watching the whole thing out my window yesterday, I personally don't give a fuck whether it was Taliban, Bin Laden, or Hussein, I'd be happy to see all of them sent back to the stone age they so desperately wish to live in.

    --
    Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
  181. Re:Sheriff Uncle Sam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sheriff Uncle Sam created the middle east loonies
    over the past 50 years under the excuse of kicking
    "bad guy ass" when BadGuy==Russkie. And destroyed
    the democracy of the country of my birth in the
    process. Now that BadGuy==SandNigger they'll
    go in and create some even more loony, better
    armed nutcases to drive out Bin Laden, and they
    will start highjacking and become the next BadGuy
    etc etc etc. Terrorism will increase, and the CIA
    will deal drugs in schools to pay for it. And the
    USAF may bomb some of my relatives. The better
    alternative would be to stop this loony
    imperialist foreign policy with one not designed
    to create terrorists.

  182. Re:US Imperialism and anti-US sentiments worldwide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To hell with you Christopher. You are naive to think anything less than wiping terrorists out completely will solve this problem.

    America has saved this whole damn planet many times over and you are far too ignorant to understand that. America is also responsible for the majority of the economic expansion you enjoy and the technology you use.

    Don't hate the player, hate the game. bin Laden has exported his craziness to our country. Now, let's export a few metric tons of explosives and some carefully aimed sniper rounds up his ass (and all others that support terrorism).

  183. Make that 9000 by ElDuque · · Score: 1

    Some quick button pushing reveals that 9100 comments have ben posted in the last day.

  184. Who trained bin Laden? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Brilliant idea. I think it's already been done though, and our trained assassin is running amok.

  185. Donate right at the Red Cross website by Spoke · · Score: 1
    You can donate right at the Red Cross Online Donation Form.

    Select "Disaster Relief Fund" to have your money go towards the people affected by yesterday's attack.

  186. looking for good old texas law from bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i wanted for some one to say to the terrorist that they will not be able to get a good nights sleep for the rest of there short lives.

  187. A message from a Canadian to all Americans... by Braintrust · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Please excuse the consistent use of male nouns and pronouns in the following. It made this easier to write and to understand, so is it that bad this once? Also, please ignore any Owellian reference you think you may see. That's the farthest thing from my intent. Hope this helps a little.

    I'm going to write something now that is so thoroughly and utterly Canadian in sentiment, although I'm sure it's a view shared by many other countries and individuals the world over. The United States is like our big brother. That is meant in the most fraternal of ways. It is a role Canada, and many other countries, willingly accept. The analogy is accurate in a number of ways. As the economically and culturally larger, more physically powerful sibling, you sometimes flaunt your power and tease your smaller brethren. But when one of us falls and skins our proverbial knee, you are always first to arrive on the scene, to make sure that everyone is ok, and safe. In return for the safety and protection you provide, we make you laugh, we sing and dance, and make arts and crafts of every kind for your amusement. We do some extra chores for you when the need arises, and we even put up with your teasing. We do this gladly, usually, for the benefit of letting you have your way most of the time, is the ability to fall asleep every night knowing that things aren't going to be so bad tomorrow, because somewhere out there our big brother is looking out for us.

    And the best thing is you really seem to relish the situation. America and it's citizens, although as equally capable of being evil and misguided as any population on the planet, inarguably live in the freest and most progressive society in the world. Although other countries all over the earth have certain benefits and advantages over the U.S, when taken as a whole, America is without peer in so many more ways. Have no doubt, you can be cruel sometimes, but you always seem to make up for it in the long run, and certainly you've contributed the most to our home, this beautiful and singular planet we share, and that definitely entitles you to some concessions.

    We hate to admit it, and will only do so under a firm twisting of our arm, to make us say uncle as it were, but we do look up to you and we think you're pretty great. Our big brother has done great things; you're the strongest, fastest, smartest, kindest, most noble and good big brother... a little brother or sister could ever ask for. And now you're hurt, someone sucker-punched you when you weren't looking, in your own backyard no less. We are all in shock; we are all hurt, by seeing our protective and kind sibling get rocked back a little bit. Someone snuck up on you from behind and gave you a black eye, and I know I speak for a lot of people around the world, all your loyal brother and sisters, when I say we can't wait to see you get back up again. We can't wait to see you rise to your feet, shake the dust off, and accept our hugs and affection as we try to reassure you that we're right here to offer any help you need. We can't wait to see you gather yourself, re-affirm your bearing, and then go get the guys that did this too you. We can't wait to see you catch up with the bad guys, and wipe them off the face of the earth, once and for all.

    We know you'll take your time. We know you're going to make sure you have the right people before you act. We know you'll do your best to protect the innocent as you exact your completely justified revenge. We know you're going to get them this time, no matter what it takes. And we are so happy to know that soon our home, our global neighborhood, will be a whole lot safer for all of us. We are so proud to be your siblings, America. We may argue sometimes, but it's nothing serious... not like this. You really are the best, and we are so grateful for all you've ever done. We couldn't ask for a better friend and brother. Go get them. We've got your back. Peace to each and every one of you.

    --
    Years later, a doctor will tell me that I have an I.Q. of 48, and am what some people call "mentally retarded".
    1. Re:A message from a Canadian to all Americans... by gone.fishing · · Score: 1

      Dear "Little Brother,"

      Thank you for that heart-felt note. I've never thought of it quite like that before but I see your point and appreciate the sentiment.

      Big Brother

    2. Re:A message from a Canadian to all Americans... by m_evanchik · · Score: 1

      You bastard,

      Now I've gotten all weepy.

      Why can't the rest of the world (us (Middle North) Americans included) be as civilized like you Canucks? When we had a secession, hundreds of thousands of lives were lost. You all have a peaceful election and act like adults.

      Well, now it's time to get the rest of the world to grow up, whether they like it or not.

    3. Re:A message from a Canadian to all Americans... by Xoro · · Score: 1

      Thank you for your kind words. I've been very gratified by the international response, beyond the expected lip service. Flowers placed by the embassies in Hungary, Russia, Norway, Germany -- probably others. President of Ireland, expressing sympathy for a country that is "very, very dear to us". John Major's words were more inspiring than those of our own president (scary, yes).

      Back to Canada -- every country should be so blessed to have a neighbor like Canada. It isn't easy to maintain an independent identity and friendship and loyalty all together. I could go on. In this case: The US didn't want international planes to land for a reason -- fear that those planes were loaded with explosives and kamikaze pilots. Well, Canada stepped up and took that risk for us. Just because nothing exploded doesn't mean that anyone knew they wouldn't. Thank you.

      Whatever the US has done for Canada over the years is amply repaid by the mere existence of such a friendly neighbor. Remeber that Canada declared war on Japan a day before the US after Pearl Harbor. So, as SCTV's Canadian Minute put it, "for a full 24 hours, Canada stood alone against the mighty Japanese Empire". :-)

      Thanks again for your support.

      --
      Kill, Tux, kill!
    4. Re:A message from a Canadian to all Americans... by linzeal · · Score: 1

      Canada versus the japanese. That would of been interesting. I wonder if any RTS games could ever simulate something like that.

    5. Re:A message from a Canadian to all Americans... by TypoDaemon · · Score: 1

      not that your message isn't received with the most heartfelt thanks, but i think you are overlooking a lot in your beatification of the us.

      for example, the cold war and the atrocities perpetuated then. that is, in fact, what most of the problems in the middle east spring from. it is the fact that america blatantly used those people that has made this act possible.

      america helps out canada and a lot of other first world countries, but very few third world countries like america, because america doesn't see a need to be civil to them, necessarily.

      the us is really horrible sometimes. just don't forget that, please.

    6. Re:A message from a Canadian to all Americans... by jonathanjo · · Score: 1
      Hey, Braintrust, I can't reply to you personally, but THANK YOU for this touching note of encouragement. I get weepy every time I read this. I've forwarded a link to your comment to dozens of friends and family; my stepmother, who is a therapist, has hung it in her waiting room. This huge national sucker-punch is really discouraging; no one here knows exactly how to move through it; and it helps immensely to know that people believe in us. Thanks.

      J

  188. Evidence Before The Attack by docstrange · · Score: 1

    Don't know if you guys have seen this, basically it's a google message board where a guy predicts dead on that something terrible will happen on the 11th. Scary.

    http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&frame=right& th=54ab4d241c34e0cc&seekm=3b8fd177%%40monitor.lans et.com#link1

    --
    Remember that you are unique, just like everybody else.
  189. My guess is The Capitol Building by The+Wookie · · Score: 2

    They hit the "headquarters" of our monetary power and the headquarters of our military power, why not the headquarters of our political power as well? (that would also make the White House a potential target)

    I don't think the last plane was headed for the Pentagon, I think the only reason they sent two planes at the WTC is that they couldn't take out two buildings with one plane.

  190. go nuclear ? by beanerspace · · Score: 1

    I'm not trying to flamebait here, rather I'm thinking the length and breadth of retaliation in this horrible case.

    If we are dealing with an enemy who does not understand more passive diplomatic channels
    .AND.
    If we are indeed dealing with an enemy who is not afraid to die to the last man (via our own commercial airplanes or otherwise)
    ->
    Then would anything but total anihilation do the trick ?

    1. Re:go nuclear ? by J'raxis · · Score: 2

      Lets assume we could and will nuke the entire Middle East. Total annihilation? What about their operatives already in other countries? In the United States?

      Also remember that nuclear bombs can be built in briefcases and a lot of fissionable material has gone missing from the former Soviet Union. We nuke their homeland; New York gets vaporized the next day.

    2. Re:go nuclear ? by scharkalvin · · Score: 1

      I think that it's telling that a terrorist nuclear attack HASN'T happened yet. I think they know we will exchange kilotons with MEGATONS.

      You can't hide a thermonuclear device in a suitcase, it WILL be too big. A small kiloton device (IE: less than those dropped on Japan) yes.

    3. Re:go nuclear ? by remande · · Score: 2
      Nukes are a poor anti-terrorist weapon.


      Terrorists are usually small cells of people, very small and pesky targets. They are usually not nations or governments in charge of large land masses.


      A nuclear weapon is good for destroying large land masses, such as cities. Direct hits can also destroy hard targets such as bunkers, but will also "erase" the local area. This is a sure way to piss off all the locals. As far as I am concerned, a nuke is a terrorist attack, as it is anti-civilian rather than anti-military.


      If you dropped a nuke on the terrorists, you would make the surrounding countries mad at you, both the governments themselves and the individual civilians. You would start an old-fashioned, military-to-military war, and you would create dozens of terrorist cells for every one you destroyed.


      The weapons you need for this war are the surgical ones. This would be assassins, commandos, SEALs, that sort of thing. The biggest weapon I would imagine would be an F-119 with laser guided bombs.


      Sure, you're going to piss off the locals by persuing our enemies on their soverignty. But not as much as if you kill 50,000 of their civilians. See what that did to us!

      --

      --The basis of all love is respect

  191. How to prevent this from EVER happening again ... by valmont · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I know the following seems a little drastic, costly and prolly impossible to implement, if not flat out whacky, *but* it just may spark some good ideas in the minds of people much smarter than I am.

    From looking at the various accounts of what happened, it is obvious the terrorists somehow managed to gain control of the plane. Barring inside jobs from certified airline pilots who would have somehow managed to infiltrate the airlines, and assuming the people initially controlling the planes are the good guys, we should re-think the way PLANES are built and the processes surrounding loading and boarding planes, so that:

    • Pilots are completely isolated from the rest of the plane in their cockpit
    • The cockpit should be a freakin' BANK VAULT: impossible to force open, shoot down or destroy.
    • Only way to get in or out of the cockpit should be through some highly sophisticated authentication protocols using digital access codes, finger prints, voice, access card, keys, whatever.
    • Pilots should have everything they need in a cockpit to hold a freakin' siege, it should be highly comfortable and allow them to go thru a whole flight without ever having to leave their place.
    • Pilots should be escorted on the ground to their cockpit and from their cockpit to the outside by a heavily armed law enforcement body, after thorough extra identity check, maybe involving fingerprints. Airlines could store all of their pilots' fingerprints on-file, along with everything they know about their lives, along with a very comprehensive set of mug shots of the pilot. When picking-up and escorting a pilot to their destination, law enforcement agents could carry a little device on which the pilots would put place their thumb, scan the finger print, compare it with what's on file and establish a first positive identification, AND bring to the screen PICTURES, face AND profile of the pilot, so the law-enforcement agent can establish a second positive identification AND visually ensure he's escorting the right person. The identification device should be linked at all times to a central computer system on which all pilots would be pre-programmed to their assigned flight in advance. Only the pre-programmed pilots should be able to get escorted to the plane.
    • All flight attendants should carry at all times some sort of remote "panic" trigger that would instantly put the plane in emergency mode, and isolate the cockpit with the pilots from any sound going on in the main cabin so they can't be coerced into some destructive actions. The panic button should also instantly trigger notifications to ground-based crisis-handling agencies
    • Supplement the "black box" with a comprehensive network of microphones throughout the plane that could be instantly turned on in crisis-mode and relay any sound on the plane to the ground agencies BUT NOT the cockpit.


    bleah.

  192. Think about trains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Modern trains like they have in Europe and Japan are *way* better than planes. Better for the environment, you travel downtown to downtown and they can't be hijacked. I hope the US and Canada move in this direction.

    1. Re:Think about trains by scharkalvin · · Score: 1

      Remember "the taking of Pelham one two three"?

      Anyway I'd like to see the US build a network of high speed trains that would rival the airlines.

  193. Will the black boxes survive? Not likely (read) by mr_feta · · Score: 1
    Theres been much speculation on the skill of the pilots involved in yesterday's horrible attack. Or on passengers on the PA flight overpowering the hijackers. Etc. We may yet find out about the flight in PA and possibly the one in DC at the Pentagon, but it is unlikely that the two jets in NY will bear many results - the black boxes are unlikely to survive.

    I dug into airliner black boxes last year after the Concorde disaster and I found some interesting stuff:

    • called FDR - flight data recorders
    • they're not black - orange or red.. easier to find in the debris.
    • withstand an impact of 270 kts (3,400 G decceleration) - from the videos, those airliners were doing 350-400+ knots easy (but Im only an armchair pilot - what do I know)
    • withstand 1,100 deg. C fire for up to 60 min. Much analysis was done on the structural failure of the WTC - 1,500+ deg. fires caused that steel to buckle. Does not bode well for the FDRs.

      That, and now they lay under tons of rubble. Or, they could have been vapourized. Then again, I don't think I really want to know about the last terrified moments of those poor souls (unless the terrorists were discussing bin Laden's address and phone number before they died)

      Here's a bit about these amazing little boxes: Whups... some of these appear to be stale - but you could probably still google them.

    1. Re:Will the black boxes survive? Not likely (read) by linzeal · · Score: 1
      Considering that these sort of attacks may become more common. Would anyone want to do an open source hardware replacement that could survive in far more extreme conditions?

      Also for geeks. Anyone know if the people trapped in the rubble calling could be located with their pcs phones? Beyond triangulation I mean like depth? Just wondering, and if you do know try to pass the info to people that can use it...

  194. Spam referencing this tragedy by mikosullivan · · Score: 1
    It was only a matter of time (a very short time) before somebody started using this tragedy to their own irrelevent needs. I just receieved the following email. Note sections about how opponents of spam are on the side of Bin-Laden.

    As with everything else where judgement is tempted, keep in mind that this email itself may be fake (i.e. not really from someone who wants to defend spam).

    Subject: How you can help WTC victims. (BTW: Anti-spammers Support Bin Laden!)

    During this incredible time of need we need to support the American dream and not lose our spirit of Freedom and the American way. Our condolences go out to the victims and families.

    ..a public service message from StealthLaunch/PopLaunch

    Red Cross credit card donation form. [previous sentence was a link to what appears to be a real red cross donation form] PLEASE do NOT click on this link if you do not intend to help!!! Their servers will be under extremely heavy volume and possibly anti-spammer attacks. American Red Cross Donation Link Or call 1-800-HELP NOW!!! Or donate blood at your nearest Red Cross Location a list of Chapters can be found here: Red Cross ChaptersOr call 1-800 GIVE LIFE Please call ahead to schedule because of the overwhelming response by the american public to help in this time of need.

    During this attack on American Freedom "anti-spammers" express their condolences to Bin Laden! Anti-spammers are terrorists at heart and attack websites and email accounts of companies wishing to bring their products and services to the general public via email, an enviromentally sound, REMARKABLE medium! They launch Denial of Service attacks against websites (including ours) on a daily basis because they are ANTI-AMERICAN. All in the name of some ANTI-AMERICAN "moral" cause they beleive everyone should have as well. Sound familiar? All groups that DEMAND that everyone do or not do what they believe is the correct "moral" action almost ALWAYS rely on terrorist violence. Here is a post from an Anti-spammer that expresses his condolences to Bin Laden, a terrorist group known for killing 1,000's of innocent people.Message Group Link

    American marketers Are under Attack! For apparently using enviromentally sound bulk email to deliver products, services and public service messages. Do your part to help Freedom and the American way by simply asking the marketer to be removed from a list. Not by harassing his vendors, dial-up providers or website companies. Remember we don't wish to send mail to someone who does not want it! It's simply ludicrous to think otherwise. When you make yourself known to be an "anti-bulkemailer", you align yourself with Hackers, Terrorists and Un-American groups.

    --
    Miko O'Sullivan
    1. Re:Spam referencing this tragedy by Legion303 · · Score: 1
      Tell us who the sender is so we can double our DDOS attacks.

      -Legion

    2. Re:Spam referencing this tragedy by rjamestaylor · · Score: 1

      I just got this, too. On the bottom there is an 800 number to contact the sender. I've deleted my copy -- after leaving a couple of messages to the sender (per his invitation). Since I've lost the number, could someone post that toll-free number again, I forgot there was something else I wanted to add...

      --
      -- @rjamestaylor on Ello
  195. Don't swerve an inch by GCP · · Score: 1

    The best "revenge" for this attack is to shake it off and go forward as if nothing happened. If a mosquito stings you, you don't drive your car into a tree. You accept a little itchy bite, you swat the mosquito *if it's convenient for you*, but your car doesn't swerve an inch.

    We do need to close any newly revealed vulnerabilities. We should also try to identify the perpetrators and perhaps kill them, if it's convenient for us.

    I'm not advocating forgiveness here. I'm advocating ignoring, which is the worst punishment you can give a terrorist. I'm saying that the purpose of terrorism is to leverage small resources into big effects on your target. The whole point is try to cause huge trouble for America overall, not to kill a tiny fraction of 1% of Americans. Perhaps they can get America to overreact in all sorts of ways, bringing more nations over to the "enemies of America" camp to join the perpetrators, messing up the economy, etc.

    I say we don't let them have their desired outcome. We reduce the effect of their actions to the deaths and injuries they actually caused, we clean up, close up some vulnerabilities, we swat them if it isn't too much effort to be worth, but we move on basically as if it never happened.

    We're in control, not them.

    --
    "Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
  196. The End Of Hijacking? by ClarkEvans · · Score: 1

    An AC just wrote: The attacks yesterday actually are the end of hijacking. Up until yesterday, people on a plane could assume they would live through it by cooperating. Now, people on the plane will fear they'll die even if they cooperate, and be used to kill thousands more. Three guys with little knives won't be able to take over a plane full of passengers. They may kill many passengers, but the hijackers will be beaten into bloody pulp.

    1. Re:The End Of Hijacking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ClarkEvans just wrote: An AC just wrote: The attacks yesterday actually are the end of hijacking. Up until yesterday, people on a plane could assume they would live through it by cooperating. Now, people on the plane will fear they'll die even if they cooperate, and be used to kill thousands more. Three guys with little knives won't be able to take over a plane full of passengers. They may kill many passengers, but the hijackers will be beaten into bloody pulp.

    2. Re:The End Of Hijacking? by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 1

      Yes, precisely. This attack worked because it was the first of its kind, noone could expect it to happen.

    3. Re:The End Of Hijacking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I reposted to narrow the post and change the title. The original poster wrote the comment so well, I had nothing further to add. Do you have a problem with this?

  197. Brilliant! by jiheison · · Score: 1

    And what do you think is going to happen when a fire-fight breaks out on an airplane, especially one where the fuselage doubles as fuel storage?

    1)Airplane full of dead passengers.
    2)Civilians on the ground in danger of being hit by flaming wreckage.

    That is quite and improvement over the currant situation. All a terrorist needs to do to crash a plane is shout "I have a gun!" and wait for geniuses like you to shoot it down from the inside out.

    When are you gun nuts going to realize that:
    1)They are not going to protect you from a determined attack.
    2)They make you a threat to everyone else, criminal and bystander alike.

    1. Re:Brilliant! by Russ+Nelson · · Score: 2

      I think you should spend more time around people who shoot guns. I think you might find that they are not as stupid as you [think they are].

      Nothing can protect you from a determined attack. Having no weapon will fail to protect you from even a casual attack. Why give up your weapons simply because they do not always work? Who ever expected perfection?

      And I agree with your point #2. Having a gun makes you a threat. So the people around you will behave nicely. And given the symmetry of the relationship, you will also behave nicely because they will be [or so you can expect] armed also.
      -russ

      --
      Don't piss off The Angry Economist
    2. Re:Brilliant! by fredrik70 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Even better, Fire a gun at 10,000 meters (dunno how many feet, 30,000??) and see what happens when you blow a hole in the hull and the pressure drops rather quickly...

      --
      if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
    3. Re:Brilliant! by Wolfkin · · Score: 1

      1)Airplane full of dead passengers.
      2)Civilians on the ground in danger of being hit by flaming wreckage.

      That is quite and improvement over the currant situation.

      By "current situation", of course, you mean billions of dollars of property damage and several thousand people dead, right? Yeah, it does seem like quite an improvement.

      --
      Property law should use #'EQ, not #'EQUAL.
    4. Re:Brilliant! by jiheison · · Score: 1

      I already spend more than enough time around people with guns, thank you very much. Mostly, they are the thugs and criminals that terrorize us, either directly or indirectly, on a daily basis. Like the group of junior high school punks who stuck one in my face while they releived me of my backpack and wallet. If I had a gun at the time, they would have releived me of that too. Unless you have a gun constantly on display and at the ready, you will always be vulnerable at some time or another, and that is the opportunity that criminals will exploit.

      The idea that a gun makes you invulnerable to even casual attack is simply wrong. And if they don't provide protection, what do we have to weigh against the tremendous amount of harm that they do and the fear amongst law-abiding peace loving citizens that they create?

      You're right, there are a lot of smart people with guns (incidentally, there are also a lot of smart people who are criminals). However, I don't see how putting more guns in the hands of the stupid, as gun prolifertion advocates want, will improve the situation.

    5. Re:Brilliant! by jiheison · · Score: 1

      Did you not read point two?

    6. Re: Brilliant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Head of situational awareness? If I find myself in a group of thugs you can bet I will be ready to blow holes in them. I don't walk down dark alleys, I don't get boxed in by groups, I don't numbly listen to my Discman and think about chicks.
      I watch those around me and consider them as potential enemies. You know what? It does cost me a little faith in my fellow man, it does make my life a little less open. It also keeps my organs on the inside and my wallet in my pocket.

    7. Re: Brilliant! by jiheison · · Score: 1

      Okay Rambo, and you probably assume that you can shoot your way out of any situation regardless of how out-numbered. You think that crime only occurs in dark alleys? You think that only a person listening to a Discman and daydreaming can be a victim?

      As with most gun toting cowboys, your arrogance is a weakness that no amount of firepower can make up for.

    8. Re: Brilliant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Born and raised in Montana I've been around guns all of my life. I have a permit to carry a concealed weapon, although I often don't. But I feel that if the majority of people in the US carried a gun it would not end violence, but it would make people think a little more. I'm not agreeing that guns on an airplane would have prevented this disaster, but smaller crimes would be less prevolent. Most crimes are commited by someone who has power over another. They have a weapon and the victim doesn't. Would you attempt to take a wallet if you knew that the individual had a gun? Would you pull a knife on a person who has a gun?

    9. Re:Brilliant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you not read point two?
      The odds of hitting something densely populated on the average air route is pretty low (to the nearest percent, close to zero).

    10. Re: Brilliant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As with most gun toting cowboys, your arrogance is a weakness that no amount of firepower can make up for.

      It's not a weakness, it's a statistics problem. Change the percentage of people who carry weapons (smart, dumb, honest, criminal, arrogant, whatever) and the death rate will change. This curve has a minima. While there might be several minima; and the ideal one is a zero death rate; in reality there is evidence that the nearest local minima might be reached by arming more citizens in public places.

    11. Re: Brilliant! by jiheison · · Score: 1

      Most crimes are commited by someone who has power over another. They have a weapon and the victim doesn't. Would you attempt to take a wallet if you knew that the individual had a gun? Would you pull a knife on a person who has a gun?


      Hypothetically, no. I would pull out a gun and shoot him.

      For a criminal with a potentially armed victim, it is just a matter of shooting first. You think that criminals are going to quit just because the stakes are raised? Most criminals don't think they are going to encounter consequences. That is why they are criminals. The only crime that would go down is non-violent crime, because simple robberies and the like would escalate to armed robberies and felony murders. Fear of guns will only make criminals more dangerous to their victims.

    12. Re:Brilliant! by jiheison · · Score: 1

      Except for near the points of take-off and landing, which are almost always near populated areas. Factor in the speed of the plane, and the myraid potential of course diviations during such an incident, and your statistics aren't so comforting.

    13. Re:Brilliant! by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 2

      No. The whole point is this: if you shoot the terrorist in the head, your bullet will continue through his head and through the wall of the jet. This will immediately cause a large hole to be torn in the airplane, and it will crash. It doesn't matter how smart you are about your weapon, or how good a shot you are.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    14. Re:Brilliant! by Datafage · · Score: 2

      There's just about no place on Earth where flaming wreckage would do more damage than a plane flying into the WTC...

      --

      Nicotine free Amish .sig.

    15. Re: Brilliant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this is crap. Most crimes like this (taking your wallet) are committed by people too desperate or angry to stop and think whether you have a gun. Many of them are junkies to boot, looking for a couple bucks for their next fix. I've had friends robbed at gunpoint for four bucks. People like that don't give a shit, and having a gun won't make a damn bit of difference.

    16. Re:Brilliant! by Russ+Nelson · · Score: 2

      Not all bullets are made of solid lead.
      -russ

      --
      Don't piss off The Angry Economist
    17. Re: Brilliant! by Russ+Nelson · · Score: 2

      There's a problem with your theory. Crime went down in those states which passed concealed carry laws. But I don't suppose that facts will convince you.
      -russ

      --
      Don't piss off The Angry Economist
    18. Re:Brilliant! by Russ+Nelson · · Score: 2

      The idea that a gun makes you invulnerable to even casual attack is simply wrong.

      You are right, of course. Didn't you read what I wrote? I said that no weapon will make you vulnerable to even a casual attack. I didn't say that having a weapon would make you invulnerable to a casual attack. The two are not logically equivalent. So, it's safe for me to say that, based on a sample size of one, all gun control advocates are illogical.
      -russ

      --
      Don't piss off The Angry Economist
    19. Re:Brilliant! by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 2

      Not all plane parts can withstand fire from rubber bullets. Are you honestly suggesting that the solution would be to allow everyone to bring whatever they like on a plane? At least with our current system there is some way that some portion of suicide attacks will be stopped. Your solution would mean that a suicide attacker could destroy any plane at any time, and the only barrier of entry would be the purchase of a shotgun.

      I can believe I took the time to respond to this. Jesus.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
  198. We've always been at War by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



    Every American who's ever raised the Flag has joined the war against those who would remove our freedoms. The United States of America was founded upon a foundation of stone and we as a populace will stand sure footed as we defend every last principle for which we stand.

    There is a continual usage of the term "innocent civilians". I would challenge that we all are defenders of the United States of America and as such are not "innocent civilians," but rather we're still members of the Revolutionary Army. We stand for the same principles which set us free in 1781.

    We cannot accept that we are innocent. We are a nation. We are united. And we will fight shoulder to shoulder to oppose the armies of terrorism and those who would adversely affect our freedoms. If you aren't willing to stand and defend democracy then leave. I am fed up with seeing people who "Hate" the USA but are willing to live here, get jobs here and get educated here.

    When I see the flag, I remember what I was taught about what it stands for. Yes, I was a boy scout. I raised the flag in front of my school almost daily, honoring it and all it stands for. I am disappointed that people would spit on the graves of all who've died defending that stitched piece of fabric with thirteen stripes and fifty stars.

    God Bless America and all it's honorable citizens.

    May God's curse be upon those who've caused this to be transpired.


    1. Re:We've always been at War by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot your closing bold tag in crazy-ville.

  199. What good is money? They are dying for allah! by HanzoSan · · Score: 1

    Money means nothing to these people.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
  200. Palestinians kids.. by VudooCrush · · Score: 0, Flamebait


    You know what kills me?..Those little bastard-ass Palestinian kids that were cheering when the planes hit...I say we blow them up too..I mean look, apparently those kids are the next terrorist's..They kinda looked like Bin Laben too.

    Also, anyone here heard of that band "System of A Down"...There's some crazy coincidences with their new album that just came out, and some of their old songs. They also seem to be Arabic..and the singer looks like Bin Laben too!

    Just look at the names of these songs!

    Psycho
    Jet-Pilot
    War?
    Prison Song

    and these lyrics!

    "When your castle breaks, and your feet are dry, Do you ever believe you were stuck out in the, Sky."

    "A whole race Genocide, Taken away all of our pride, a whole race genocide, taken away, watch them all fall down. Revolution, the only solution, the armed response of an entire nation, revolution, the only solution, We've taken all of your $***, now it's time for restitution."

  201. Re:Ambulance Chasing by billn · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Do you personally feel that we should forget about what happened? I think we should all be reminded every day about what these cowards did to the United States, in hopes of rallying the troops, so to speak, against the perpetraitors.


    I'm glad to see another viewpoint in the same vein as mine.

    After the emotional rollercoaster that was yesterday, a group of us went out en masse to unwind over beer. Our first stop, an Atlanta restaurant/lounge called Mumbo Jumbo, sported not a single television. This was something of a respite, having spent our morning and days surrounded by streaming video on large screens. Six hundred dollars of bar tab later, we moved on to a brewhouse up the street, which had multiple TVs. For a while, a group of us sat outside. After a bit, most of us migrated back in to commune and discuss. Occasionally someone would grab someone else's chin, turn the head, and say "Let it go," but it's a horribly unsimple task. The historic cry of 'Remember the Alamo' crawls to the surface, horribly apropo.

    The first few days, we as a country will take the time to save those who were wounded, free those who are trapped, and pray for those who have died.

    When the smoke has settled, we as a country will mourn. I myself will be wearing a black armband during this period, and I hope others will do the same. The injured and families of the fallen need to see and know that we support them, and that we care. It may not speed the healing, and it will not erase the scars, but the repairs will be stronger for it.

    When the mourning is done, things will change. As a country, we've gotten lax. I travel pretty regularly, and I have no doubt that several of my standard carry on items (such as my Gerber Multitool) will be moved to my luggage. Security inspections will be tougher. Time to travel will be increased.

    The coming months will be difficult as things are sorted out. There will be arguments about privacy, and increased pushes for surveillance technologies that could have prevented this. There are many facets to this that will be examined and fought over.

    With recently uncovered facts, we now know how these deeds were perpetrated. No guns, no explosions. Simple hand implements and the knowledge of how to use them. Airline staff aren't combat trained, but what if they were? How could things have happened differently if people were better equipped, mentally and physically, to handle a hand to hand attack? Could you defend yourself against someone with a knife? Having studied some martial arts and sword fighting techniques, I'm glad I can say I could hold my own against an untrained attacker or even a slightly capable one.

    What about support? How many people reading this are experienced enough to perform first aid or CPR? We have first hand amateur video of a brave doctor rushing into the dense dust and smoke to assist injured people at serious risk to his own life. In his running narrative, he mentions going to assist those who need help, because "he's not one of them." Finding yourself unhurt in a disaster environment, what would you do? What CAN you do?

    An interview on CNN yesterday with a security expert who investigated the previous WTC bombing pointed out that this was a 'high concept' attack, as opposed to 'high tech'. We as a country are dependant upon technology to make things easier for us, to take the hard work out life. If not for the macabre aspect of the notion, I'd almost think the Amish were laughing at us now.

    To paraphrase a piece of David Eddings fiction (and poorly), the United States reels from crisis to crisis like a drunken sailor. Everything is fine as long as the party is still going, and no one gets hurt. Now, in the wake of tragedy, the entire nation is galvanized into awareness of the world around them. Our populace, as a whole, has likely learned more about foreign policy and U.S. world involvement in the past two days than it has been aware of over the past two years.

    Many people have likened this incident to the imfamous day of Pearl Harbor, and it's fitting only in that we are now a united people in the sister causes of mourning and vengeance. Many people I've spoken with take small comfort in knowing there will be a reprisal, and that it will be strong and it will not be forgotten.

    Even now, other countries and world organizations are moving their pieces and formulating strategy to insure this doesn't happen again. When the reprisals are done, and justice is delivered, then what? What lessons will be learned and how will we apply them?

    --
    - billn
  202. How to safely prevent this from happening again by snak · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It occurred that there ought to be a "safe mode" for planes straying into sensitive airspace on purpose or not.

    I would propose a small black box hooked into the avionics system that could lock out normal control input and force the plane to climb to a safe altitude and circle. The circling flight path should be made to that the plane slowly drifts out of the area.

    The box would have to be inaccessible from inflight access, and should be triggered by a powerful radio signal with a particular message. The strength of the required signal should be such that it would be literally impossible to generate in absence of a full blown commercial radio station.

    Once the plance has drifted far enough away that the signal strenght has gone down, control would be restored. Even if terrorists were to take over a radio station and broadcast the message the consequences would be harmless, and the powerful signal is extremely easy to find and shut down by authorities. In order to overcome this the terrorists would have to attack radio stations on the ground simultaneously with the hijackings. Since there are many commercial stations with high broadcast power in most areas of value, backups are easily found. This idea is hereby submitted to the public domain, and cannot be patented.

    1. Re:How to safely prevent this from happening again by akeRoo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and we can run it on a Wintel box....

    2. Re:How to safely prevent this from happening again by afrazer · · Score: 2, Informative

      Why does everything have to be high - tech? High tech things, as we all know, are the most disastrous weapons once someone figures out how to coopt them for his purpose.

      I fly back and forth between the US and Israel often, and the Israelis have been dealing with this sort of thing for years. All the American airlines needed to do to prevent this is take 3 steps which Israel has been taking for a long time.

      1) Give all commercial pilots and some flight attendants a week of light arms training and a handgun.

      2) Lock all cockpits with metal bolts.

      3) Give all passengers the third degree. I have seen people getting on planes to Israel get asked to take out a map and show their trip itinerary, then to verify by calling the places where they said they will stay and see if they have reservations, I have seen a needle stuck through a lipstick to check if it is plastique, etc.
      It's inconvenient, but it makes it safe.

      Israel takes more steps, such as constantly reshuffling how you proceed through the airport, 1 way glass watching you when you wait in line for check in, and an amount of airport security staff, all with military training. I have personally seen the same garbage can be looked inside of 2 times in a span of 15 minutes to confirm that it had no bomb in it - that's just routine patrol.

      --
      'Most men would sooner die than think, and most men do.'
    3. Re:How to safely prevent this from happening again by linzeal · · Score: 1
      Agreed that the United States is oppresing and help to oppress people around the world, but wouldn't it be more wise to stop pissing off so many people instead of playing big brother? Israel is a half-free nation founded on pity and still considered ridiculous reason for a homeland for the jewish people that had not existed for thousands of years.

      Should some of the distant ancestors of the aztecs be entitled to a "homeland" in the center of mexico city beacuse the christians oppressed them?

      Should wales and parts of france be given to those crazies who claim to be spiritual descendents of druids and do trite rituals each year at stonehenge?

      Liberia was a bad idea with a noble cause and so is israel.

    4. Re:How to safely prevent this from happening again by IronChef · · Score: 2


      The trick is to let the pilots give the illusion of cooperation, in order to buy more time.

      An isolated cockpit is probably the best idea. But short of that...

      The cockpit should have some kind of emergency status transponder in it. OK, it already does. But check this out: every 15 minutes, ATC transmits a code to the pilot. "Are you still OK?" Actually the plane's own computer should probably do this.

      The pilot pulls out his codebook. In response to challenge code 12345, he has 5 possible responses: 11111, 22222, 33333, 44444, 55555. Only ONE of those, arranged BEFORE the flight, is the "I'm OK" code. Say that Column C, "33333," is the pre-arranged "I'm OK" code for that flight. If there is a terrorist in the cockpit, he can force the pilot to put in the right code. The pilot bravely puts in the WRONG code though. The system still shows a green light, but on the ground ATC now knows that something's up on that plane -- the plane can be put into some automated emergency landing mode that the pilot cannot interfere with.

      However we do it, we need to remove the ability for a bad guy to drive that plane into something. Any kind of remote control is scary, it can be cracked... seems like all the smarts will have to be *in* the plane though.

    5. Re:How to safely prevent this from happening again by 3am · · Score: 1

      how come a nation called 'palestine' never existed either? britain gave it that name after they took it over from the turks during WWI...

      israel will exist forever, they're fighters, and as hard as nails. and to boot, if you haven't forgotten, ehud barak offered them more than they were asking for (including joint control of jerusalem), and they rejected it. they (read: hamas, hezbollah, et al) are hateful, they want israel destroyed. a sovereign 'palestine' is secondary to the goal of killing every jew in the middle east.

      --

      A: None. The Universe spins the bulb, and the Zen master merely stays out of the way.
  203. Re:Icey Hot Stunnaz!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ROFLAMAO

    Nice one ;-)

  204. The Catcher In The Rye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    conspiracy.

  205. Tazers might be good... by cr0sh · · Score: 2

    But you wouldn't want mace (or pepper spray) used in a flight.

    Why?

    Let me relate a personal incident: My GF (at the time) had a keychain style pepper spray device. We loaded it with the inert spray, practiced a while, then loaded it with the real stuff. When we loaded the real thing, the safety accidentally got released, and as it was being loaded, a very small squirt of the pepper spray occurred in our apartment kitchen (I am talking maybe a .25 sec burst).

    We gagged, we sneezed, we choked. Nowhere in the apartment was "safe" from that little bit of pepper spray. We ended up going outside and drove to one of her relative's house, waiting for the pepper spray to go away.

    However, in an airplane cabin, with recycled air - there is no "other place" to go to...

    --
    Reason is the Path to God - Anon
  206. He NEVER mentioned guns... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By name.

    Everything I've heard says that these terrorists used nothing but knives. How do you convince 50+ people to leave you alone while you crash a plane using nothing but knives?

    You convince them that their lives will ONLY be in jepardy if they resist... that they will otherwise go unharmed, and will be returned safely as soon as they've made their point. And I'm guessing even THAT tactic didn't work on the plane that went down in... Pennsylvanian?

    This tactic will never work again. No plane-load of people who think they're going to die anyway will go quitely. If there's even a CHANCE that the passengers could resist, hence-forth they WILL.

    These men were undoubtedly trained on how to "deal with" people resisting them. That doesn't matter when there's a 10-1 advantage.

    And if those people were also armed with... say knives... they won't have a problem SUCCESSFULLY challenging their would-be attackers.

    Putting weapons on a plane that can bring it down would be foolish. ESR never mentioned firearms. I carry a swiss-army knife with me everywhere I go anyway... and it has passed through air-port security on several occasions. A taser might not be such a good idea (RF interference and all that), but a nice sharp blade in the hands of each passenger may have prevent all this. I'm no fortune teller, but it soulds quite reasonable to me.

    --Mark

  207. Tomorrow's War by Synn · · Score: 1

    I've seen a lot of comments on how US policy is to blame. That our foreign involvements has led to these people hating us which in turn has led to this event.

    Bullshit.

    No matter what you do, no matter how much you try to appease everyone, someone somewhere can find a reason to hate you.

    Hate doesn't need a reason, just a target.

    A war needs to be declared, a war on terrorism. I'm not talking about a war of idealogy, like the war on drugs, but one of arms.

    If you are a group that promotes the use of terrorism, you are an emeny of the Unites States.

    We're coming for you.

    You can't hide. Any country that shelters you(ANY country) will also be considered our enemy. After we deal with them(through force of arms), we'll be right back on your trail.

    Nowhere to run anymore.

    Nowhere to hide anymore.

    This war is going to cost us. There'll be lives lost when we occupy Afganistan and lives lost as we invade Iraq.

    But I think it's a price we're now willing to pay.

    1. Re:Tomorrow's War by linzeal · · Score: 1

      You are insane. Terrorism from the middle east exists at this level in the world exactly because of the policy with regard to israel in particular but to almost every other country in the region. We stroke and fuck them one minute and the next we cut and rape them. What the hell would you think of a country that only comes to the rescue of rich oil producing nations yet leaves your people deprived of any form of normal life amidst war perpetuated with a never-ending arsenal of american weaponary?

    2. Re:Tomorrow's War by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes but the difference between making normal enemies in the course of a normal life is much different than making enemies who are willing to kill themselves and 1000s of civilians just to get your attentions.

    3. Re:Tomorrow's War by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Invading Afghanistan? Good luck. The Russians couldn't manage it, and if you're stupid enough to believe that this will work.. well, I'd like to see you on the front lines. Assuming, of course, that you spoke as a soldier.

  208. These are precise timings! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    16m28s between the two impacts.
    The first tower collapsed 1h42m06s after impact.
    The second tower collapsed 56m11s after impact.

  209. Re:How do Muslim's know their wives are menstruati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ROFL,

    Dude, i am muslim (arab-american) and i think
    that was pretty funny.

    Keep it up :-D

  210. just goes to show by BEA6D · · Score: 1

    the more people watching more networks, the fewer get the facts straight.

    --
    rehab, captain ahab, you're chasing the wrong fish!
  211. The real problem is americans' attitude... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    THE REAL PROBLEM IS AMERICANS' ATTITUDE TOWARDS OTHER CULTURES

    Im not from the United States but I have been following closely their reactions, at least as they are shown in many posts here in Slashdot.

    Statements like "these [who performed the terrorist attacks] are mentally disturbed people with great resources" show the typical american mindset: they are evil people, they are twisted, they are sick, there is no hope in understanding their minds.

    While it is true that no noble cause can justify the killing of people, what americans need to do is show a more mature attitude and try to understand the motivation these killers had.

    Consider that their cause was so important for them that they were willing to give their lives for it. Certainly one must have a lot of hate for something to be willing to give one's life in order to harm it.

    This is no sick twisted people, just normal people, like you and me, with a lot of hate for the american society.

    As long as americans refuse to try to understand other cultures and continue to make their selves so hated in different parts of the world, this situation can only repeat itself.

    It's simple for americans to say things like "It's time for Sheriff Uncle Same to ride into town, and kick some bad-guy ass". In the typical american mind, they are always the good guys and everybody else is a wicked psycho. Things are not so black-and-white and americans ought to ask themselves what is it they have done to make themselves so hated as to have people rejoice over this incident.

    This in the real world, however, are not nearly as simple.

    Even in the country I'm living on, in latin america, I have seen persons --mind you, the ones I've seen might not be the most educated persons in the world, just like the average americans-- rejoice over this incident (particularly, two taxi drivers)! These persons seemed happy to see the United States go through this. That even persons in latin america have cheered about this unfortunate situation ought to tell americans a lot about the problems of their attitude towards other cultures.

    But I see quotes such as the following in american news papers:

    "The response ... should be as simple as it is swift - kill the bastards. No, I don't mean hunt them, arrest them, extradite them and prosecute them in a court of law. I mean a far quicker and neater form of retribution for this cabal of cowards. A gunshot between the eyes, blow them to smithereens, poison them if you have to."

    Another editorial states:

    "The world has long known the sources of this cancer. The world knows exactly where it breeds and festers."

    It then proceeds to state that this is an open war and the US' only option is to fight the islamic culture, to wipe it off the face of earth.

    If the americans understood these cultures better, they would probably not make themselves as hated as they currently are. Consider, for example, how europeans live much much closer to this countries, yet their serious conflicts are with the United States; these arab countries have much better relations with european states.

    The americans should try to really find the center of the problem that yesterday became evident yesterday.

    According to USA Today, "bin Laden has described the devastation in the United States as "a punishment from Allah," Ismail said. The United States had invited Allah's wrath because it is trying to control the entire world by force [...]." Doesn't this tell us there is a problem with the United States attitude towards the rest of the world, when there are parts of it on which these unfortunate happenings are viewed as well deserved?

    Increasing security (taking meassures such as restricting the use of technology (such as cryptography) by the masses, increasing the funds destinated to their security authorities or, like Eric Raymond suggests, allowing everybody to carry guns) can by no means guarantee that this situation will not repeat it self. It is no fairy tale that the United States is one of the most secure nations on earth, yet they are vulnerable to this sort of attacks.

    A better solution americans could implement is make sure they don't get to be so hated in the rest of the world. Blaming other countries for not understanding the United States is not going to help them at all. Even if americans were willing to go for it, this solution would certainly take a long time to implement but, in the long run, it's the only one which addresses the main problem.

    My most sincere condolences to the friends and families of those who died yesterday. May acts such as yesterdays' never repeat themselves.

    Alejo

    1. Re:The real problem is americans' attitude... by VudooCrush · · Score: 1


      I didn't read your whole post, but just from the top...You would be just as angry if it happend to your country. That's all there is to it. And half of the whole "Americans are evil because were trying to rule the world", is simply jealousy. You think we rule the world? I live near San Francisco, CA. and half the people I see are asians. I doubt you will find that kind of ratio in China/Japan, etc.

    2. Re:The real problem is americans' attitude... by beanerspace · · Score: 1

      You know, when you point your finger at someone, you have three pointing back at you.

      When the U.S. accidentally shot down an Iraqi jetliner, did you see our citizens in the streets handing out candy ?

      When was the last time your country was visited by nameless, U.S. terrorists hijacking planes full of innocent mommies and babies and ramming them into office buildings full of passive fathers and aunts who would afford who are just as consumed with their families as you ?

      When was the last time your country volunteered to spill their blood for our security ? Send aid for your natural disasters ?

      Yes, every country sucks at some level. The U.S. is no different. We have our faults, and we really botch things up sometimes. Why not visit us, somewhere other than NYC, and learn about us and see us in our communities, our schools, our churches ? Once you understand US, then perhaps you can point a finger at us without casting judgement upon yourself.

    3. Re:The real problem is americans' attitude... by Alpha_Geek · · Score: 1

      Amen brother.

    4. Re:The real problem is americans' attitude... by joss · · Score: 2

      I lived in the US for several years, my wife and many of my best friends are American. Here, for the very small amount it's worth, is my judgement:

      The American people are generally compassionate, generous and decent. They are however, deluded into thinking that
      (a) they live in a democracy
      (b) they have a vague idea what's going on
      (c) american actions abroad are for humanitarian reasons

      "When was the last time your country was visited by nameless...."

      If you lived in Kosovo, the answer was last year.
      If you lived in Cambodia, 20 years ago.
      If you lived in Palestine, last week (via Israel, which is entirely supported by US). They didn't need to hijack any more planes, because the bombers were already paid for by American taxpayers.

      America itself was hijacked years ago by narrow corporate interests. It is often in the interests of these corporations to bomb other countries, or to prevent the development of democracy in these places. Ordinary Americans are as much of a victim of this as anybody else.

      The foreign aid you talk of is paid from American taxpayers to American corporations. It, along with defense spending, is a form of corporate welfare. Meanwhile single mothers are told to be self-reliant, and 70% of the country has no health insurance. You're all working far more hours than you were a couple of decades ago, and your wives have to go to work as well now. The gap between rich and poor has reached levels that surpass those in Victorian london.

      I know you think corporations are your friends, but then again you're submitted to roughly 30,000 3 minute segments of pure corporate propoganda per year. These ads are sandwiched between programs created by, and largely for the benefit of, large corporations. Pravda never had the resources of Madison avenue.

      You're all getting fucked, and you don't realise it. The thing that really brought it home to me was buying a 1968 Buick LeSabre. At the time of manafacture, this was considered an average american family car. When I compared this car to one made in 1998 the difference in quality was
      striking, even given the huge advances in computer aided design, manafacturing techniques, material science, the older car was of far superior build quality. The older car required roughly 3 times as much steel, and the extraction and processing of steel has become considerably more efficient over the last 30 years.

      So, the old car required maybe 12 times as much manual labour, and 3 times as much steel to build than the newer car.

      Average wage in USA - 1968: $5571 1998: $28861
      Base price of Buick LeSabre - 1968: $3600 1998: $22000

      So, in 1968 at an average wage it would have taken 7 months, 3 weeks worth of salary to pay for a new Buick LeSabre. In 1998 it would take 9 months. However, somehow you think you're better off now than you were then. This is largely because the media tells you that you are. Typically they point at rising share prices to prove it. Maybe the 10% of the population that own 90% of the shares are better off, but the rest of you are getting fucked.

      The picture presented about the world outside America is even more grossly distorted to the one presented inside. There's nothing wrong with Americans, but there's definitely something wrong with America.

      --
      http://rareformnewmedia.com/
    5. Re:The real problem is americans' attitude... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The American people are generally compassionate, generous and decent. They are however, deluded into thinking that
      (a) they live in a democracy

      No duh, we live in a republic

      (b) they have a vague idea what's going on
      you'd have to show me the emperical evidence of that

      (c) american actions abroad are for humanitarian reasons
      I've never thought that. Usually it's to protect American interests

      The picture presented about the world outside America is even more grossly distorted to the one presented inside. There's nothing wrong with Americans, but there's definitely something wrong with America.
      I think the problem is that we do things differently.

  212. Have you hugged a moslem today? by Gorimek · · Score: 1

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/ne ws/archive/2001/09/12/national0611EDT0529.DTL

    1. Re:Have you hugged a moslem today? by rjamestaylor · · Score: 1
      I'm ready to hug any American or non-American who is for humanity, democracy, freedom and peace (even if peace first requires war as it so often does). I don't care if they are moslem, Jewish, Baptist (no Southern Baptists, though...just kidding), atheist.

      But I refuse to recognize or reject someone solely based on ethnicity, race, religion, culture, gender, or s.p.

      Just 'cause you live near me, look like me, worship with me, eat like me doesn't mean I accept you or side with you. You must adhere to certain principles before I will sup with you.

      --
      -- @rjamestaylor on Ello
  213. My Views by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think, that many foriegn nations, and even many people inside the US truly under, and over estimate us. We are a people, whose government has committed acts that we, as a whole people would and have not condoned. The Iran-Contra affair, the way the war in Vietnam was fought, our dealings in the middle east. One must remember that we are at the best, a representative democracy, and our country's foriegn policies are only as good as the leaders we elect and the officials they emplace want them to be. Though we might not condone what occurs, all we can do is elect new leaders, and hope that they shall act in a manner more befitting of what we believe. If you went to the average citizen of the United States and showed them pictures of what was happening in the current trouble spots and told them why it was happening, they would be appalled. Ethnic cleansing is something we, as a people, cannot stand morally and ethically to see. It is wrong, we have tried to stop it, and the collective voice of the area arose in anger as we did so. We pull out, and once again we are condemned by everyone involved. All too often the US is turned to to resolve problems in the world. All too often we are then condemned for taking the steps that we were asked to take. Go out, and while asking the average citizen how they feel about these attrocities, ask them how they feel about involving our soldiers, brothers sisters sons daughters aunts uncles, in fighting that has nothing to do with our country. We are tired, we have given our blood and our lives for the preservation of freedom, and at times for our own political ends. We have given money to feed the starving, to provide medical aid to the sick, to rescue those trapped by acts of nature and war. Yet, when a horrendous attack as occured yesterday, we see many of the people we once helped, celebrating in the street. Tell me, why should we not be angry? Why should we turn another cheek when so many of our own, innocent lives have been cruelly ripped from our arms? We have, even in our military actions over the last thirty years spoken softly. This act, I am all to afraid will bring out the big stick. You can be sure that if this attack was launched by or from the shelter of a foreign nation, they will all too likely learn the horror that was Nagasaki and Hiroshima. We, the people will be left with the sick pain, of dealing with another such stain upon our history. We are not perfect, not as a group of people, not as individuals, and surely not as a nation, but I ask you, when was the last time a Christian American fanatic hijacked an airplane or made a car bomb, and parked it in a public or religious place of the people who seem to hate us so much? I have heard people spouting that hatred spawns only hate in return, well, I'm sure that the hatred that inspired and drove this attack, be it by middle eastern terrorists, American extremists or a foreign nation will be met with the massed hatred of an entire nation. Never before, has such a brutal attack been forced upon a people who believed themselves at peace.
    As the day went on yesterday, I read more and more postings, expressions, outbursts by people who live in nations foreign to the the United States. Many, many of these were sympathetic, and carried the same tone of outrage and pain that I felt myself. Far too many though, carried the tone that "we" the citizens of the United States have brought this attack down upon ourselves, and that every one of those deaths was deserved by the people who died. That "we" had somehow committed crimes against a people that deserved the senseless slaying that followed. This attack, is not one that the people of my country can ignore, can let go with punative actions against the people who perpetrated it. Should those people be foreign nationals, or foreign supported American dissidents and not simply aberrant members of our own society like Timothy McVeigh, then I pity them, whoever they are. If they thought this, would make us cave in, withdraw from their lands, their business, leave them to their own ends. If they thought this would make us withdraw support from factions that oppose them, to allow them the opportunity to press forward attacks on people we count as allies, then they, are horrendously wrong. This, is going to draw swift punishment. The punishment is not going to be light, it is not going to be short. It will be swift, brutal, and have lasting effects for decades. We cannot condone what occurred, we cannot even accept it as the price of being a visible power, as we could attacks on our military and our embassies. Such people have accepted the risks of their profession, one of which is that they might be killed by people hostile to the US. The people in the WTC and the people on those passenger liners did no such thing. They were innocent, and for all we know, hundreds of them may even have supported whatever faction had begun this campaign had it been done in a peaceful manner. To all of you, who propose that the US should withdraw from politics that do not deal with us directly, you have no idea how tempting that is, and you have no idea what chaos that would inspire. What attrocities, what wars, what violations of human rights would occur if suddenly we declared ourselves a true equal nation. What fighting with what weapons would occur in the middle east if we suddenly declared we would take no part in any fighting there as long as oil continued to flow to our shores. What would communist China do, if suddenly the US were not there to hold their advances in southeast and central Asia? What would occur, if instead we do as many voices in the US are urging and simply take care of all foreign problems, so that we can deal with our own internal ones? Do you truly think, that if the US suddenly invaded the Middle East saying that that region was responsible for attacks, that a majority of American citizens would be counter to that right now? How many western nations do you think would object to that latter, if even the slightest of proof was offered up as basis for the attack? Be glad we are a nation that though meddling is unwilling to use the full extent of our power, for we are powerful indeed. Be glad, that we are not the minions of Satan that many religious extremists label us, for though we do posses weapons of hell, we are extremely reluctant, even fearful to use them. Be glad, that we are not an imperialistic nation that uses the full extent of our military to expand our ground. Sure, our government does things, and then must make sure they still 'look good' to the people but without even that minor constraint, think what a monster we truly would be, a monster will still may become. Too many people are far to willing to provoke us into actions that would satisfy their own image of us, an image that is still far too likely to actually occur.
    We as I have said before are not perfect. Our own society is riddled with hatred covered only by a thin veneer of civility. We have our crimes our hatreds, and many of them are vast indeed. We have been fighting against racism, and religious persecution since the time of the founding of our country, and we still have not defeated them. This attack only brings to the surface those hatreds, focuses them upon a small group of people and allows us what many feel is the right to take complete and total action against all of that background. That is why, I fear more than anything that this event was put forth by Islamic extremists. Even more than the thought that it was in fact orchestrated by one of our own anti-government groups, I fear that it was done by terrorist organizations in the middle east. You, who live in other countries, even the ones who feel horror and pain and anger do not, in my belief understand the true anger and pain that I and seemingly the vast majority of my fellow Americans feel. There is not, a single person I know who has not been personally touched by this event. One roommate's sister is a stewardess for United Airlines, and had a high possibility of being on Flight 175, for she was on call for that area. Another roommate had an aunt working in the Pentagon, though she was not amoung those in the wing that was hit. I have a cousin who is among the missing, and presumed dead firemen in New York. If, as the mounting evidence seems to support, that this was an attack by middle eastern groups, this will be the opening attack of a war.

  214. Don't point fingers at bin Laden? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hello?

    Where have you people been?

    That pathetic attempt at a man has been directly linked to the past WTC bombing, the embassy bombings, and he even claims responsibility for the USS Cole in one of his training videos.

    Responsible for this latest attack or not - nail the bastard, and damn the Taliban whom support his criminal actions.

    It's time for action, and it's time to stop playing nice with enemy nations. And any nation which harbors terrorists is an enemy of ours.

    Bin Laden has been guilty of criminal actions in the past. While I do believe the US should keep searching for the true culprit, to either confirm it as him, or as someone else, I believe one of our first actions should be to eliminate bin Laden. He's long been the most vocal about his ridiculous 'holy war' against the United States. He's killed our civillians before - and he'll do it again.

    Make an example out of him. And then, move against the rest. Killing the leaders alone won't work. These people are dedicated to their cause to the point of sacrificing their lives - cutting off the head won't work. No, we need to kill all of them.

    "Innocents" be damned. Since when have we cared for innocents? The Civil War - Sherman's March to the Sea. WW II - Japanese American concentration, erm, I mean, internment camps, where death came easy with inward pointed machine guns, starvation and disease. Vietnam.

    We're not as nice a nation as everyone would love to believe. And it's time we realize that, and realize also that the nice guys always get beat up. Successful nations aren't nice - they're absolutely vicious in protecting their interests and their citizens.

    We should start taking an eye for an eye. How many of our civillians has bin Laden killed? We should eradicate the Taliban and bin Laden's demented troops. And more - for their deaths would not even begin to settle the score.

    These cowards may have damned themselves with this latest attack. Instead of fear and terror, we've seen unity and steadfast will. The flood of donors which mobbed NYC hospitals, even with the threat of possible further attacks looming overhead. Democrats and Republicans united. New Yorkers acting civilized!

    Our people cry out for blood, and our government will have no choice but to oblige. And, if Mr. Bush is true to his word, oblige us he shall.

    It's time to show the terrorists true terror - the terror of a fully aroused United States bringing lethal force to their own doorsteps.

    1. Re:Don't point fingers at bin Laden? by scharkalvin · · Score: 1

      Remember what the Japanese Admiral who led the attack on Pearl habor said....

      "I fear that all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."

  215. Could somebody please clarify this... by lblack · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have heard several news reports say that the terrorists used knives and gained entrance to the cockpit probably by killing stewardesses to trick a pilot into leaving, killing him and entering.

    Now, my question is: if there is a significant incident on board an airplane (something to make the pilot leave the cockpit), are they not required immediately to report this to, well, someone?

    It seems like if this was how it was done (knives, stewardesses), there would have been advance warning.

    Just a question. No flames please.

    -l

    1. Re:Could somebody please clarify this... by 216pi · · Score: 0

      Pilots get trained to report 'hidden' that they were hijacked to the flight security. This did not happen what is a sign for the good 'education' of the hijackers. And it may be a sign that they killed the pilots.

  216. black box of Pittsburg machine found by 216pi · · Score: 0

    according to an article (german) of n-tv, a german news channel, the black box of the machine crashed near Pittsburg were found.

  217. Slashdot....profit...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hahahahaha! Oh, that is a good one. VALinux has yet to make a profit. Don't expect to see too much in the way of donations.

  218. I am sad. by tweggen · · Score: 1

    I do not want to reply on anything you said. I am more than sad, that in reaction to such violent massacre, that many people are discussing here, some cowards still try to built up that kind of violent, unreflected, aggressive mindset, that might lead lots of people on a way of blood.
    With every word I write and that can be read by a lot of people, I have a responibility.
    I understand that many people may have aggressions these days, but I ask all of you not to create more aggression.
    Thank you.

  219. Re:why wasn't the 2nd plane shot down, or intercep by beanerspace · · Score: 2

    In order for this scenario to play out, we would have to have, by routine, had jet fighters armed with air-to-air ordinance, and either ready to scramble somewhere within a 10 minute radius, or already in the air. Either that, we would have to equip trained law officers of these municipalities, or post soldiers, with munitions such as Stinger missiles in a position where they could get to the right place in time to make the right shot.

    Then there is the issue of what happens if you miss ? If you hit the target, does it cause just as much damage when/where it crashes ? Not to mention if our free U.S. culture would even tolerate armed troopers on every corner ?

    Finally, there is an issue of figuring out what's going on and who is doing what and where ? Meaning, there are several planes in NY airspace. Unless the pilot punches in 4 key the transponder code, or gets communications down to the ground that he's one of those "many other planes", how do you a plane that is both a 5 minute proxmity to Newark Aiport as it is to the WTC isn't heading in the direction of the former ?

    Of course, as I say this, there are fighter jets, armed and afloat above my offices as I write.

  220. you missunderstand by oni · · Score: 2

    He means the horizontal center. A glancing blow on one of the corners wouldn't have done it. Remember, the buildings withstood the kinetic energy of the impact. What collapsed them was the burning jet fuel that eventually melted the superstructure. In other words, they had to hit the center in order to put as much fuel within the building as possible.

  221. Re:How to prevent this from EVER happening again . by British · · Score: 3, Funny

    Why not a "panic" mode that puts everyone in the plane but the cockpit to sleep? Couldn't that simply be done with an air pressure change?

  222. Destabilisation for beginners by jonathan_ingram · · Score: 1

    Standard American guide to overthrowing a govenment:

    1. Find an opposition movement

    2. Do they know how to use weapons? If not, train them.

    3. Give them lots of weapons either free or at drastically reduced prices.

    4. Ensure them the support of America come the glorious revolution.

    5. Step back and ignore the massacres for 5 years or so.

    6. Have the opposition won? If so, then declare them the new 'evil government' and return to step 1. Otherwise go to step 3.

  223. Ultracomplete and utter bogus. by Qbertino · · Score: 1

    I don't know which President it was, but it was an american one during the race for space that said:"Our germans are better than their (the russian) germans" - meaning the german rocket scientists that were hastyly brought to the US after WW2 was over.

    With all this "OUR tech is all so great" gibberish (honestly, I couldn't care less), it just plain completely ignores the fact that the US are great at marketing foreing tech much more than there good at designing their own. The U.S. makes a shitload of money that way. Not having to uphold the education system that's necesary for top quality personell. We all know that U.S. education is by far the worst in the world when compared to the actuall wealth of the U.S..

    Examples for 'foreign' tech? "otto" combustion engine, diesel engine, Fax, mp3, liquid propellant rocket engines, etc, etc,
    These are all german tech, but I'm shure there is also some stuff that come from other cultures (such as the digit "zero", which is indian) and prove that what this "canadian newspaper" says is not quite so in the real world.

    And for the great U.S.helping the world, how about these: Vietnam (Agent Orange, anyone?), Panama, United Fruit Company, Nigeria, Milosevitsh (heavyly supportet by the U.S when he was on his way to presidency!!!), Bikini islands, etc. etc.

    Get real and give us a break, man!

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
    1. Re:Ultracomplete and utter bogus. by mandolin · · Score: 1
      such as the digit "zero", which is indian

      Actually it's arabic. (Perhaps the indians invented it independently.)

  224. Go home and kill yourself... by Fleet+Admiral+Ackbar · · Score: 2
    ...because you're an idiot. Those who would sacrifice liberty for a little safety deserve neither.


    If our ancestors had thought as you do, we would still be part of England.

    --
    Carefree highway, let me slip away on you.
  225. Clouded judgement by sheldon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Charles Lindbergh's Des Moines Speech of 1941

    It is now two years since this latest European war began. From that day in September, 1939, until the present moment, there has been an over-increasing effort to force the United States into the conflict.

    That effort has been carried on by foreign interests, and by a small minority of our own people; but it has been so successful that, today, our country stands on the verge of war.

    At this time, as the war is about to enter its third winter, it seems appropriate to review the circumstances that have led us to our present position. Why are we on the verge of war? Was it necessary for us to become so deeply involved? Who is responsible for changing our national policy from one of neutrality and independence to one of entanglement in European affairs?

    Personally, I believe there is no better argument against our intervention than a study of the causes and developments of the present war. I have often said that if the true facts and issues were placed before the American people, there would be no danger of our involvement.

    Here, I would like to point out to you a fundamental difference between the groups who advocate foreign war, and those who believe in an independent destiny for America.

    If you will look back over the record, you will find that those of us who oppose intervention have constantly tried to clarify facts and issues; while the interventionists have tried to hide facts and confuse issues.

    We ask you to read what we said last month, last year, and even before the war began. Our record is open and clear, and we are proud of it.

    We have not led you on by subterfuge and propaganda. We have not resorted to steps short of anything, in order to take the American people where they did not want to go.

    What we said before the elections, we say [illegible] and again, and again today. And we will not tell you tomorrow that it was just campaign oratory. Have you ever heard an interventionist, or a British agent, or a member of the administration in Washington ask you to go back and study a record of what they have said since the war started? Are their self-styled defenders of democracy willing to put the issue of war to a vote of our people? Do you find these crusaders for foreign freedom of speech, or the removal of censorship here in our own country?

    The subterfuge and propaganda that exists in our country is obvious on every side. Tonight, I shall try to pierce through a portion of it, to the naked facts which lie beneath.

    When this war started in Europe, it was clear that the American people were solidly opposed to entering it. Why shouldn't we be? We had the best defensive position in the world; we had a tradition of independence from Europe; and the one time we did take part in a European war left European problems unsolved, and debts to America unpaid.

    National polls showed that when England and France declared war on Germany, in 1939, less than 10 percent of our population favored a similar course for America. But there were various groups of people, here and abroad, whose interests and beliefs necessitated the involvement of the United States in the war. I shall point out some of these groups tonight, and outline their methods of procedure. In doing this, I must speak with the utmost frankness, for in order to counteract their efforts, we must know exactly who they are.

    The three most important groups who have been pressing this country toward war are the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt administration.

    Behind these groups, but of lesser importance, are a number of capitalists, Anglophiles, and intellectuals who believe that the future of mankind depends upon the domination of the British empire. Add to these the Communistic groups who were opposed to intervention until a few weeks ago, and I believe I have named the major war agitators in this country.

    I am speaking here only of war agitators, not of those sincere but misguided men and women who, confused by misinformation and frightened by propaganda, follow the lead of the war agitators.

    As I have said, these war agitators comprise only a small minority of our people; but they control a tremendous influence. Against the determination of the American people to stay out of war, they have marshaled the power of their propaganda, their money, their patronage.

    Let us consider these groups, one at a time.

    First, the British: It is obvious and perfectly understandable that Great Britain wants the United States in the war on her side. England is now in a desperate position. Her population is not large enough and her armies are not strong enough to invade the continent of Europe and win the war she declared against Germany.

    Her geographical position is such that she cannot win the war by the use of aviation alone, regardless of how many planes we send her. Even if America entered the war, it is improbable that the Allied armies could invade Europe and overwhelm the Axis powers. But one thing is certain. If England can draw this country into the war, she can shift to our shoulders a large portion of the responsibility for waging it and for paying its cost.

    As you all know, we were left with the debts of the last European war; and unless we are more cautious in the future than we have been in the past, we will be left with the debts of the present case. If it were not for her hope that she can make us responsible for the war financially, as well as militarily, I believe England would have negotiated a peace in Europe many months ago, and be better off for doing so.

    England has devoted, and will continue to devote every effort to get us into the war. We know that she spent huge sums of money in this country during the last war in order to involve us. Englishmen have written books about the cleverness of its use.

    We know that England is spending great sums of money for propaganda in America during the present war. If we were Englishmen, we would do the same. But our interest is first in America; and as Americans, it is essential for us to realize the effort that British interests are making to draw us into their war.

    The second major group I mentioned is the Jewish.

    It is not difficult to understand why Jewish people desire the overthrow of Nazi Germany. The persecution they suffered in Germany would be sufficient to make bitter enemies of any race.

    No person with a sense of the dignity of mankind can condone the persecution of the Jewish race in Germany. But no person of honesty and vision can look on their pro-war policy here today without seeing the dangers involved in such a policy both for us and for them. Instead of agitating for war, the Jewish groups in this country should be opposing it in every possible way for they will be among the first to feel its consequences.

    Tolerance is a virtue that depends upon peace and strength. History shows that it cannot survive war and devastations. A few far-sighted Jewish people realize this and stand opposed to intervention. But the majority still do not.

    Their greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio and our government.

    I am not attacking either the Jewish or the British people. Both races, I admire. But I am saying that the leaders of both the British and the Jewish races, for reasons which are as understandable from their viewpoint as they are inadvisable from ours, for reasons which are not American, wish to involve us in the war.

    We cannot blame them for looking out for what they believe to be their own interests, but we also must look out for ours. We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples to lead our country to destruction.

    The Roosevelt administration is the third powerful group which has been carrying this country toward war. Its members have used the war emergency to obtain a third presidential term for the first time in American history. They have used the war to add unlimited billions to a debt which was already the highest we have ever known. And they have just used the war to justify the restriction of congressional power, and the assumption of dictatorial procedures on the part of the president and his appointees.

    The power of the Roosevelt administration depends upon the maintenance of a wartime emergency. The prestige of the Roosevelt administration depends upon the success of Great Britain to whom the president attached his political future at a time when most people thought that England and France would easily win the war. The danger of the Roosevelt administration lies in its subterfuge. While its members have promised us peace, they have led us to war heedless of the platform upon which they were elected.

    In selecting these three groups as the major agitators for war, I have included only those whose support is essential to the war party. If any one of these groups--the British, the Jewish, or the administration--stops agitating for war, I believe there will be little danger of our involvement.

    I do not believe that any two of them are powerful enough to carry this country to war without the support of the third. And to these three, as I have said, all other war groups are of secondary importance.

    When hostilities commenced in Europe, in 1939, it was realized by these groups that the American people had no intention of entering the war. They knew it would be worse than useless to ask us for a declaration of war at that time. But they believed that this country could be entered into the war in very much the same way we were entered into the last one.

    They planned: first, to prepare the United States for foreign war under the guise of American defense; second, to involve us in the war, step by step, without our realization; third, to create a series of incidents which would force us into the actual conflict. These plans were of course, to be covered and assisted by the full power of their propaganda.

    Our theaters soon became filled with plays portraying the glory of war. Newsreels lost all semblance of objectivity. Newspapers and magazines began to lose advertising if they carried anti-war articles. A smear campaign was instituted against individuals who opposed intervention. The terms "fifth columnist," "traitor," "Nazi," "anti-Semitic" were thrown ceaselessly at any one who dared to suggest that it was not to the best interests of the United States to enter the war. Men lost their jobs if they were frankly anti-war. Many others dared no longer speak.

    Before long, lecture halls that were open to the advocates of war were closed to speakers who opposed it. A fear campaign was inaugurated. We were told that aviation, which has held the British fleet off the continent of Europe, made America more vulnerable than ever before to invasion. Propaganda was in full swing.

    There was no difficulty in obtaining billions of dollars for arms under the guise of defending America. Our people stood united on a program of defense. Congress passed appropriation after appropriation for guns and planes and battleships, with the approval of the overwhelming majority of our citizens. That a large portion of these appropriations was to be used to build arms for Europe, we did not learn until later. That was another step.

    To use a specific example; in 1939, we were told that we should increase our air corps to a total of 5,000 planes. Congress passed the necessary legislation. A few months later, the administration told us that the United States should have at least 50,000 planes for our national safety. But almost as fast as fighting planes were turned out from our factories, they were sent abroad, although our own air corps was in the utmost need of new equipment; so that today, two years after the start of war, the American army has a few hundred thoroughly modern bombers and fighters--less in fact, than Germany is able to produce in a single month.

    Ever since its inception, our arms program has been laid out for the purpose of carrying on the war in Europe, far more than for the purpose of building an adequate defense for America.

    Now at the same time we were being prepared for a foreign war, it was necessary, as I have said, to involve us in the war. This was accomplished under that now famous phrase "steps short of war."

    England and France would win if the United States would only repeal its arms embargo and sell munitions for cash, we were told. And then [illegible] began, a refrain that marked every step we took toward war for many months--"the best way to defend America and keep out of war." we were told, was "by aiding the Allies."

    First, we agreed to sell arms to Europe; next, we agreed to loan arms to Europe; then we agreed to patrol the ocean for Europe; then we occupied a European island in the war zone. Now, we have reached the verge of war.

    The war groups have succeeded in the first two of their three major steps into war. The greatest armament program in our history is under way.

    We have become involved in the war from practically every standpoint except actual shooting. Only the creation of sufficient "incidents" yet remains; and you see the first of these already taking place, according to plan [ill.]-- a plan that was never laid before the American people for their approval.

    Men and women of Iowa; only one thing holds this country from war today. That is the rising opposition of the American people. Our system of democracy and representative government is on test today as it has never been before. We are on the verge of a war in which the only victor would be chaos and prostration.

    We are on the verge of a war for which we are still unprepared, and for which no one has offered a feasible plan for victory--a war which cannot be won without sending our soldiers across the ocean to force a landing on a hostile coast against armies stronger than our own.

    We are on the verge of war, but it is not yet too late to stay out. It is not too late to show that no amount of money, or propaganda, or patronage can force a free and independent people into war against its will. It is not yet too late to retrieve and to maintain the independent American destiny that our forefathers established in this new world.

    The entire future rests upon our shoulders. It depends upon our action, our courage, and our intelligence. If you oppose our intervention in the war, now is the time to make your voice heard.

    Help us to organize these meetings; and write to your representatives in Washington. I tell you that the last stronghold of democracy and representative government in this country is in our house of representatives and our senate.

    There, we can still make our will known. And if we, the American people, do that, independence and freedom will continue to live among us, and there will be no foreign war.

  226. I don't understand that... by Darknase · · Score: 1

    At first:
    I was shocked, I'm sad and I mourning with you for all the dead.

    Now let me say I'm pacifist. I refused "military duty time" and did instead "civil service" .. means working with handicaped people. means doing something for the public wealth.
    Formative to this were my parents who grown up at a time bombs fell onto the cities they lifed in.
    Also i think every killed human by 'e-chair' or by a bullet is one too much.

    I don't understand those people who flue into the WTC neither I do understand people who call for revenge now, especialy for revenge onto the arabians (all or special ones).
    Yeah, it's unfair, it's shocking, it's NOT right. Terrorismus agains civilians is always wrong, against military too but soldiers have to life with the idea to die by a bullet or something like that.
    But to call now for revenge at a time were .. well 'jokes' like "the japanese red army" publics "it's a revenge for Hiroshima" did, are normal state you can't blame ANYONE.
    Palaestinias are celebrating this. Yeah they do so... we (the western world) did as Kuwait was going to be liberated. I don't like the idea they celebrate the death of people. But if you look into a history books (good ones not only those made by "the winners", because the winners write the history how they need it) then you see Israel is no country that's based on something diffrent money and protection of bigger ones. E.g. Einstein ,1940, World Exhibition. Long before Israel HE (a jew), did the main speech for palaestinia in the sense that it shall be formed as own country.
    But the point is ... Israel is a faschist country. They act like nazis, i don't blame all citizens there are always good and bad ones, but they camps for people they don't like to have in their neighbourhood and if they think (entitled or not) there are terrorists in a refugee-camp they fire with tanks on it... ??well "HELLO?!! Braincell 1 to Braincell 2 .. are you alright?"
    And a country like USofA doesn't do anything against that except of talking but if there is oil (f.e. Kuwait) they are there in no time. This double blade makes terroismus grow.

    When I do hear all those guys talk a lá "Nuke'em, nuke'em, nuke'em now!" a quote from 'Mars Attacks' I feel like in this film .. laughting my ass off.
    Who said it was Ibn Laden (yeah it's 'Ibn' not 'Bin'; it's spoken 'e-bn' and means "son of" like the 'Mc' in McDonalds or the "O'" in O'Conner) well may be he was it, may be it was another Oklahoma City.
    Where I life there is a sentence that 2 former rulers of the country had as their 'credo': "Make war outside to get peace inside." Ever came to your mind that you all (citizens of USofA) are just used? Just look why 1939 at around 05:00 h Poland was attacked. ... Yeah, it was a fake attack on a radiostation!
    I don't say it's this way I just say .. in Oklahoma all yelled "F**kin' arabians" and were it?? No, not as far as I know.

    Let time solve the puzzel and think before you talk and always don't do things to others you don't want to happen to you.

    Ciao

    Darknase

    --
    --- Ciao Darknase
  227. Punishment, and then What ? by DVega · · Score: 1

    I'm deeply sad and sorry for the current situation and I firmly believe that the persons resposible of this barbarie must be hunted and punished.

    But then we have to think why so many people in some many countries feel unhappy about US foreign politics and this new global economy.

    US punishes Cuba because they don't respect human rights, but partners China because they have nuclear weapons and because it is economicaly convinient.

    Meanwhile US had supported dictators in Iraq, Chile, Argentina, South Corea and many other countries when they were pro-americans.

    Do you remember the incidents during the last G8 metting in Genoa ? Industrialized nations are promoting the Global Economy. Corporations can build their products all over the world, they can sell their products all over the world, but where do the benefits of this global economy goes ? The gap between rich people and poor people is increasing. Unemployment is a big problem in many countries. External debt in poor countries get bigger and bigger.

    If we live in a global economy, why don't we behave like a big nation ? Why don't we create a global income tax to improbe living conditions in poor regions. To build hospitals, shools, roads, etc. Why don't we implement a global unemployment insurance ? Why don't we open the borders of our countries so people can migrate like a big nation ?

    I think the global economy is a big lie. It only helps corporations get bigger while most people get poorer.

    If we do not face this problems, we will fighting the consecuenses instead of the cause.

    --
    MOD THE CHILD UP!
  228. Babelfish translation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any English language news sites corroborate this story?

    Here's the translation..

    ----------------
    Black box found

    In the proximity of Pittsburgh the FBI found the Black box of the airplane fallen there. From the recordings the Ermittler of explanations about the events in the cockpit of the machine promises itself in the last minutes before the crash.

    So far one has only out Handy callings of two passengers and a hostess notes over the processes on board three of the four machines briefly before crashes. The three persons reported of three to five kidnappers, who would have forced the force over the machines with meter-like weapons (see in addition also our article " the last callings ").

  229. this doesn't fit by oni · · Score: 1
    I don't think skimming a flight manual in arabic 20 minutes before boarding the aircraft would really be enough to pull off what they did.

    This is the part that I don't understand. Why was the manual in the car at all? You'd think the terrorists would be committed enough to have studied enough prior to leaving their house that they wouldn't need to take the manual with them. What could they have been looking up or reviewing on the drive to the airport??

    I guess they were at least smart enough not to be reading it in the terminal!

    1. Re:this doesn't fit by GoofyBoy · · Score: 2

      Good point.

      Maybe they were just getting nervous. Sort of like cramming before the big exam.

      --
      The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
    2. Re:this doesn't fit by Jburkholder · · Score: 1

      You know, I thought about that too. Then again, the report about the van that has been impounded are conflicting. One said that the authorities were getting a search warant, the one previous to that said there were explosives, and another one said that a guy had had a run-in with a bunch of arabs in the parking lot and they were still looking for the vehicle. (although, these could all be separate incidents and I'm getthing them all confused)

    3. Re:this doesn't fit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live near boston, and this is what I heard - a guy had a run in with some people at Logan Int'l airport, and after the crash, reoprted the vehicle to the FBI (I'm assuming he did this cuz they were arabic..) The car was searched and impounded earlier this morning, and they found arabic-language papers and flight instruction manuals.

      A SWAT team raided (well.. they walked in. no sense of urgency whatsoever) the Westin Copley Hotel. the whole block was shut off.. a bomb sniffing dog supposedly found bomb traces, and they evacuated teh whole building, along with the nearby Public Library. bomb squads were brought in.. everything calmed down. They found more documents there. Another hotel in Newton was raided by the FBI, where they found a car, more documents and flight training stuff. Apparently a fuel consumption calculator, too, whatever that is (besides the obvious - and why would they need it?) An Amtrak train was stopped in Providence, also, so the FBI could question someone on board.. no idea whats going on there.

      This all seems fishy to me. If this was so well-planned out, why would they have lots of flight-training manuals? and bin Laden claims he had nothing to do with it, but that it was an American group. Could it have been American citizens, of Arabic origin, sympathizing with his cause? or at least people living in our country?

      blah.

  230. Flying bombs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Second to biological warfare, the threat of a hijacked plane seems to be one of the best methods for causing mass destruction in any city. There must be a way to negate this threat. One possible way would be to have all flight attendents equipped with a radio transmitter capable of sending an alarm to either the cockpit - where the alarm could be relayed to the ground - or directly to the ground. This way, any hijacked planes would immediately be known of and the appropriate action could be taken. If it came to shooting the plane out of the sky after not receiving a response then so be it. This action might quite possibly save a lot more lives than might be lost from that action alone - as has been proven.

  231. another site to check out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    gothamgazette.com, one of the better sites with NYC info, is starting a message board today for people to discuss the bombing. Check it out:

    http://www.gothamgazette.com/twin_towers_discuss io n

  232. Echelon? by edibleplastic · · Score: 2
    vena writes: "CNN reported on television broadcast earlier today that the NSA was now going through volumes of recorded cellular calls for calls made by passengers on the planes. Clear admission." --part of this slashdot article


    I know this is a bit off topic, and I can't substantiate it at all, but at one point during the news coverage yesterday, a reporter mentioned that the government will be using a "Black Hole" to capture thousands and thousands of phone conversations and will begin processing them, looking for information. Did anyone else hear/see this report? Is it an admission of Echelon?

    1. Re:Echelon? by torklugnutz · · Score: 1

      The NSA has systems in place which grab every bit of data in the air that they can. This has been going on for decades. The real trick will be sorting the pertinant info from the millions of other cell phone bandwidth packets.

      --
      Often in Error, Never in Doubt.
    2. Re:Echelon? by MikeBabcock · · Score: 2

      Don't forget that the media also requested that anyone with recorded phone conversations that may be relevant to please turn them into the police or the FBI.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
  233. Um, ever heard of Airbus? by mks113 · · Score: 1

    Methinks Gordon Sinclair missed a little one there.

    I also think that he conveniently ignored all the offers of help that weren't really needed due to the vast resources of the US.

  234. Could be worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What would have happend if 4 planes crashed into four nuclear power plants in four large cities. I know it wouldn't cause any sort of atomic explosion, but I would imagain the radiation would be pretty bad. Hard to clean up too!

    1. Re:Could be worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats why the hardened concrete outer shell of nuclear reactors is "able to withstand the impact of a 747 and still contain its contents".

      I wonder if they could actually take that impact or not.

  235. They're all terrorists by jflynn · · Score: 2

    Yeah, especially those guys that trained bin Laden, eh? You may have heard of them. They're the CIA.

    And it's interesting that we find Afghanistan such a problem now. We didn't seem to feel that way when they were fighting the Soviet Union. Kipling and the Russians can tell you about barbarism in Afghanistan, it's not a new problem.

    There are plenty of examples. Remember Noriega and Pinochet?

    There is no excuse for what happened yesterday, none at all. No matter how oppressed you are, no matter how badly you've been hurt, killing civilians will not make you safer or hurt less. This is the very lesson we need to send to terrorists, but they pay attention to what we do, not what we say.

    I fully support an informed and measured response. That probably will inevitably involve some civilians whose only crime is being too poor to move out of their country. But damn, people, we would have a lot less trouble with monsters if we didn't shortsightedly create and fund them to protect our interest of the moment.

  236. Re:Cowards -- THIS MAN KNOWS WHAT'S UP by MindTree · · Score: 1


    I must also admit that I was sickend by the response of many slashdotters and the lack of clear thinking that many of the posts have shown.

    We (as a country) have been a little soft on these terrorist acts for too long. I think that we have given the "retaliate through civil means" (embargos, political pressure, removing aid and support for aid) approach a fair shot.

    When you get sucker punched, you don't take it lying down. Or maybe most of you do and maybe that's the problem. Have you ever been picked on by someone who was bigger than you, or smaller than you but had greater numbers, when you were a kid? Did letting it go help at all? Did telling your parents or a teacher help at all? Maybe for the short term, a day or a week, but I'll bet the next chance that person or persons got, you just got it worse. You have to stand up for yourself, because in the real world no one is going to do it for you.

    There is no reasoning with the lawless, souless and heartless. All they know is hate and they have shown they are willing to do the unthinkable. We've got to do what we can do, and that's hit them back so hard that they can't get up and hit us again.

    But what about the innocents? This isn't person to person. I'm not saying I, as an individual, want to go kill the children of the people who did this. But this attack wasn't aimed at me, as an individual. It was aimed at America.

    We have lots of suspects who are suspect becuase of actions they have taken in the past. We didn't do anything (effective) about it then and this is where it has gotten us. There are nations who are harboring these people. In some cases the leaders of these nations are responsible for aggressive actions themselves. This was one nation to another, not person to person and this needs to be delt with as such. Even if these terrorists try and blur the lines. If the nations that house these people don't handel the sitation themselves they are condoning the actions and by protecting ther perpetrators they are guilty of these actions themselves.

    IMO these terrorists are seen by these contries as a successful, covert military. Explain to me how, if we took the uniforms of half of our troops and denounced their actions, but let them operate out of our country while they carried out terrorist activies in other countries, this would not be seen as an act of war, deserving of retaliation?

  237. No distinction by Rupert · · Score: 2

    I thought the moment I heard that phrase that it was stupid. That kind of thinking would lead you to conclude that Dr. Mudd shot Abraham Lincoln.

    --

    --
    E_NOSIG
  238. Moderators are CENSORS by socialist+fish · · Score: 1

    Very good.. Go ahead and moderate down comment which disagree with the fascist, shirt-sigthed view of many of the ./ readers.

    There are a LOT of interesting posts which where moderated down, and a LOT of idiotic posts moderated up.

    This shows me the kind of people read ./

    --
    yadda yadda
    1. Re:Moderators are CENSORS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i agree...a lot of the modded up replies make me sick. stereotypical, cliched american disregard for anyone's interests but their own.

  239. Very proud of CNN.com too by jgaynor · · Score: 1

    CNN.com also cut out all advertising links. Good for them. It was much easier watching video without the obligatory commercials.



    Shame on MSNBC though, they were running normal if nor greater amounts of ads then they usually do.

    1. Re:Very proud of CNN.com too by ACK!! · · Score: 2

      The reason for cutting the ads was the fact it almost doubled our bandwidth. Better that people see the site and use the numbers later to ellicit ads than to have the site down.

      --
      ACK /ak/ interj. 2. [from the comic strip "Bloom County"] An exclamation of surprised disgust, esp. i
  240. who gives a fuck Re:Cowards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Civilians are civilians, and it does not matter where they live.


    Once again I must ask "Who gives a Fuck?" Ten thosand people may have died yesterday and what do them bastards do? They dance in the streets. Fuck'em. Any chance they had for a homeland is fucking gone. And you know what I don't give a fuck.


    I say this, a thousand of them for every one American. These fuckers want terror I say we give them terror. Kill as many of the bastards as we can as quickly as we can. When all of Afghanistan is nothing more than a smoking hole in the ground scattered with the burned and dead lets see who is dancing in the streets.


    Maybe blasing one of those fucking sand pits to hell would show the rest of them bastards what terror really is.


    Them bastards are calling for peace, lets give it to them. The peace of the grave.

    1. Re:who gives a fuck Re:Cowards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      > Once again I must ask "Who gives a Fuck?" Ten thosand people may have died yesterday and what do them bastards do? They dance in the streets.

      Nope. What cnn shows you ? A few dozen of bastards dancing in the street.

      > Fuck'em. Any chance they had for a homeland is fucking gone.

      I don't think they hoped uncle sam to give them a homeland.

      > And you know what I don't give a fuck.

      You're so clueless that it is funny.

    2. Re:who gives a fuck Re:Cowards by Danse · · Score: 2

      Sure thing pal. Your path is one that could be followed. It'll turn into a global Vietnam for us probably, except that the death and destruction will be on our own soil instead of on the other side of the globe. I hope you're first in line to join the Army too if you want to kick these people's asses so bad. Let's see you put your life on the line over in the middle east.


      Then there's the fact that if we go around randomly turning cities into rubble to get at a few terrorists we'll end up creating a lot more than we kill. People with nothing left to lose are hard to stop. Eventually they'll probably kill you or someone you care about. They'll probably kill me and others who don't want to take that route too, but in the end, we're all US citizens and in a war, that's all that matters.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    3. Re:who gives a fuck Re:Cowards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Eventually they'll probably kill you...


      As unfortunate as it is, people do not feel guilt until they appreciate the immediacy of the consequences of their actions. People will be much less likely to do a suicide mission if they realize that it will bring total annihilation to the village they grew up in, their family, and everyone they ever cared about.

      One of the things that must be done is removing the rewards for those who do these things. Groups like Hamas give pensions to the families of suicide bombers for life, and are very open about it. If, instead, a suicide bomber brought immediate death to his village, those around him would not support him at all. "Do you want to bring death to your family and friends? Allah would not approve..."

      In the near term, retaliation will mean more hatred, but until these groups have more to fear than the US, such attacks will continue. And the hatred will not stop until the suicide bombers lose their status as village heros. Retaliation is an unfortunate, but necessary action, in these times.
    4. Re:who gives a fuck Re:Cowards by Danse · · Score: 2

      As unfortunate as it is, people do not feel guilt until they appreciate the immediacy of the consequences of their actions.


      Remember that when someone you love is killed in retaliation for our retaliation. Yesterday's attack was not the first stone to be thrown. It was just another step in the cycle that we will perpetuate. We won't be able to kill all the terrorists with our retaliation. In fact, even if we do manage to get a lot of them, they'll probably become martyrs and more will take their place. What it comes down to is that we're no better than they are when our security is threatened. We'll lash out and kill "innocents" as well. We've done it before and we'll do it again. The innocents we kill over there will be guilty of the same thing as the people killed yesterday. They were citizens of a country at war.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    5. Re:who gives a fuck Re:Cowards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Remember that when someone you love is killed in retaliation for our retaliation.


      My point was that people in the US are under more danger if we do very little to retaliate. The reason the violence continues is that we have not yet acted decisively. Only when we act decisively, will the violence decrease and eventually end.
    6. Re:who gives a fuck Re:Cowards by Danse · · Score: 2

      Only when we act decisively, will the violence decrease and eventually end.


      You're assuming we have the knowledge and capability of killing or at least cowing everyone who has the desire and ability to strike at us. You're also assuming that when we commit such an act that it won't fuel hatred in even more people. It gets back to the idea of the only way to get rid of a foe is to kill him and everyone who cares about him, and everyone who cares about them, etc. We talking global genocide here, or what?

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    7. Re:who gives a fuck Re:Cowards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hear hear. No dead person ever flew a plane into a building.

  241. another tail by oni · · Score: 1
    I once had a four inch blade in a bag that, like you, I'd forgotten about. I went the metal detectors the first time with no problem. While waiting at the terminal the flight was delayed so I left all the way back through the detectors to a restaurant or something - I can't remember. The second time through the metal detectors they spotted it. I thought I was in big trouble, but they just put it into a box.

    Since then, I've never really taken airport security successfully. When they ask me to turn on my palm pilot I use the tricorder app and pretend to scan them with it. I guess it wouldn't be smart to do that any more!

    1. Re:another tail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I walked up to the metal detector, emptying my pockets. Turns out I had accidentially brought a 3.5" camping knife. Thinking this would become a huge pain in the ass, I showed the knife to the guards. They opened it up and chucked at how pathetically small it was [insert joke here], and sent me on my way.

      Apparently the knife has to be 6" before it's checked in (long enough to puncture the cabin?). This was in SFO too, generally better than most security-wise.

    2. Re:another tail by Fred+Ferrigno · · Score: 2

      I went on a trip to Washington, DC this past January. We passed through our fair share of metal detectors, in airports and federal buildings we toured in Washington. There's one thing I noticed about all of them: they never check your wallet. I have a wallet with metal clips that would certainly set off the detector. You just put it in the tray, walk through, and pick it up on your way out. They don't even look at it. I commented at the time (to my friends, not to the guards--I didn't want them to get any ideas) that a small knife or a switch blade could easily fit inside a wallet. Perhaps I should have risked an interrogation and told the guards.

      American domestic flights are notorious around the world for having lax security. Airlines are more concerned about getting passengers in and out than they are about terrorism. This is a trade-off we made because we felt that we were immune. Obviously, this is going to have to change.

    3. Re:another tail by 4mn0t1337 · · Score: 1
      Apparently the knife has to be 6" before it's checked in

      Not true. A *folding* knife can only be so big. A fixed blade (non-folding) of any size can be a problem.

      I had a Tenka (sp?) knife on my keyring in Chicago once. This is the kind that has a fixed blade that slips into a sheath. They wouldn't let me through the security point with it. They took it from me, took my address, and I kissed the knife good-bye. Oddly enough, about 8 weeks later it showed up in my mail.

      The blade was under 1 inch.

      --

      ______
      Once: you're a philosopher. Twice: a pervert.

  242. Giuliani rocks by Krimsen · · Score: 2

    Giuliani is an amazing mayor. Whether or not you agree with everything he does is not the issue. The point is that he is decisive, no-nonsense and gets things done. He is not a PR person, he is a decision maker. It is a shame that his term is ending soon (term limits), but but I know he will move up the political ladder and hopefully will become active in federal government where someone with passion and talent like his is sorely needed.

    1. Re:Giuliani rocks by sulli · · Score: 2

      Hear hear. There is nobody I would rather have in charge in a disaster than Rudy. No exceptions.

      --

      sulli
      RTFJ.
  243. Re:Ambulance Chasing by Pfhor · · Score: 1

    What are you talking about? I still cannot believe this has happened, it was surreal when I first heard of it and it still is this semi morphic concept in my head trying to imagine what the impact must have been. Everytime I was able to see a photo or watch a video it became more and more real. This helps me from forgetting. Until I am able to visit the site myself, these images will have to do.

  244. Destination of hijackers was White House by Augusto · · Score: 1

    MSNBC reporting, Ari Fleischer says the Pentagon attack was originally aimed at the White House.

    --

    - sigs are for wimps.
  245. hmmm..... 'Hosting Provider Shut Down By FBI' by lbmouse · · Score: 1



    Does anyone think this was related in anyway? Last week everyone was grumbling about the raid. Maybe it WAS warranted.

    1. Re:hmmm..... 'Hosting Provider Shut Down By FBI' by m_evanchik · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I've been thinking about the same incident myself.

      Probably no connection, but it would be interesting to see if anything was found there. Hopefully someone will follow up, and the story won't get lost in the wake of this disaster. With so much informational overload now, pre-disaster events may be very informative.

  246. Re:Canadians need to be less sensitive. by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 1

    Please point out the news sources that are focusing (negatively) on Canada's involvement. Again the CBC has, so write to your PM.

    Anti-American rants notwithdstanding (such as the I am Canadian beer commercial), most Americans have a very favorable view of Canadians. While some may have lots of misconceptions and sterotypes most consider Canada as the friend next door.

    Look, journalist ask stupid questions, thats their job. If you take that as personal insult then that too bad your way to too sensitive and need to grow some skin.

  247. Did someone forward this to FBI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, someone really needs to look into this. Your analysis is excellent.

  248. http://www.WorldTradeCenterDisaster.com by SimHacker · · Score: 1
    World Trade Center and Pentagon Disaster Information and Memorial.

    The purpose of this site is to distill useful links to reviewed information about disaster relief, how you can help, information about survivors and memorials to victims.

    If you can't give blood, then give money. If you can't give money, then at least give a shit.

    --
    Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
  249. Re:How to prevent this from EVER happening again . by valmont · · Score: 1
    Additional ideas:
    • Every airport in the united states should have a specific landing area called "emergency landing" that is kept clear at all times.
    • Upon triggering of a plane's emergency mode, not only should the pilots in the cockpit be completely isolated from any communications with the main cabin, BUT also communications with the ground or anywhere in the outside world, should only be one-way: PLANE to the GROUND. The Pilots should become instantly unable to receive any verbal communication from anything coming from the ground or the outside world so that terrorists could not coerce ground authorities to communicate with the plane to relay their demands to the pilots. The only communications coming from the ground to the pilots during an emergency mode should be in the form of DIGITAL instructions made of speed, heading, coordinates. It should be made widely known to the entire world that no other type of instruction can come from the outside world to the pilots during an emergency mode. Emergency mode should trigger an automated set of digital instructions to the pilot with the coordinates of the nearest emergency landing zone. The ground should not be able to remotely control the plane in any way so it cannot be coerced into taking any action.
    • The basic idea is, during an emergency mode, the only possible direction a plane can take is towards the nearest emergency landing area, while the pilots have absolutely no way of ever being aware of what's going on in the main cabin or anywhere else in the world and only know what to do to land the plane, while the ground knows EVERYTHING about what's going on ANYWHERE in the plane in real-time thru sensors and microphones, and heck JUST STICK HIDDEN VIDEO CAMERAS EVERYWHERE on the plane so the ground can also get a live feed of mug shots.
    • This "emergency mode" I keep referring to, should actually be "terrorist response mode", not just any emergency situation obviously.

  250. Destination of Pentagon plane was ... by Augusto · · Score: 1

    ... the White House according to Ari Fleischer.

    MSNBC news.

    --

    - sigs are for wimps.
  251. WARNING Re:Media Archive - Faster Speeds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WARNING: Above site has obnoxious pop unders that take over when you leave the site. Worse than some porn sites!!!

  252. Forewarning on Yahoo Message Boards? by rtos · · Score: 1
    This extremely eerie message was posted to a Yahoo financial message board Monday night. (link found via Rafe at Rc3.org)


    Perhaps someone should point this out to the FBI.

    --
    -- null
    1. Re:Forewarning on Yahoo Message Boards? by rjamestaylor · · Score: 2
      Out of context. See a regular on that board respond here.

      It's good to report leads to the authorities, but don't obsess over things like this.

      --
      -- @rjamestaylor on Ello
  253. Image and Video archive updated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been keeping an archive of images and video from the recent attacks. It's available at http://www.sexdwarf.org/wtc and hopefully the mirror at http://www.decepticons.org/wtc is now synced.

    [And no, sexdwarf.org is *not* a pr0n site.]

  254. Slashdot appropriate picture by jgaynor · · Score: 1

    This just aired on FOX news here - Of special importance to the /. crowd. Check out the grayed out logo on top of the cab.



    BTW its been over 30 hours since the attack and from my dorm at Rutgers I can still see the enormous grey haze when looking eastward.

  255. censorship already?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/57/21621.html

    they mention a video of the plane crashing into the pentagon. I haven't seen this video. I can't find it anywhere on the net. Are they wrong or is it just being suppressed for some reason...

  256. Real IRA and other terrorist groups by torklugnutz · · Score: 1

    I wonder if the backlash from these incidents will fall onto the backs of all terrorist groups in the world. Will Britain and Ireland use this an excuse to end diplomacy with the Real IRA? Will the UN back an assault on Iraq to remove Saddam? Bin Laden's days are surely numbered. I wonder if the soldier who actually kills/captures him will get to collect the $2,000,000 dollar bounty. On that same note, will the bounty be increased? This could be the tip of the iceberg for a potentially bloody decade.

    --
    Often in Error, Never in Doubt.
    1. Re:Real IRA and other terrorist groups by forkboy · · Score: 1

      Just FYI, it was reported yesterday that the FBI bounty on Bin Laden is $5,000,00.

      And I don't think the soldier who takes him down will get it, just as FBI agents who take down perps on the most wanted list don't get the rewards either. It's just a way of motivating civilians to rat out the bad guys.

      --
      This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
  257. PA Flight Eyewitness Account by jlaprise · · Score: 2, Informative

    Jerry Pournelle posted this tonight on one of the SFF Net newsgroups; I
    have no reason to think it isn't authentic.

    Dear Jerry,

    Following is a message which my one of my best friends passed along with
    permission to distribute to those who might be interested. It fills in the
    details that I missed in my original conversation with him and attempted to
    relate to you.

    Tom has given me permission to distribute the message - please feel free to
    post it if you deem it appropriate.

    Sincerely,

    Art Russell
    Major, US Army (Retired)

    Message Follows:

    Today was a tragedy for all of America and to my family, a very personal
    one. Lynn and my Niece Liz's husband, Jeremy Glick was on United flight 93
    this morning. When the Hijackers took control of flight 93. Jeremy called
    my niece who in-turn conferenced him to 911. Jeremy relayed to the police
    what was happening as the hijacking unfolded. As our niece Liz listened,
    Jeremy told the police there were three Arab terrorists with knives and a
    large red box that they claimed contained a bomb. Jeremy tracked the second
    by second details and relayed them to the police by phone. After several
    minutes of describing the scene, Jeremy and several other passengers
    decided there was nothing to lose by rushing the hijackers. Although United
    Flight 93 crashed outside of Pittsburgh, with the loss of all souls. Jeremy
    and the other patriotic heroes saved the lives of many people on the ground
    that would have died if the Arab terrorists had been able to complete their
    heinous mission.

    Please offer your prayers for all of those who perished or were injured in
    this tragic of all days and to our niece Liz Glick and her 2-month-old
    child, Emerson, who are left without their loving Husband and Father. May
    we remember Jeremy and the other brave souls as heroes, soldiers and
    Americans' on United flight 93 whom so gallantry gave their lives to save
    many others.

    Lynn, our four adult children and I are headed to New York to be with our
    family during this time of great sadness

    All of my best,

    Tom

  258. The Hi-Jackers were paid by ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stupid Slashdotters.

    Let me break it down for your infant digestion.

    1) Fact. The Hi-jackers were *suicidal*. You need a MORAL obligation to do this. No mercenary
    will die for you.

    2) Fact. The Hi-jackers targeted sensitive economical and military positions.

    3) Fact. The Hi-jackers KNEW they could not damage American military infrastructure by attacking
    the Pentagon. That attack was merely symbolic.

    4) Fact. The Hi-jackers DID NOT care about the consequences (they don't think their families
    will be targeted.)

    5) Fact. The Hi-jackers MUST benefit from this, in one way or the other.

    6) Fact. The Hi-jackers NEED support in the target areas. They need backup in the airline
    inductry.

    ***

    Having said that. Let's see the consequences of this attack.

    1) "temporarily" dropping stock prices.
    2) Rising oil prices.
    3) NEED for MORE national defense systems (weapons.)
    4) Rising hatred for the arabs.

    Do you see what I see? The Bush Admin, with Israel orchestrated this whole drama. It is a money
    issue. Muslim fanatics must have caried out the attacks, but they were being LED by Israel.
    As you might know, the whole Islamic militancy is created and fueled by israel.

    Israel needs a cause for constant American support, so they toggle the buttons of the stupid
    arabs. The Arabs lost the war long time ago. Jews are just puppeteering the mummies, and using
    them as scare crows to keep america on its toes.

    WAKE UP WHITE GUYS, you are eaten by Sons of Sam.

    1. Re:The Hi-Jackers were paid by ... by dynamic_cast · · Score: 1

      Paranoid

    2. Re:The Hi-Jackers were paid by ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, thay believe in the after life for becoming a martor they will recieve 7 virgins. It sounds like these rag-heads are just sexually frustrated.

    3. Re:The Hi-Jackers were paid by ... by TGK · · Score: 2

      This reminds me of one of my profs. He's a conspiricy theorist because "it makes life more fun." Dude... didn't you know? The plane that hit the pentagon was flown by Jimmy Hoffa and Elvis!

      Yeesh... some people...

      --
      Killfile(TGK)
      No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
  259. Bin Laden Appointed Taliban Commander in Chief by bryanbrunton · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why haven't any of the big news agencies reported that Bin Laden was recently appointed the Taliban military commandre in chief?

    http://www.vny.com/cf/news/upidetail.cfm?QID=216 03 7

  260. Bzzzt! Wrong Answer by Alpha_Geek · · Score: 1
    This is no sick twisted people, just normal people, like you and me, with a lot of hate for the american society.

    Normal people like me certainly don't hijack airliners and use them for suicide missions. I can't speak for you, but I'm starting to think you aren't as normal as you believe.
    A better solution americans could implement is make sure they don't get to be so hated in the rest of the world.

    Unfortunately this will never happen. When you are the only superpower left in the world, the little guys are going to blame you for everything.
    The americans should try to really find the center of the problem that yesterday became evident yesterday.

    The center of that problem is nations that house, train and promote terroism. Afghanistan is going to shortly learn that, as well as any nation that sides with them.
    1. Re:Bzzzt! Wrong Answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This reply is nothing more than an egotists attempt at self gratification.

    2. Re:Bzzzt! Wrong Answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and your response is nothing less than the pot calling kettle black !

  261. A Canadian that actually respects US by MrHyd3 · · Score: 0

    This, from a Canadian newspaper, is worth sharing.

    America: The Good Neighbor.
    Widespread but only partial news coverage was given
    Recently to a remarkable editorial broadcast from
    Toronto by Gordon Sinclair, a Canadian television
    commentator. What follows is the full text of his
    trenchant remarks as printed in the Congressional Record:

    "This Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the
    Americans as the most generous and possibly the least
    appreciated people on all the earth.
    Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy were lifted out of the debris of war by theAmericans who poured in billions of dollars and
    forgave other billions in debts. None of these
    countries is today paying even the interest on its
    remaining debts to the United States.

    When France was in danger of collapsing in 1956,
    it was the Americans who propped it up, and their
    reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris. I was there. I saw it.

    When earthquakes hit distant cities, it is the
    United States that hurries in to help. This spring, 59 American communities were flattened by tornadoes.
    Nobody helped.

    The Marshall Plan and the Truman Policy pumped
    billions of dollars into discouraged countries. Now newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent, warmongering Americans.

    I'd like to see just one of those countries that
    is gloating over the erosion of the United States
    dollar build its own airplane. Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo
    Jet, the Lockheed Tri-Star, or the Douglas DC10?
    If so, why don't they fly them? Why do all the
    International lines except Russia fly American Planes?

    Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or woman on the moon? You talk about Japanese technocracy, and you get radios. You talk about German technocracy, and you get automobiles.

    You talk about American technocracy, and you find
    men on the moon - not once, but several times -
    and safely home again.

    You talk about scandals, and the Americans put theirs right in the store window for everybody to look at .
    Even their draft-dodgers are not pursued and hounded.
    They are here on our streets, and most of them, unless they are breaking Canadian laws, are getting American dollars from ma and pa at home to spend here.

    When the railways of France, Germany and India
    were breaking down through age, it was the Americans who rebuilt them. When the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke, nobody loaned them an old caboose. Both are still broke.

    I can name you 5000 times when the Americans raced
    to the help of other people in trouble. Can you name me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble? I don't think there was outside help even during the San Francisco earthquake.

    Our neighbors have faced it alone, and I'm one
    Canadian who is damned tired of hearing them get
    kicked around. They will come out of this thing with their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled to thumb their nose at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles. I hope Canada is not one of those."

    Stand proud, America!

    --
    -------- Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most. --Ozzy
  262. MOD THIS UP NOW!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is interesting..

  263. See this WashPost survey by cygnusx · · Score: 2, Interesting
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/poll s/vault/stories/data091201.htm

    Would you be willing to give up some of the liberties we have in this country in order for the government to crack down on terrorism, or not?

    The results may surprise you. Remember the (FDR?)quote -- "Those who give up a liberty for convenience deserve neither"? (not accurate, but too tired to look it up)

  264. 9.11.2001 = 23 by McGillroy · · Score: 1

    did anybody of you notice that adding the numbers in the date of yesterdays attack summs up to 23? and that the number of letters in "new york world trade center" is 23? and that the psalm bush cited yesterday was psalm 23? its all part of the conspiracy;)

    1. Re:9.11.2001 = 23 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So did the people at 23.org have something to do with all this then?

    2. Re:9.11.2001 = 23 by 3am · · Score: 1

      and 2 + 3 = 5, which is precisely 1 less than the number of letters in the phrase "shup up"

      --

      A: None. The Universe spins the bulb, and the Zen master merely stays out of the way.
    3. Re:9.11.2001 = 23 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My spoon is too big.......MY SPOON IS TOO BIG!!!

  265. Visit a Mosque by beanerspace · · Score: 1

    Religious Intolerance ? To what end ? See my comments from yesterday.

  266. True targets by Bandman · · Score: 1

    ABC News just reported that the Pentagon was not the origional target for the airliner. The White House was the target, as was Air Force One. I really don't understand how they thought a 767 jumbo jet could take out a 747 with a military escourt...

    1. Re:True targets by gurulegend · · Score: 1

      Until yesterday, Air Force One had never been seen with military escorts. It does however probably have missles and I'm sure Air Force jets would come out of nowhere at a moment's notice.

  267. Understanding = Cowardice? by CAPTAINROOTMAN · · Score: 1

    Fact: The arabs are at war with the jews.
    Fact: The US sends huge amounts of aid to the jews.
    Fact: The jews are winning because of this aid.
    Fact: This makes the arabs VERY angry with the US.

    I understand why the arabs feel the US is an enemy who should be attacked.

    I understand that taking sides in a war will eventually incurr the wrath of the side you are hurting.

    You should be able to understand it too, because they feel EXACTLY the same about that as you do about the terrorist attack that happened yesterday.

    The fact that I can wrap by brain around the situation has no bearing on my bravery. I'm all for sending in M1's to drive over the skulls of anyone who dare attack the US. I just realize that it's US policy that provoked this situation.

    Do not let yourself be manipulated. Not by the media, not by the government, and not be these terrorists.

    The only thing worth surrendering is your ignorance.

  268. Re:Ambulance Chasing by kootch · · Score: 2

    actually, I have to disagree. Their coverage wasn't that much better, although you were atleast able to sometimes get a page. the BBC had by far the best coverage... my office was even streaming live coverage from them through Real Media Player from 9:00 until 10:30.

    I agree with the Akamai comment tho.

  269. Other stuff which occured on September 11 by Espen+Skoglund · · Score: 1
    Just to fire up under the conspiracy theories, here's some other "related" stuff which occured on September 11.
    • 1609, Henry Hudson discovers Manhattan island.
    • 1922, Britain is granted mandate of Palestine.
    • 1990, In a statement to the Congress, President Bush promises retaliation of Iraq's invation in Kuwait.
    Other close matches:
    • Sep. 9, 1993. Yassir Arafat agrees on the "Declaration of Principle", i.e., the Oslo-agreement. A signing ceremony is hosted by President Bill Clinton on Sep. 13.
    • Sep. 12, 2001. Two bin Laden supportered terrorists (the Tanzania US embassy bombing) were supposed to be convicted by a judge in a federal court just beside World Trade Center.
    Also have a look on these sites for more September 11 info.
    1. Re:Other stuff which occured on September 11 by TH4L35 · · Score: 1

      "1609, Henry Hudson discovers Manhattan island"

      Are you implying that the Dutch want to take back New Amsterdam ?!?!?

      --
      When Thales was asked what was difficult, he said, "To know one's self." And what was easy, "To advise another."
  270. no way by oni · · Score: 1

    I don't remember any Americans dancing in the street when we bombed the Chinese embasy, or shot down the Iranian airliner. The only time I've ever seen Americans dancing in the streets is when our troops come home. I know some people are pretty screwed up but there is no fucking way we would be celebrating 10k+ dead people.

    And before anyone brings it up. 114,000 people died (immediately) in Hiroshima and no Americans danced in the streets. The debate as to if this saved more lives than it took is not my point although the death toll for Operation Olympic would have been millions. We only celebrated when the soldiers came home.

  271. Re:How to prevent this from EVER happening again . by valmont · · Score: 1

    another thing ....

    Anybody working near a plane, who has the ability to come in and out of plane should be subject to the highest levels of security and background checks and be considered candidates for the highest levels of security clearance, people fit to work at the pentagon. Planes should from now-on be considered as some of the most DEADLY weapons and anything surrounding them should be subject to massive paranoia.

    It's simple. You can work on a plane or near a plane, you can work at the pentagon. Law enforcement agencies have your whole life on-file.

    ok I agree it's a little extreme but maybe something along those lines could be set-up.

  272. justice, not revenge by ay2b · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In the aftermath of these attacks, a lot of scary things are happening. People are suggesting that we nuke the entire middle-east, or at least go violently destroy anyone even suspected of any involvement. The FBI wants all ISPs to install Carnivore. The govenment wants more illegal wiretapping.

    If any of these are as scary to you as they are to me, I encourage you to sign the petition at http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/22462249 5 which calls for "justice, not revenge".

    Ben Franklin said: "Those who would sacrifice essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

    The text of the petition is copied below:
    ====

    In the aftermath of the ruthless attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, we implore the leaders of the United States to ensure that justice be served by protecting the innocent citizens of all nations.

    We demand that the President maintain the civil liberties of all U.S. residents, protect the human rights of all people at home and abroad, and guarantee that this attempted attack on the principles and freedoms of the United States will not succeed.

    We plead for a thorough investigation of the terrorist events before any retaliation.

    We call for PEACE and JUSTICE, not revenge.

    --
    "Those who would sacrifice essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    1. Re:justice, not revenge by 0x0000 · · Score: 1
      It would be better to Nuke the entire Mid east than to install even a single instance of Carnivore. Do it now.

      No Freedom, No Peace.

      --
      "The Internet is made of cats."
    2. Re:justice, not revenge by gurulegend · · Score: 1

      Why do I care if the CIA is reading my email?

      It's just SPAM anyway.

  273. camp david would be a hard target to hit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While there have been plenty of people suggesting that the plane may have been headed toward camp david, I would guess that none of them have ever been there. Camp David consists of a half dozen or so log cabins in a wooded compound inside the Catoctin Mountain National Park. At this time of year Camp David is practically invisible from it's own driveway, much less the air.

    Not to discount the symbolic value of Camp David as a target, the attacker's goals seem to have been mass destruction and loss of life. Crashing a plane into a remote mountaintop in central Maryland would accomplish neither of these.

  274. -1 Redundant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what assmonger marked this at -1 redundant??

  275. Report from the ER by Isldeur · · Score: 2


    Hi there. I'm sure many peple won't read this because it was posted so late in this discussion, but I thought you might like a quick word from some of the ER's I've been in today down here. (Columbia, NYU, and Vincent's). Tragically, everyone is really just standing around waiting for live people to come in, and there seems to be a general lack of this. Every now and then a fire fighter comes in, but is generally stable at this stage - likely incidental damage.

    Yesterday, one of the firemen was brought in - in his mid fourties, I would suppose. He had a brother and 3 sons who were all firefighters; one of the latter was not accounted for all day yesterday. He himself had gotten caught in the first collapse, had gotten out and went in the second building and was then caught in that collapse and received some blows of debris into his back, for which he was being treated. It's that kind of bravery from the very salt of the earth which makes me so proud to be an American. God bless to all.
    K

    1. Re:Report from the ER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Tragically, everyone is really just
      > standing around waiting for live people to come
      > in, and there seems to be a general lack of
      > this.

      In fact, this was exactly what stunned the
      hospital people in the Netherlands after the
      crash of the El-Al Boeing in Amsterdam in
      October '92. In spite of the fact that 80
      appartments were burning, only 39 people died
      on the ground.

      Toon Moene

  276. Does this Scare anyone else? by zarathustra93 · · Score: 0

    cause it sure scares me. If we use nukes- even 'tactical' nuclear weapons- then it's over. WWIII.

    Who invented the term 'tactical' nuclear weapon anyway? Someone in need of a big dose of reality.

    quote and source follow:

    "THE SCALE of the attacks and the loss of life - mostly in New York City's
    World Trade Center, but also near Pittsburgh and Washington - ensured that
    "no option has been taken off the table," a senior U.S. official told
    MSNBC.com. Asked if that included nuclear weapons, one senior official said:
    "I said no option is out of the question. That's precisely what I mean.""

    http://www.msnbc.com/news/627086_asp.htm

    jim

    1. Re:Does this Scare anyone else? by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 1
      I don't know if nukes would be nearly as taboo in this kind of situation as in nearly any other situation. Why?

      I think the Western world is looking at us, saying, "now, do you GET IT??" and waiting for us to develop a military standard on dealing with terrorism. They want us to set a precedent. They want to say, "look what happened when the US got attacked - now attack us, closer to home, and see what WE do." Whatever we do here gives the rest of the world license to do the same thing.

      The only case where NATO has stated that nuclear weapons were a first-strike option is if weapons of mass destruction have been used. If you drop biological or chemical weapons on Americans, you will be nuked.

  277. Terror (Re:Over the top editorials) by 0x0000 · · Score: 1
    How many innocent Afghanis is it acceptable to kill along with bin Laden to abate our terror?


    How many innocent Afghanis are there?

    Kill them all, if that's what it takes. Their stated intent is to kill all americans, and as long as there is one true believer left alive, that is what they will try to do.

    This is not about guilt or innocence, nor is it about abating terror. It's about behavior modification.

    This is about demonstrating to those who have stated that "every American is a legitimate target" in the "Holy War" for Allah that, since they have made it their lifes work (their ticket to Paradise, in fact) to kill Americans, then their lives, their countries, and their loved ones aren't worth spit.

    Nuke Afghanistan and Iraq into piles of radioactive sludge. Let it be an example to the world of the price of American lives. It's really very simple. Call it "behavior modification" or "self defense" or whatever. It boils down to: "You kill us, we kill you back ... only we are better at it."

    They are the stupid fucks who wanted war with us. Let them have it. I'm tired of making (and listening to) excuses for them.

    --
    "The Internet is made of cats."
    1. Re:Terror (Re:Over the top editorials) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Human life really doesn't matter to you, does it? Keep waving your prick, you disgusting bastard. How it is you can call for genocide with all the smug logic of a five-year-old just tells me what the fuck is wrong with so many Americans today. I'm a proud American, and I resent it when ignorant fucks like you give the world more reasons to hate America than they already have. Oh, and if you think I'm unpatriotic.. I served my country proudly in Somalia and the Gulf. What did you do?

    2. Re:Terror (Re:Over the top editorials) by ChrisDolan · · Score: 2

      I think this is a very immature attitude. Would you nuke Michigan just because Timothy McVeigh came from there? Do you naively assume that every Afghani is evil just because there are terrorists living in that nation?

    3. Re:Terror (Re:Over the top editorials) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Would you nuke Michigan just because Timothy
      >McVeigh came from there?

      I'll bite, because I love tasty troll...

      Let's say McVeigh had managed to be a fugitive
      and remain in Michigan, since you name that state. Let's say Michigan's government decided not to hand him over, refused to participate fully in a Federal investigation and manhunt, or withheld information as to his whereabouts.

      The remedies against the State of Michigan would not start with bombing, but they could conceivably get to that point. It is hard to imagine such a scenario ensuing from your strawman example. I think economic sanctions against a state would go a long way toward bringing that state into compliance with the Federal government.

  278. 2 questions by lukel · · Score: 2

    Wasn't it possible to rescue people from the rooves of the burning WTO buildings using helicopters?

    Was UA flight 93 shot down over Somerset County PA? (Even if the F16s were not air bourn at the time, what about a SAM?) Would the USAF admit doing it if they did? (This Economist article suggests doing so would have been illegal.)

    1. Re:2 questions by NetJunkie · · Score: 2

      Witnesses that saw the plane dive down never saw anything hit it.

      It could be shot down. You can do about anything in the name of national security.

  279. Boeing 757 and 767 are basically the same... by EvilStein · · Score: 1

    ...aircraft to fly. They're one of few aircraft you can be cross-certified on. Basically, if you're certified on the 757, you can fly a 767 without any issues. Perhaps this is why they chose these particular airlines/aircraft?

    Either way, it's a horrible thing to have happen. :(

  280. calm down there bucko by Garc · · Score: 1

    your comment, in parantheses was this:

    (The WTC towers were actually designed to withstand having a jet flown directly into them. I bet whoever signed off on that was sure it would never happen)

    The comment implies that the designer who did "sign off on it" had no idea what he was doing, because a plane did happen to crash into the tower and it did collapse. If I were to read your comment without reading the link, I would've thought that the designer, contractor, whoever, was either ignorant, or negligent. Neither of which was the case.

    It was a side-note which implied incorrect information, which is why I felt the need to correct you, or the implication of your statement, as the case may be.

    Maybe you should try to be less anxious to jump to the conclusion that everyone is a pedantic twity asshole without which slashdot would cease to exist.

    garc

    1. Re:calm down there bucko by tringstad · · Score: 1
      Hell, I'll play. I haven't been in a good old-fashioned flamewar in a long, long time. You want to bicker point by meaningless point? I'm in.

      your comment, in parentheses was this:

      (The WTC towers were actually designed to withstand having a jet flown directly into them. I bet whoever signed off on that was sure it would never happen)

      That, as I mentioned before, was NOT my comment, merely a tangential fact, which I found interesting, and decided to include.

      But to keep things pedantic, let's look up the definition of comment. I'll use Merriam-Webster as my source, so there will hopefully be no conflict.

      comment

      1 : COMMENTARY

      2 : a note explaining, illustrating, or criticizing the meaning of a writing

      3 a : an observation or remark expressing an opinion or attitude b : a judgment expressed indirectly

      Hopefully I won't need to explain why a simple digression does not fall into any of those categories, but I will if you push the issue. But we'll move on for now.

      The comment implies that the designer who did "sign off on it" had no idea what he was doing, because a plane did happen to crash into the tower and it did collapse.

      Funny, I don't recall implying anything. Perhaps what you meant was that you inferred, and incorrectly so, as I have a tendency, when writing, to craft my sentences to read exactly as I intend to convey information, because so much is lost in the written word that is conveyed through tone and body language in normal conversation. What I meant was that the WTC towers were designed to withstand having a jet flown directly into them, and that I bet whoever signed off on that was sure it would never happen.

      If I were to read your comment without reading the link, I would've thought that the designer, contractor, whoever, was either ignorant, or negligent. Neither of which was the case.

      I would have almost preferred your reading my comment, without reading the link, and not have made assumptions about what I mean when I write it out in plain english. And again, what you think is your problem not mine.

      It was a side-note which implied incorrect information, which is why I felt the need to correct you, or the implication of your statement, as the case may be.

      There you go again, laying blame on me for implying something that you inferred.

      Maybe you should try to be less anxious to jump to the conclusion that everyone is a pedantic twity asshole without which slashdot would cease to exist.

      Maybe you should be less anxious to prove it.

      And for the record, my actual comment was totally wrong anyhow, as will be realized soon when they lift the blackout on information about the 5th plane. Feel free to try again at that time.

      -Tommy

      --
      "I got a half gallon of Jack, and 2 dozen Ant Traps. I'm about to get wild." -me
  281. $765K thus far - can we get it to $1M? by sulli · · Score: 2

    $765K thus far. I kicked in my $50. I bet /.ers and others could get it up to a million bux by the end of today, at this rate!

    --

    sulli
    RTFJ.
    1. Re:$765K thus far - can we get it to $1M? by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      It's over a million now...

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
  282. This is a distraction. by bob_jenkins · · Score: 1
    There are a few things that need to be done and need to be changed because of this attack. Most have to do with tracking down the orchestrators and changing the rights and responsibilities of airplane passengers.

    But for most of us, for most of what we do, this changes nothing. I wasted an inordinate amount of time following the lack of closure of the US presidential election, and for what? I should have sold all my stocks instead. Or fixed some bugs.

    Go back to work. Keep society functioning. Except for very few of you, tracking down terrorists is someone else's job.

  283. Database of survivors by Khelder · · Score: 1
    Another database of survivors of yesterday's tragedies:

    http://safe.millennium.berkeley.edu/

    The page also has links to other similar sites.

  284. Air Force One was targeted by libre+lover · · Score: 1

    NBC news has just reported that the Administration has credible evidence that both the White House and Air Force One were targeted. The plane that hit the Pentagon first flew over the Pentagon and along the mall towards the White House, then mysteriously circled back and crashed into the Pentagon. Air Force One flew a zig-zag route from Florida towards Barksdale AFB.

    --
    Error: .sig undefined
  285. More images and video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Available at www.sexdwarf.org/wtc/. And no, this is not a porn site.

  286. A Tribute to the United States by antdude · · Score: 2, Redundant

    I just got this e-mail from a friend and I thought it was good to share (note: I am not a Canadian):

    A TRIBUTE TO THE UNITED STATES

    This, from a Canadian newspaper, is worth sharing.

    America: The Good Neighbor.
    Widespread but only partial news coverage was given
    recently to a remarkable editorial broadcast from
    Toronto by Gordon Sinclair, a Canadian television
    commentator. What follows is the full text of his
    trenchant remarks as printed in the Congressional Record:

    "This Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the
    Americans as the most generous and possibly the least
    appreciated people on all the earth.

    Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and
    Italy were lifted out of the debris of war by the
    Americans who poured in billions of dollars and
    forgave other billions in debts. None of these
    countries is today paying even the interest on its
    remaining debts to the United States.

    When France was in danger of collapsing in 1956,
    it was the Americans who propped it up, and their
    reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets
    of Paris. I was there. I saw it.

    When earthquakes hit distant cities, it is the
    United States that hurries in to help. This spring, 59
    American communities were flattened by tornadoes.
    Nobody helped.

    The Marshall Plan and the Truman Policy pumped
    billions of dollars! into discouraged countries. Now
    newspapers in those countries are writing about the
    decadent, warmongering Americans.

    I'd like to see just one of those countries that
    is gloating over the erosion of the United States
    dollar build its own airplane. Does any other country
    in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo
    Jet, the Lockheed Tri-Star, or the Douglas DC10?
    If so, why don't they fly them? Why do all the
    International lines except Russia fly American Planes?

    Why does no other land on earth even consider putting
    a man or woman on the moon? You talk about Japanese
    technocracy, and you get radios. You talk about German
    technocracy, and you get automobiles.

    You talk about American technocracy, and you find
    men on the moon -! not once, but several times
    and safely home again.

    You talk about scandals, and the Americans put theirs
    right in the store window for everybody to look at.
    Even their draft-dodgers are not pursued and hounded.
    They are here on our streets, and most of them, unless
    they are breaking Canadian laws, are getting American
    dollars from ma and pa at home to spend here.

    When the railways of France, Germany and India
    were breaking down through age, it was the Americans
    who rebuilt them. When the Pennsylvania Railroad and
    the New York Central went broke, nobody loaned them an
    old caboose. Both are still broke.

    I can name you 5000 times when the Americans raced
    to the help of other people in trouble. Can you name
    me even one time when someone else raced to the
    Americans in trouble? I don't think there was outside
    help even during the San Francisco earthquake.

    Our neighbors have faced it alone, and I'm one
    Canadian who is damned tired of hearing them get
    kicked around. They will come out of this thing with
    their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled
    to thumb their nose at the lands that are gloating
    over their present troubles. I hope Canada is not one of
    those."

    Stand proud, America!

    This is one of the best editorials that I have ever
    read regarding the United States. It is nice that
    one man realizes it. I only wish that the rest of the
    world would realize it. We are always blamed for
    everything and never even get a thank you for the
    things we do.

    I would hope that each of you would send this to
    as many people as you can and emphasize that they
    should send it to as many of their friends until this
    letter is sent to every person on the web. I am just a
    single American that has read this.

    I SURE HOPE THAT A LOT MORE READ IT SOON.

    Another e-mail with a message (cartoon) to the attacker(s). :)

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    1. Re:A Tribute to the United States by Str8Dog · · Score: 1

      Origins: On June 5 1973, Canadian radio commentator Gordon Sinclair decided he'd had enough of the stream of criticism and negative press recently directed at the United States of America by foreign journalists (primarily over America's long military involvement in Vietnam, which had ended with the signing of the Paris Peace Accords six months earlier). When he arrived at radio station CFRB in Toronto that morning, he spent twenty minutes dashing off a two-page editorial defending the USA against its carping critics which he then delivered in a defiant, indignant tone during his "Let's Be Personal" spot at 11:45 AM that day.

      The unusualness of any foreign correspondent -- even one from a country with such close ties to the USA as Canada -- delivering such a caustic commentary about those who would dare to criticize the USA is best demonstrated by the fact that even thirty years later, many Americans doubt that this piece (which has been circulating on the Internet in the slightly-altered form quoted above as something "recently" printed in a Toronto newspaper) is real. It is real, and it received a great deal of attention in its day. After Sinclair's editorial was rebroadcast by a few American radio stations, it spread like wildfire all over the country. It was played again and again (often superimposed over a piece of inspirational music such as "Battle Hymn of the Republic" or "Bridge Over Troubled Waters"), read into the Congress Record multiple times, and finally released on a record (titled "The Americans"), with all royalties donated to the American Red Cross. (A Detroit radio broadcaster named Byron MacGregor recorded and released an unauthorized version of the piece that hit the record stores before Sinclair's official version; an infringement suit was avoided when MacGregor agreed to donate his profits to the Red Cross as well).

      Sinclair passed away in 1984, but he will long be remembered on both sides of the U.S.-Canadian border -- both for his contributions to journalism, and for his loudly proclaiming what no one else at the time would stand up and say.

      --


      Str8Dog
      using System.Darkside; public
    2. Re:A Tribute to the United States by Str8Dog · · Score: 1

      The Original Broadcast real audio format. Hope no linux users get to irritated.

      --


      Str8Dog
      using System.Darkside; public
  287. An Opinion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This was E-mailed to me by a friend. I thought I'd share. It definately made me look at things a bit differently.

    This loss of American life on American soil is unprecedented. This is easily the single largest act of terrorism in modern history. It is certainly the worst that this generation has seen. It is wanton, unnecessary slaughter on a grand scale, perpetrated by faceless cowards too craven to attack us head on. Instead they murder innocents and celebrate their deaths in the streets. These men- and believe me I use the term loosely- believe it is their divine right and responsibility to kill us.

    The true scale of the killing has yet to be fully uncovered. It falls on us, the survivors, to pray and wonder. It is certain that too many people died. Hundreds on the planes alone. Men, women and children on the way to vacations, business trips and their homes. Innocent citizens whose only crime was flying on the flights targetted by the terrorists for hijacking.

    This is a sad moment for this country, which despite it's problems and faults has long stood as a bastion of freedom and light in an increasingly darkening world. It can, however, also be a proud moment. A moment when we all put aside our differences, our hatreds, our partisanship and our innocence. A moment when we can rise as a single voice and proclaim loudly and with unity that we will not be defeated. That this act of cowards and fools will not go unavenged. We will not justify their attacks by descending into anarchy. We will not go quietly like sheep to our own deaths. We will fight, with all the significant power at our disposal, we will fight the perpetrators of this butchering to our final breaths. We are- for the moment- all united by the singular fact that we are all Americans. Those responsible for murdering our brothers, wives and sons will never again know peace. We will hound them to the ends of this earth and see to it that they are destroyed.

    Those in the World Trade Center. Those below it. Those in the pentagon and those on the planes forfeited much yesterday. They forfeited their lives. Those behind this obvious act of war have forfeited their's as well. Their right to live is now voided. They are no better than animals, to be hunted down and culled from the human race with not a single person left behind to mourn their passing. In Palestine and other places, they are celebrating in the streets. Celebrating the death of our family and friends. These people must be sent a message, a message that everyone in the world will understand. Those who attack us, those who murder innocents, and those who harbor these men within their countries will not be permitted to stand. Too long has this country languished, allowing this behavior to go on unhindered and unchecked.

    Most of the blame here lies solely on the shoulders of the terrorists, but it would be remiss to not amend some of it to the government of this country. This is a crime of their own complacency. They burn our flag in the streets, they kill our tourists and bomb our embassies, and yet thus far we have done nothing. We sit and preach peace and diplomacy, trying to make treaties and accords where we should make war.

    This incident, however, is the prodigal straw that broke the camel's back. No longer will we laxly allow these crimes to go on. The people demand it, their voices raised in anger and protest, and the politicians cannot ignore us when we speak with one voice. Black, White. Republican, Democrat. Such designations are unimportant when faced with an enemy such as the one we face now. We must deliver a message to anyone who knowingly aids this behavior:

    America will not fall. Our strength and pride are too great. You seek to weaken us with terror, but you have failed, you will always fail. We have our differences, the nature of our country makes it almost obligatory, but those differences are nothing now. You have given us a common enemy, you have opened the eyes of the people. You have woken the greatest giant in the world and we will not rest until your blood mingles with that which you have spilled.

    And that, readers, is why times like this make me proud to be an American. I gripe as much as anyone at the red tape, the politicians and their stupid posturings, at the government and at the president. But at times like this, I, like everyone must, can forget all that. There will be time tomorrow to complain about George Bush, or Bill Clinton, or your local senator. Plenty of time tomorrow, but not today.

    This is undeniably a horrible tragedy, an unjustified massacre perpetrated by cowards too afraid to claim responsibility for their acts. It is a dark day in this country, and even now as the fires burn down in Manhattan, we can survey the reasons why. But it is also a new dawn, a chance to show everyone else in the world what this country is made of and why it's the best damn country there is.

    Salute. As always, my thoughts go out to everyone touched by this horror, and to the heroes who even now are risking their lives to save the lives of others. Best of luck to you all.

  288. These uber-criminals are in serious trouble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The FBI and CIA are all over them like a cheap suit. This is probably going to be one of their easier investigations as the clues come pouring in. Plus, they probably have a lot of overseas cooperation going on, too.

    All I know is that within 24 hours, the FBI has done an amazing amount of research and have already made initial arrests. I've never been happier to pay my taxes.

  289. I'm just one of many by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I, like many others have also set up a mirror of news articals. I also have tar.gz files of a bunch of pictures.

    http://24.36.34.43/wtcattack/index.html

    I would also like to put a video of the first plane crash up. The only one I could find was on cnn and it is streaming and I couldn't save it. So if you know where I can find the video, please reply.

  290. White House an original target ? by beanerspace · · Score: 1

    I've heard/read some reports that the plane that blew into the Pentagon was originally after the White House.

    If that's true, any idea of the sudden change in plans ? The only thing I can figure (having lived in NYC and now DC), is that the Whitehouse isn't all that easy to spot from the sky when travelling at a high rate of speed. Not being a pilot, I don't know. Or perhaps the terrorist, not being from here, confused the Pentagon with the White House (unlikely, but just a random thought ?-)

    Speculations ?

    1. Re:White House an original target ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't the White House protected from the roof by weapons that can shoot down an aircraft? I had heard that it is. Also, eyewitness accounts in the DC area (Fox local broadcast around 6:30 last night) claim a small plane was following the one that hit the Pentagon and pulled up and flew away from behind the crash. They were unclear about wheather or not this was a military aircraft. Also, there were pictures on the internet (which seem to be gone now) of a fire on the National Mall. While it seems pretty certain that there was no car bomb at the State Department, isn't it possible that an anti-aircraft weapon was fired from the White House (or near it)? This would explain the mysterious fire on the Mall.

  291. Amazon, Paypal, Yahoo donations by Scryber · · Score: 2

    Please note that the Amazon donation is capped at $50 (although I presume you could donate more than once). Also, I didn't see any mention of the donation being tax-deductible. Crass, I know, but for some people it's important.

    The Paypal donation link is unlimited, and Yahoo had a link to a Red Cross donation as well. Sorry, I don't have the link.

    You may also donation directly at http://www.redcross.org although their site seems to be getting pretty slammed.

  292. Philly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The reconstruction of the building in philly was delayed by politics, not by the difficulty of the task. The building was nowhere near the size or did it have the complexity of the wtd structures

  293. ABM plan by polebia · · Score: 1

    I'm kinda afraid that Bush will use this to push through the ABM system instead of following the path of disarmament. On CBS last night they were talking about how Russia is going to let up slack on this issue. I dunno, just kinda scary that this situtation will be used in a lot of different ways by a lot of different people. I hope everyone stays theirs hands and keeps a clear mind.

  294. Insights from Micheal Moore by Merk · · Score: 2

    Sure to be controversial, but Micheal Moore has a very interesting message about the attacks. He mentions that the person whose name has been mentioned the most in connection to these attacks, Osama bin Laden was trained by the CIA.

    1. Re:Insights from Micheal Moore by fat_mike · · Score: 1

      He was actually instrumental in expelling the Soviets from Afghanistan.

  295. Enlist! by Animats · · Score: 2
    Your country needs you. U.S. military recruting links:

    Laid off by a dot-com? There's a place for you in the military. All the services are recruiting actively right now. And they need smart people.

    1. Re:Enlist! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, take a successful computer hobbyist, highly skilled and intelligent.

      Then run him through the homosexual hazing rituals, and the 23 hour days of doing nothing but jogging in formation and doing pushups. Beat the avid intellect out of him until he is willing to shoot anyone that happens to drop a US flag on the ground.

      You go first.

    2. Re:Enlist! by fishbowl · · Score: 2



      > Your country needs you. U.S. military >recruting links:

      Just like after Desert Storm started, people will flock to enlist in the armed forces. Perhaps they do not realize that the forces are quite completely staffed with volunteers, and
      that every new recruit costs resources. Three meals a day and housing are not free, and consuming these resources means less is devoted to dealing with the tasks at hand. It is also important to consider that if you try to enlist NOW, you probably won't have much choice in the job you get, and your possibilities for advancement will probably be much more limited than they would be had you enlisted at a time when there wasn't a glut of volunteers.

      If you were considering joining the military already, then by all means, talk to a recruiting officer. If you just decided to go enlist because of some romantic notion engendered by the current crisis, consider it carefully before you go half-cocked and make a binding, longterm career decision that you can't back out of if you regret it, and consider that however imminent war may seem today, it might only last a short time before it's business as usual. It will be over, and you will still be guarding some abandoned airfield in Nebraska for the next 4 years.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  296. Is this a hate crime? by sup4hleet · · Score: 1

    As far as I know bin laden is the number one suspect here. I was wondering then if it is proven that he master minded this attack, then could this be considered to be a hate crime? As far as I understand he detests the US because it's not the Islamic based goverenment he envisions. What are people's thoughts on calling this a hate crime? I'm just wondering.

    1. Re:Is this a hate crime? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every crime is a hate crime. Don't you ever watch SouthPark?

  297. Crichton's Tears, Crichton's Laughter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not to take away from the suffering, but I am still having a field day with this one. A month ago or less Ron Dickhead was telling us all about a national crisis with a frikkin computer worm, and now a real disaster happens and all the little boys in DC playing with their tin soldiers are caught with their pants down.

    And given the proclivity of the US to estrange almost everyone on this planet with its unique Mickey Mouse blend of culture and politics, the attack is hardly unexpected. What is unexpected is that this massive Manhattan landmark, so crucial to both the prestige and the financial well-being of the United States, be totally unguarded from attack - no radar, no warning system, no nothing, and that worse, the Pentagon, haven and home base of every bigot worth his Ivy League blazer on the planet, is equally defenseless. Some people really have their cone-shaped heads up their arses, and no, no one is reveling in the casualties, but yes, many people are still finding it hard not to chuckle at the US proving once again that they do not belong in the same parlour room as the other grownups, who are all silently wishing someone would put the nasty brat to bed.

    1. Re:Crichton's Tears, Crichton's Laughter by Vanguard(DC) · · Score: 0

      u need a wake-up sir... we dont just reside in the parlour, we RUN the parlour... cheuckle all u want...

      as for the pentagon, u moron, blazers???? not many people in uniform are ivy-league my friend... not many at all...

      --
      "I think, therefore I get paid."
    2. Re:Crichton's Tears, Crichton's Laughter by L0g05 · · Score: 1

      You are kidding, right? Who exactly are the "other grownups"? As I recall, the US was handed the job of "World Superpower" when the Europeans failed in their attempt to kill everybody (cf. WWII) -- just twenty years after their previous demonstration maturity (cf. WWI).

      During the intervening 57 years, we have successfully taken a role we didn't want and kept the world relatively safe and prosperous.

      Have there still been conflicts and atrocities during this period? Absolutely! And we've had our fingerprints on more than a few. And yes, the US has stepped on some toes and had its fair share of arrogance. But think - after WWII, we were far and away the most powerful country in the world, probably more powerful than every other country combined. And yet we didn't get aggressive, we helped everyone else dig themselves out of a hole.

      Hell, since then, we've done a pretty good job of respecting "sovereignty" -- and why should we? Look at history. The very fact that the world can be outraged when we bomb Libya or drop some troops into Nicaragua to oust Noriega highlights just how gentle we have been with our power.

      Iraq doesn't like economic sanctions imposed by the United Nations?!? How about a hostile invasion, occupation, and subjugation of the entire country including repression of civil liberties and massive re-education? Virtually every great power pre WWII wouldn't have thought twice about this and more.

      Finally, with regard to Mickey Mouse culture. I don't think that anyone would argue that American culture is universal perfection, but it is asinine to both fail to recognize the profound depth and richness that is present in American culture and *overlook* the stark banality that is present in every culture. Expand Britain, France, Germany, China, Japan, Italy, Sweden, Brazil, or any other countries culture to the size of the United States' and their blemishes would look pretty tacky as well.

      Once more, lets not forget that while US culture might bring McDonalds, Coke and Television, it doesn't, for example, bring the kind of religious persecution that past world leaders were so famous for.

  298. slant-six.org hosed - was Re:Hints of War by fanatic · · Score: 2


    error '80020009'

    Exception occurred.

    /default.asp, line 133

    More of that innovative MS technology at work.

    --
    "that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
  299. Re:How to prevent this from EVER happening again . by KoshClassic · · Score: 1

    I think you have some good ideas (especially recording sounds from the cabin as well as the cockpit if the plane is put in emergency mode - in fact, technology exists today where video could be used too, especially in the cockpit).

    Unfortunately, isolating the cockpit in this way is something that is a) probably impossible or cost prohibitive to retrofit into existing planes and b) probably prohibitive from a design standpoint to add to new planes (and even if not, today's planes will be flying for years).

    I believe (someone correct me if I'm wrong) that at least some airlines can land on autopilot at airports with the correct types of radio beacons on the runway. If a pilot puts a plane into 'emergency' mode, the plane would head immediately to the nearest designated emergency airport along its route and land. Manual control inputs would be locked out. In this scenario, a plane could be taken over by terrorists who could initiate a hostage situation, but they could no longer control the plane's destination.

    --
    Understanding is a three edged sword. - Ambassador Kosh Naranek, Babylon 5
  300. Re:Cattle flying to slaughter by dachshund · · Score: 1
    As I understand it, a couple of things:

    First of all, the terrorists apparently claimed that they had a bomb. It seems incredibly foolish to rush terrorists in this situation, unless you know that they intend to ram the plane. And nobody knew this.

    Secondly, these planes were half-full. It was early in the morning. From hijacking to crash, less than 30 minutes elapsed. Even a large group of non-sleepy travelers would probably assume that hijackers have demands, then take time to steel themselves for a suicidal rush. These people never had time.

    Apparently, the passengers on the PA plane did overcome the attackers (although this isn't certain), after realizing that these people intended to kill everybody. They did it, and the plane crashed. These people are heroic-- don't dishonor anybody's memory by making it their fault.

    Finally, I guarantee that this will sort of thing will never happen again as long as there is a reasonable number of passengers on the plane. If there are further knife hijackings (even gun hijackings), Americans will assume that the alternative to resistance is death. Armed with the knowledge we have now, I can't imagine any reasonably large group of passengers succumbing. This act that has taken airplane hijacking to a whole new level may well spell an end to the days of hostage-taking style hijacking. From this day forward, no terrorists can count on terror as a weapon to assure passenger cooperation. I hope.

  301. They ask for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Many times country's come to us and ask us to help. We generally just don't in shooting we are asked or rather "EXPECTED" to come in and help.

    Then many times the blame us afterwards because we are there.

  302. not just to the president by ChristTrekker · · Score: 2

    Email your legislators as well. That's what I plan to do. You've got a better chance of audience with them, and they're the ones who actually draft the laws.

    Here are three other good "letters" I've found. I like yours as well.

    If you're worried about encroachments on your freedom, you should be voting Constitution or Libertarian.

  303. Re:why wasn't the 2nd plane shot down, or intercep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is doubtful that a Stinger (or any shoulder-fired ordance) would be effective against such a large plane. Identification of the target could only have occurred within a few miles of the towers. If the plane were already aimed, the loss of one engine would have done little to modify its course. And a Stinger will not "blow a plane out of the sky," especially not a plane the size of a 757. And, as you mentioned...had it been shot down while it was already over Manhattan, it would have hit *something* important.

  304. An historically ignorant perspective by DK · · Score: 0, Flamebait


    Harry Brown is preaching isolationism and appeasement, the very same policy which resulted in WWII and, had it continued, would have allowed the Nazis to win the nuclear race, and thus, the entire war.

    The US involves itself in international affairs to protect the "interest of the free world". We don't live in a closet. Just because attrocities occur in different parts of the world, does not mean that it won't eventually endanger us and those who share our philosophies.

    If anything, yesterday's events may never have happened if we had finished off Sadam when we had the chance. For now, it's too early to tell if he's responsible.

    1. Re:An historically ignorant perspective by JasonVergo · · Score: 1

      Yesterday's events might never have happened if we didn't love our cars so much.

    2. Re:An historically ignorant perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      to protect the "interest of the free world".


      What absolute drivel; the US involves itself in international affairs to increase its wealth and power at the expense of other countries.


      It's unfortunate that ordinary people have been hurt here when the real targets should have been lowlife scum like Bush.

    3. Re:An historically ignorant perspective by Azghoul · · Score: 1

      Chicken shit moron.

      Everything you said is wrong. How does that feel? To konw that no one word of your whining was correct in any way? I don't even feel like refuting it, just thought I'd point it out.

      Chicken shit A/C.

    4. Re:An historically ignorant perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      chicken shit, really. few fucking flies die in a far away country called usa, and you start to whine. that's chicken shit to me. it really sucks to be a moron, doesn't it?

  305. Re:Well, well, American greenback-fuckers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This has to be a troll... there's no way there are truly people this fucking stupid in the world.

    When the US backs the nations that the terrorists favor, then nothing happens to the US. Isn't that right? When we propped up the governments in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq... no problem. Our crime, in their eyes, is that we aren't giving them the financial and political support they think they deserve, and because we are no longer backing them, well, then... we must be their enemy.

    And don't throw me the argument of "Americans are supporting the Israelis". Remember Desert Storm, a few years back? Where the US came in and kicked the crud out of Saddam? Partly it was for oil, yeah; but a big part of it was because the other nations in the Middle East were scared shitless of Iraq. We were honored allies as long as he was a threat, and as soon as we took care of that threat, we went right back to being the Great Satan.

    So ask youself: which nations in the Middle East has shown the willingness to maintain friendly relations with the US, regardless of the political situation? The only one that springs to mind, really is Israel - the only nation that we have consistently supported over the years. Is it any surprise that we, as a nation, have decided that we've had enough of being pushed around by idiots who think that backstabbing a former ally is just business as usual?

    I honestly, truly hope that the people of the Middle East understand that this has pretty much killed off any possibility of our treating any Middle Eastern nation as an equal. We tried; we gave them chance after chance to demonstrate some shred of human decency and ability to co-exist peacefully with other nations. They blew it big time, and we're done extending our hand in peace. I think, from now on, we'll see a single facet to our relations with the Middle East: telling them what to do in order for us to leave them alone.

  306. Idiocy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And what kind of deep emotional trauma did Osama Bin Laden go through, with his millions of dollars from daddy's fortune? Before the state of Israel, the arabs ['palestinians'] would riot every few weeks to months and kill Jewish civilians.

    This was way before your made-for-tv story about humiliating checkpoints, etc. Learn some history. You watch a little CNN and think you understand things there- the Palestinians have always been hostile- only now you feel sorry from their media campaign. Who the hell was oppressing them in the 1929 riots? and before?

    My family lived as Jews in the middle east for centuries- and saw how oppressive Islam has been. Do you know what a 'dhimm' is? Do you know anything about the moslem treatment of Copts? or Druse? or Islam's beliefs towards women, other religions, other thought? Their views on art and freedom of the press?

    Understand what the enemy to western values is: radical islam. Don't whine about the US or Israel.

  307. Remember when we bombed an aspirin factory? by GlenRaphael · · Score: 1
    It's time...to get serious about figuring out why the USA is so thoroughly hated and then figuring out how to gain, if not friendly terms, neutral terms with other nations/cultures/peoples.

    One reason other cultures hate us is that we are a bully. We are willing to bomb other countries on the flimsiest of pretexts. When it turns out we've made a mistake, we rarely admit error but instead search around for excuses to justify our policy or ignore it and hope the problem goes away.

    Key case in point: Clinton's bombing of a Sudanese pharmeceutical factory in 1998. We initially claimed it was connected to Osama bin Laden and used to fabricate nerve gas, but there doesn't seem to have been any evidence to support that theory. So the upshot is that we bombed another country with which we were not at war, destroying an important part of their infrastructure. We did not apologize or try to mitigate the damage done in any way.

    If any other country did that, we'd call that a terrorist act.

    We have blood on our hands. We have often trained terrorists, supported repressive regimes, killed civilians, and bombed civilian targets. The Arab world notices such things and doesn't give us credit for having good intentions. That's why we are hated. If we want to stop being hated, we need to stop stationing troops in countries around the world and doling out "foreign aid" to countries around the world. "Free trade with all nations, entangling alliances with none," a wise man once said. A defense policy that focused merely on defending Americans in America would make us a whole lot safer.

    To put it another way: there's a reason that nobody ever rhetorically calls Switzerland "the Great White Satan."

    --
    I play Nerd-Folk!
  308. Re:They'd admit shooting it down by GodSpiral · · Score: 1

    Frankly, by that time in the morning, on that day, shooting down the plane is the obvious thing to do if you know its hijacked.

    I wouldn't even call the person who made the call a Hero. You have every reason to believe the worst will happen if you don't shoot it down.

    I think the military would admit to it, if they had done so. Certainly, the FBI and FAA would find out eventually.

  309. Re:Cowards -- THIS MAN KNOWS WHAT'S UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ahem! Finally someone who knows how to deal with people like this.

  310. Destroy Islam. Kill all Mohammedan Pigs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Our "Todo" list:
    1. Kill all Arabs.
    2. Kill all Towel Heads.
    3. Kill all Muslims.
    4. Kill all Islamics.
    5. Kill all Camel Jockeys
    6. Kill all Mohammedans
    7. Nuke their countries.
    8. Nuke them again.
    9. Destroy all Islam.

    I piss upon Mohammed and I spit upon the Koran.

  311. AIMSTER by simetra · · Score: 1

    Don't forget, Aimster still works. I see a lot of WTC stuff on there and recommend it instead of these mirrors....

    --

    "Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
  312. Re:Mass Sentator Kerry says: "Rebuild the Towers" by chuckw · · Score: 1

    Amen dude. Couldn't agree more. In fact I think they should build them twice as large!

    --
    *Condense fact from the vapor of nuance*
  313. Evidently the terrorists agree with you by joss · · Score: 2

    "In order to have the desired effect the hostile nation must feel the pain deeply"

    Great, for anybody who wishes to understand the terrorist mindset, look no further.

    --
    http://rareformnewmedia.com/
  314. An interview in 1999 asking about terror in ny/dc by cybrthng · · Score: 2

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binl aden/interviews/al-fagih.html#alqaeda

    Very interesting interview about someone familiar with Bin Laden and his followers.

    At the very bottom of the page, it asks "Secondly, does the average American worker in an office in New York or Washington have reason to fear?"

    Scary stuff! 2 years ago someone feared for the exact 2 cities that were hit!

  315. ferchristsake by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

    aren't there any REAL (large jet) pilots on /. that could tell us how hard/easy this would be?

    I'm tired of listening to these posers ramble on about something they know nothing about.

    Jaysyn

    --
    There is a war going on for your mind.
    1. Re:ferchristsake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jaysyn:
      This is where the pilots hang out:
      http://www.pprune.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb= ge t_topic&f=1&t=015419

    2. Re:ferchristsake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a couple post from pprune.org
      Forums Section ]

      "Interestingly enough, B.A runs simulator visits on its simulators for VIP's or just about anyone willing to pay. The standard sim-ride is to get airborne from JFK and fly through the "twin towers" !! As BA uses a standard database from the manufacturer, I wonder how many sim providers do similar things!! "

      Response:
      "I believe that maxy is spot on. All of these sims have the same database. It is clearly very easy to set up a simulator in the climb out of Boston for a crew to practise taking over the aircraft and flying it in to the World Trade Center - especially if the visual of Manhatten is in the database.

      How many hours would it take to perfect this aswell as the operation of the autpilot and taking out the autopilot to fly it manually at the final stage? I reckon with Bin Laden's financial backing they could have spent as many hours as they needed in a sim.

      However no simulator company would hire out their sim without knowing that there was a qualified instructor in charge of the sim detail. Therefore there has to be some airline involvement - possibly Iraq Air?

      All of the aircraft were 757 / 767 which is a common rating. Check the useage of 757 / 767 sims over the last two years around the world and you will find something out."

  316. First plane crash video by bodhimindspirit · · Score: 1

    There is a DivX video of the first plane crash on KaZaA. The AVI is titled "CNN exclusive WTC crash 1 and 2".

    1. Re:First plane crash video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't find the video on kazaa. Does anyone else have it?

  317. Aggregated News on US Attacks and BLOOD DONATIONS by securitas · · Score: 2


    When so many news sites were going down yesterday we set up an aggregated news feed on the US attacks at our site. It's the top item on the main page.

    PLEASE DONATE BLOOD! There is a continent-wide blood drive on. New York hospitals are critically low on blood supplies and many of the wounded are being transported to Canadian hospitals Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa to make space for the expected flood of critical patients in New York.

    You can contact the US Red Cross or Canadian Blood Services to set up an appointment.

  318. Quote from SecState Powell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We need to do more with respect to tracking people within a society that is an open society. "

    Available:
    www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/index.cfm?docid= 48 68

  319. Re:Cowards - We're not talking about criminals by lythe · · Score: 1

    If the U.S. wants justice the answer is to support international organizations like the international court. Give them the mandate and the resources to pursue international criminals.

    Why are you considering this a criminal action instead of the military attack that it effectively was?

    We're not talking about a small group of criminals. We're talking about a large terrorist organization that killed 10,000 civilians and tried to destroy the Pentagon. That's a military action, and it requires a military response.

    We didn't send police to Japan after Pearl Harbor, and we shouldn't send police to Afghanistan now. We should send in the army, bomb bin Laden's camps to the ground, and invade Afghanistan if they try to protect him.

    This isn't about criminal justice. It's not about proving we have balls. It's not about retaliation. It's about responding appropriately to a military threat.

    --

    Slash has nothing to do with Slashdot.

  320. US/Europe Commentary by John+F.+Ketamine · · Score: 1

    I guess this is kind of a flame. I'm pissed off. If you want to roast me alive for it, go ahead.

    I think that after some consideration, I've decided that Europeans have absolutely no place to comment on this matter at all.

    My reasoning goes like this: The environment in Europe has become so safe, warm and cuddly that their perspectives have been skewed. European governments will do anything to save you from your own folly, making European life quite emulate grammar school. In some ways this is a credit; the absence of violence and violent media has made Europe a very cozy place, regardless of how Europeans revolt against this trend. However, it also means that Europeans have no understanding of what it means to live in a world where your entire existence is up to you and no one else; where there is no safety net to catch you, should you suddenly and foolishly let go of the trapeze; where if problems occur, you have to solve them yourself. Europeans are resigned to live in a world where the government is this ancient, impenetrable structure that is best left to the politicians, whilst the people go about living their carefree bohemian lifestyles, crying helplessly at the disasters inflicted upon them.

    The society inherent in European life tends to make neoliberal coffeehouse invertibrates out of what would normally be a perfectly able and confident adult. When you see the movie/read the book "Fight Club," and you hear the narrator refer to wanting to kill and eat those pandas that refuse to fuck for the preservation of their species, that is honestly sometimes what we think of you. Basically, we're the parents, and you are the kids at college. You've got the time and luxury to sit around having philosophical discussions, but we're working, paying the bills, and doing the chores, and we expect you to be at least slightly grateful.

    Americans are hardcore, so are Afghanis. We both know what it's like to have to scrape for a living and avoid getting killed. We may hate each other, but at least we understand one another. What we don't understand is you.

    And even when you flame me for saying this, that's exactly how it's going to sound...like some ungrateful 20-something who's a little too wound up in his own world to appreciate the sacrifices his parents make to keep him cozy, lazy, and full of the world's exotic coffees.

    In honor of all you shallow motherfuckers, I'm going to call my parents and tell them how much I appreciate their hard work.

    --
    "Upgrade your grey matter, 'cause one day it may matter." --Deltron Zero
    1. Re:US/Europe Commentary by hanwen · · Score: 1

      I think that after some consideration, I've decided that Europeans have absolutely no place to comment on this matter at all. [lots of drivel on Europe deleted]



      I suppose that you are American. Despite your comment, you think to have a place to comment on what Europe does. Pretty hypocritical, if you ask me.


      Look, I'm Dutch. Through NATO, my country has obliged itself to help the US to defend themselves at wartime. This means that I am liable to be sent off to participate in World War III, should this conflict escalate.


      I think I have every right to comment on this. And I still would if I hadn't

      --

      Han-Wen Nienhuys -- LilyPond

  321. Connection to the crash of Egyption Air crash? by xgz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Has anyone thought of the possible connection to the mysterious crash of Egyptian Air 990 in Nov of 1999? That plane was also a 767. No evidence of mechanical failure was found. The US investigators believed that the copilot may have drove the plane into the Atlantic in an act of suicide, but the Egyptians disagreed. Could there be any connection?

  322. You are utterly naive. Prepare to be deflowered. by Ars-Fartsica · · Score: 2
    If you advocate or permit attacks against non-military targets, then there is very little difference between you and the terrorists.

    Please. Civillians have been targets in every significant conflict in history. This, like most other pitched conflicts, has very little to do with right or wrong but more to do with what side you are on.

    If you are a supporter of Islamic fundamentalist regimes and militias, I don't care if you spend your days feeding the poor and teaching children to read - you have thrown your lot in with those who are opposed to my values and the safety of my family and you are a suitable target for whatever insideous weapon we should chose to toss at you.

  323. notable religious differences by LinuxParanoid · · Score: 2

    Islamic fundamentalists say:
    Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life to slay his enemies.

    Christ said this:
    "Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends."

    1. Re:notable religious differences by Loundry · · Score: 1

      Christian fundamentalists have said:

      "God made AIDS to rid the world of homosexuals."

      Fundamentalism is as fundamentalism does. The underlying religion seems to make little difference.

      --
      I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
    2. Re: notable religious differences by Inthewire · · Score: 1

      Good point

      --


      Writers imply. Readers infer.
    3. Re:notable religious differences by LinuxParanoid · · Score: 1

      Christian fundamentalists have said:

      "God made AIDS to rid the world of homosexuals."

      I understand why you'd be angry at people who said that. Clearly its a false statement given the factual reality that more heterosexuals have AIDS than homosexuals, not to mention how Christ treated those with socially unacceptable diseases in his day (e.g. leprosy).

      Fundamentalism is as fundamentalism does. The underlying religion seems to make little difference.

      I beg to differ on this one. It all depends on what your fundamentals are. Think about it.

      --LP

    4. Re:notable religious differences by Loundry · · Score: 1

      I beg to differ on this one. It all depends on what your fundamentals are. Think about it.

      First, we have a semantic disagreement. What does "Fundamentalist" mean? Apparently it means different things to you and to me.

      Second, the phrase "think about it" is one of the most pointless and arrogant things one can write in a debate. It implies that I would come to your (correct) conclusions if I were to just "think" a little bit more, and thus I conclude from what you write that you believe I haven't thought about this very much. This ignores the fact that I most likely have different premises than you do, so who is to say that my thinking about anything in the way that you do will yield your conclusions? Did you consider the possibility that your premises are false?

      But going from my view of the term "fundamentalist," my viewpoint stands. Religious Fundamentalists continually are the most arrogant and violent people in the world, second only to communists (see Stalin, Mau Tse Tung, Pol Pot).

      --
      I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
  324. Man yujaahidu fii sabiilillah.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uh.. ok. Jihad comes from the Arabic word jahada, "to struggle". In the Islamic context, it can mean anything from the quest to improve oneself and become a better person, to taking up arms in the fight against evil. Incidentally.. one of the forms of Jihad is the rejection and despising of evil; in that sense, every Muslim conducts their own personal jihad through their life, and the hating of an atrocity of this kind would thus be compulsory, given this logic. The fact that some people choose to concentrate on the more martial aspects of jihad, as interpreted by some radicals and NOBODY ELSE in the Muslim world.. only tells us that people are far too used to thinking in terms of what we're told on TV.

    The truth is out there, folks, but it's not going to be on a TV screen. Not if we count on the TV to digest events for us.

  325. One problem I can see with this by Salsaman · · Score: 2
    It would certainly bring an "interesting" dimension to air rage.

  326. Pilot's response to terrorist takeover by helleman · · Score: 1

    From now on, if a pilot thinks that someone is going to take over his plane, he/she should dump fuel right away. At least you can deadstick land at a nearby airport and not be a flying bomb.

    1. Re:Pilot's response to terrorist takeover by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if there isn't an airport nearby? And the pilot was mistaken?

  327. I agree with the sentiment, but don't be fooled... by steve802 · · Score: 1

    ... This "editorial" comes from a 1973 broadcast by Gordon Sinclair. Sinclair died in 1984.

    http://www.rcc.ryerson.ca/schools/rta/ccf/news/u ni que/american.html

  328. Re:How to prevent this from EVER happening again . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and they will figure out a way to defeat every single one of these.

  329. Attention Terrorists Around The World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    all your base are belong to us

    W3 W1LL 0WN j00!

  330. Commentary by Harry Browne by mickeyreznor · · Score: 1

    he makes some good points.

    When Will We Learn?
    by Harry Browne

    The terrorist attacks against America comprise a horrible tragedy. But they shouldn't be a surprise.

    It is well known that in war, the first casualty is truth -- that during any war truth is forsaken for propaganda. But sanity was a prior casualty: it was the loss of sanity that led to war in the first place.

    Our foreign policy has been insane for decades. It was only a matter of time until Americans would have to suffer personally for it. It is a terrible tragedy of life that the innocent so often have to suffer for the sins of the guilty.

    When we will learn that wec an't allow our politicians to bully the world without someone bullying back eventually?

    President Bush has authorized continued bombing of innocent people in Iraq. President Clinton bombed innocent people in the Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Serbia. President Bush Senior invaded Iraq and Panama. President Reagan bombed innocent people in Libya and invaded Grenada.

    And on and on it goes. Did we think the people who lost their families and friends and property in all that destruction would love America for what happened?

    When will we learn that violence always begets violence?

    Teaching Lessons

    Supposedly, Reagan bombed Libya to teach Muammar al-Qaddafi a lesson about terrorism. But shortly thereafter a TWA plane was destroyed over Scotland, and our government is convinced it was Libyans who did it.

    When will we learn that "teaching someone a lesson" never teaches anything but resentment -- that it only inspires the recipient to greater acts of defiance.

    How many times on Tuesday did we hear someone describe the terrorist attacks as "cowardly acts"? But as misguided and despicable as they were, they were anything but cowardly. The people who committed them knowingly gave their lives for whatever stupid beliefs they held.

    But what about the American Presidents who order bombings of innocent people -- while the
    Presidents remain completely insulated from any danger? What would you call their acts?

    When will we learn that forsaking truth and reason in the heat of battle almost always assures that we will lose the battle?

    Losing our Last Freedoms And now, as sure as night follows day, we will be told we must give up more of our freedoms to avenge what never should have happened in the first place. When will we learn that it makes no sense to give up our freedoms in the name of freedom?

    What to Do What _should_ be done?

    First of all, stop the hysteria. Stand back and ask how this could have happened. Ask how a prosperous country isolated by two oceans could have so embroiled itself in other people's business that someone would want to do us harm. Even sitting in the middle of Europe, Switzerland isn't beset by terrorist attacks, because the Swiss mind their own business.

    Second, resolve that we won't let our leaders use this occasion to commit their own terrorist acts upon more innocent people, foreign and domestic, that will inspire more terrorist attacks in the future.

    Third, find a way, with _enforceable_ constitutional limits, to prevent our leaders from ever again provoking this kind of anger against America.

    Patriotism?

    There are those who will say this article is
    unpatriotic and un-American -- that this isn ot a time to question our country or ourl eaders.

    When will we learn that without freedom and sanity, there is no reason to be patriotic?

  331. How they were over powered by Elbow+Macaroni · · Score: 0

    The passengers were told there was a bomb on the plane or something.

    --
    -------------------------------------
    Technically, we are beyond survival.
  332. Black Box by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DPA and 2 news sites here in the Netherlands are reporting that the Black Box has been found of the Pittsburg crash. Can't find anything on CNN though.

    Link (in Dutch) here

  333. Re:US Imperialism and anti-US sentiments worldwide by jiheison · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You are naive to think anything less than wiping terrorists out completely will solve this problem.

    Unfortunately, the assumption that killing anyone, including terrorists, is the true naivety. Terrorism is the symptom. The disease is the desperation that much of the world endures while being steamrolled under our economic imperialism (what you call 'economic expansion'). The cure, is to reach out and re-build our reputation as protectors of liberty rather than protectors of our own god-given right to gorge ourselves on junk food while the rest of the world starves.

  334. Hear Ye by Skip666Kent · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Montreal fsckng RULES in my book. Beer, cigarets and SCADS OF GORGEOUS WOMEN! ; ) I also just saw the Cirque de Soleil, and it has completely re-defined my outlook on Entertainment.

    When my body dies, my soul will go to Montreal.

    --
    **>>BELCH
  335. Pics and Videos.. by panic911 · · Score: 1
  336. Re:You are utterly naive. Prepare to be deflowered by why-is-it · · Score: 2

    How nice that all the trolls have come out to play...

    Civillians have been targets in every significant conflict in history. This, like most other pitched conflicts, has very little to do with right or wrong but more to do with what side you are on.

    And this justifies attacks on civilian targets how?

    If you are a supporter of Islamic fundamentalist regimes and militias, I don't care if you spend your days feeding the poor and teaching children to read - you have thrown your lot in with those who are opposed to my values and the safety of my family and you are a suitable target for whatever insideous weapon we should chose to toss at you.

    Exactly what values would those be then?

    If you stop and consider the situation for a moment, there is very little difference between the actions you are suggesting, and the actions of the terrorists who attacked the WTC, which I believe was my point in the first place...

    --
    *** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
  337. Brown tongue! by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 2
    Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy were lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts. None of these countries is today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to the United States.

    But many third-world countries are now struggling under american-imposed economic "measures" that only insures that the country's assets are bought at bargain-basement firesale prices by american croporations who then move on to milk those countries' wealth.
    When France was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who propped it up, and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris. I was there. I saw it.

    Because the french know very well that if they let the yankees run them, it will drive them into abject submission. They haven't forgotten Roosevelt's AMGOT plans of 10 years earlier, where France was to be stripped of her industrial capability, in order to render her dependant on american industry for it's staples.
    When earthquakes hit distant cities, it is the United States that hurries in to help. This spring, 59 American communities were flattened by tornadoes. Nobody helped.

    Who cares about trailer parks?
    The Marshall Plan and the Truman Policy pumped billions of dollars into discouraged countries. Now newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent, warmongering Americans.

    The marshall plan was repaid many times when whole industries were greatly harmed by american protectionism.
    I'd like to see just one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United States dollar build its own airplane. Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tri-Star, or the Douglas DC10? If so, why don't they fly them? Why do all the International lines except Russia fly American Planes?

    The US aircraft industry was able to offer cheaper planes because it was heavily subsidized by general Curtiss Lemay's warmongering warplane buildup. And american salesmen are very good at bribing officials, too.
    Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or woman on the moon? You talk about Japanese technocracy, and you get radios. You talk about German technocracy, and you get automobiles. You talk about American technocracy, and you find men on the moon - not once, but several times and safely home again.

    And how were the americans able to go to the moon? By using slave labour plucked from Germany's war industry. The americans by themselves would never be able to do that technological prowess, they are unable to school enough good engineers, but instead, they import their scientists from abroad. Young americans are only interested with money, so instead of becoming engineers and scientists, they become lawyers.
    You talk about scandals, and the Americans put theirs right in the store window for everybody to look at. Even their draft-dodgers are not pursued and hounded. They are here on our streets, and most of them, unless they are breaking Canadian laws, are getting American dollars from ma and pa at home to spend here.

    I wonder what weed that guy has been smoking, because it seems to be mightily good!
    When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down through age, it was the Americans who rebuilt them. When the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke, nobody loaned them an old caboose. Both are still broke.

    The Pennsylvania Railroad and the New-York Central railroad have been dead for 34 years; they have been merged into the Penn Centrail railroad, whose subsequent bankrupcy (the biggest bankrupcy ever in the whole universe) rocked the industrial establishment to it's foundation. All thanks to the automobile industry who, at great public expense, had hammered at a fully paid for transportation infrastructure, and replacing it with one that killed more people than all the wars ever did since the birth of mankind.
    Our neighbors have faced it alone, and I'm one Canadian who is damned tired of hearing them get kicked around. They will come out of this thing with their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled to thumb their nose at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles. I hope Canada is not one of those."

    Here is a canadian with a pretty browned-up tongue!!!
  338. Mirror site by cryosis · · Score: 0, Troll

    I have a mirror of all media that I can get my hands on. It's at http://www.llamaporn.org. I'm on a T3 so bandwidth shouldn't be much of a problem.

  339. dead on brother by psychalgia · · Score: 1

    nt

    --

    ________________________________________________

  340. SPOT Satellite images of NYC by gmr2048 · · Score: 1

    SPOT satellite image of Manhattan, acquired on September 11 at 11:55 AM EST, 3 hours after two planes crashed into the World Trade Center. The colors result from the use of infrared bands to identify the actual fire hot spots (see red spots near the base of the smoke plume). The .tif and .jpg files were created with SPOT 20 meter resolution imagery. The SPOT satellites orbit at an altitude of 822 km.

    http://www.spot.com/home/news/NYC-091101.jpg

    http://www.spot.com/home/news/NYC-091101.tif

    This copyrighted image may be used free of charge, with the appropriate copyright attribution, as follows:

    (C)CNES/SPOT Image 2001

  341. Life After Tragedy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To my fellow Americans, I implore you to not give the terrorists responsible for this heinous attack the ultimate satisfaction of making you live your life in fear. Instead, pick up the pieces and carry on. Go out an shop at the local mall. See the movie you had been planning to see. Go to school or work and do the best you can at your tasks. We cannot change the terrible things that have happened, but we can change how we react to the tragedy of Tuesday. Let us all stand together and show the terrorists of the world that the American spirit, much like the flag in our national anthem, will persevere through these atrocities. That we will be strong in the face of tragedy and continue to live our lives. That we will not be bullied into living in fear. That we are truly the "land of the free and the home of the brave."

    Thank you,
    M. Danforth
    shwaine@malevolence.com

  342. So what if Bin Ladan wasn't involved? by Penguinoflight · · Score: 1

    He attempted it before, and I belive civilians were killed that time, I'm perfectly OK with the idea that Iraq was behind it, (Hey, why should they like George Bush's son?) but this guy Osama Bin Ladan is training terrorists who's goal in life is to kill as many of us as possible.

    More than likely though, Iraq, Afghanastan, Palistine and possibly others were involved.

    --
    "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
    1 John 4:14
  343. Re:You are utterly naive. Prepare to be deflowered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ...there is very little difference between the actions you are suggesting, and the actions of the terrorists who attacked the WTC...


    Those who are tolerant of the intolerant are themselves intolerant. Only by being intolerant of the intolerant can we, ourselves, be tolerant.
  344. History did'nt begun 01/01/1900 by bdauvergne · · Score: 1

    The indian invented it. The idea travelled from east to western though the middle-east.
    This is the historic thruth.

    You know US have'nt ever existed, neither all the
    other countries.

    Just a thougt.

    Nation and religion are evil, old ideas. Why do we keep them?

    1. Re:History did'nt begun 01/01/1900 by mandolin · · Score: 1
      The indian invented it. The idea travelled from east to western though the middle-east. This is the historic thruth.

      Whoops. Thanks for the correction. (Was) also a bit confused which 'indians' you were referring to (the mayans I think also had 0, but then again, I think they used a base 60 numbering system. Feel free to correct me on these as well.)

      Nation and religion are evil, old ideas. Why do we keep them?

      Because people believe in them; and the whole 'nation' concept tends to bring order to society, even when it's boring, mediocre or oppressive.

  345. Retool the DEA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We were blindsided while concentrating on an unwinnable drug war. Drugsare now more prevalent and cheape rthan before the drug war. 30% of the people now realize and the rest soon will too. The government would be reluctant to dismantle the DEA because of the huge budget and number of employees.

    Now is the time to transform the DEA into a domestic anti-terrorism organization. People doing drugs neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket and is a waste of resources. The resources of the DEA should be used to find and destroy future 9-11 attacks.

    Cat Jesus

  346. 2021 by GodInHell · · Score: 0

    Has anyone noticed that the date of the original attack, 2/26/1993 and the date of the second attack 9/11/2001 both add to 2021?

    -GiH

    1. Re:2021 by tonality · · Score: 1

      Am i missing the relevance here?

      --
      ToNaLitY
  347. Here are some more by beefdart · · Score: 1

    Got some video and pics. Here

    Also feel free to send anything in...

  348. Re:How to prevent this from EVER happening again . by valmont · · Score: 1

    I think you have some good ideas (especially recording sounds from the cabin as well as the cockpit if the plane is put in emergency mode - in fact, technology exists today where video could be used too, especially in the cockpit).

    Agreed. I'm talking about building new planes. Completely re-thinking their design from the ground-up. And it's obviously not realistic, just like you, I vaguely understand the prohibitive costs. I just want something to be done, as you pointed out, a small subset of those ideas could more realistically be put in place on existing planes, but the key here is to put some *serious* thought about counter-terrorism systems and measures into the next generation of planes, and do whatever is possible to build them and roll them out to mainstream carriers as soon as possible.

  349. A cheap ad hominum argument might be that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Linburgh was a supporter of the nazis Though I'm sure that's just clouding the issue, right?

    1. Re:A cheap ad hominum argument might be that by sheldon · · Score: 2

      Yes, Lindbergh supported the Nazis.

      But he only did so because he didn't take the time to understand them. He saw only a government intent on improving their nation through efficiency and nationalism.

      He later came to acknowledge how wrong he was and regreted his words. But by that time it was too late, his reputation had been destroyed.

      My point was not ad hominem. But I think right now Americans must go into the coming weeks with an open mind because it effects our long term future.

  350. fucking hit'm anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    mafia does it all the time. wack someone who's been a pain in the ass. send a message to the guilty partys not to fuck with them.

  351. Re:Iraq theory creditable - Navigation by Porag_Spliffing · · Score: 1

    I have used a GPS in an Airliner before just holding it up to my small window. If you are in the cockpit with all that glass around you I bet a reasonable handheld GPS would get you a fix and bearing to your pre-programed waypoint.

    If you spend 2 hours to learn how to read the onboard nav system, know which way up to hold a map and how to measure an angle you would not be too far off either, Once you are within 20 nm of the twin towers pointing something like at them I think the mk1 seat of pants would do.

    --
    Maybe you live in interesting times
  352. yeah baby, time for an OCTAGON by psychalgia · · Score: 1

    thats right, knock that mofo down and put up an OCTAGON.

    --

    ________________________________________________

    1. Re:yeah baby, time for an OCTAGON by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No...just connect the dots and make it a PENTAGRAM!

  353. Re:Hey Hindu Cunt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Khali-stan is between your nose and the back of your head isnt it ?

    Pakistan played you guys like a puppet and disowned you later on ... have some pride man

  354. Bin Laden needs to Bin Dover by gruntvald · · Score: 1

    Cos he's about to go on a "cruise" before the weekend.

  355. CIA trained, not Russian trained by Von+Rex · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No, the really skilled terrorists are the ones trained by the CIA to fight the Soviets. Osama Bin Laden is one of them. Maybe arming Moslem fanatics with the best weaponry and teaching them advanced espionage techniques to avoid detection by superpowers wasn't a good idea.

    We made him, now it's time to recall him.

  356. Proposal by simetra · · Score: 1

    My wife and I talked about this, and here's what we think:
    The cockpit should be separated from the cabin by bulletproof barrier, only un-lockable from within the cabin. If hijackers start killing passengers and crew, too bad. Regardless of how many are killed, the plane will not be turned into a weapon. Look at it this way. You can let the hijackers kill, say, 200 people, land, and have them shot by ground troops, or, have them blow up the plane, or, you can relinquish control to them, and allow what happened on tuesday, as-of-yet uncounted hundreds/thousands dead. In the first instance, yes, a lot of people die, except the pilots. In the second instance, a lot of people die, including the pilots. In the third instance, a LOT of people on the ground also die.
    Why wouldn't we choose the first option?

    --

    "Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
  357. Re:Just clearing the rubble will take months to ye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not to mention that they have to be careful not to crush survivors. Usually, destruction takes less time than construction... but in this case, they are not destroying - it is a controlled removal of debris. It will take longer than the ESB

  358. More air travel oddness by SimJockey · · Score: 1

    The company I am contracting for just lifted it's travel ban, and had this comment in the memo:
    The air travel reservation system, called Sabre is not functioning anywhere in North America because of damage to the transponder that was located in the New York World Trade Center.
    Odd that such a complicated system would have a single point of failure. Anyone have any further info on this?

    --
    Laugh while you can, monkey boy!
    1. Re:More air travel oddness by Tazzy531 · · Score: 1

      Speaking of single point of failure. All broadcast television, except for CBS, for the NY/NJ/CO area comes from WTC. All that my parents can see in NJ is CBS.

      --


      _______________________________
      "I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."
  359. Re:Cowards - We're not talking about criminals by Ami+Ganguli · · Score: 2
    Why are you considering this a criminal action instead of the military attack that it effectively was?

    What's the difference? It seems to me it's entirely a matter of semantics. In the past (and largely in the present) whoever won the war got to call the other side "criminal". The point is to get away from that and create some sense of fairness in international justice.

    --
    It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
  360. Why the Suprise? by loosenut · · Score: 1

    The following article was written by Rick Giombetti, from Seattle, WA. Posted with the author's permission.

    Why The Surprise?:

    "I Want To Be A Pilot So That One Day I Can Bomb Americans!"

    Who saw it coming?

    There is nothing more ridiculous than listening to people express "shock" and "surprise" at the multiple airplane hijackings and terror attacks on September 11. I'm surprised an attack against the U.S. of this magnitude hasn't happened sooner. One nation can only treat the world as a slave plantation and its peoples as slaves for so long, before the slaves finally rise up. There isn't a region of the world the U.S. hasn't pillaged and raped to some degree over the past 150 years. In a world with 6 billion people, there are always going to be a few who resort to individual and group terrorism to protest the policies of a global empire like the U.S.

    Could there have been a better selection of targets to protest U.S. financial hegemony and military violence? First, it was Scam Central: The two 110-story World Trade Center towers, the most prominent symbols of U.S. multinational corporate capitalism. Then it was Violence Central: The Pentagon, home of the badly misnamed Department of "Defense." These attacks are being called "cowardly" by U.S. politicians and media pundits. Cowardly? Compared to the U.S. pilots who dropped bombs from over 15,000 ft. above Serbia for 78 days in 1999, safely out of the range of Serb gunners on the ground and against a nation with no air force to counter the U.S.? I don't think so.

    "What balls," is all I have to say. These terror attackers risked being caught and possibly beaten and tortured while in custody. They sacrificed themselves in what may have been the boldest terror attacks in history. And who has ever turned airplanes into bombs for taking out office towers and government buildings? Yeah, it was a group of mean fuckers who did what they did on September 11, but they sure as hell weren't cowards.

    Don't get me wrong. I despise individual and group terrorism not only because it causes loss of life. It also represents the ultimate rejection of mass struggle. Now the job of well-meaning U.S. activists just got a whole hell of a lot harder. We can expect some more Bill of Rights shredding legislation and more violent crackdowns on protest because of the terror attacks. We can also expect people to not want to hear peace activist's demands for an end to the destructive and violent policies of the U.S. all over the world. "Show some respect for the victims and victim's families," some people will tell us. If now isn't the time to demand an end to U.S.-backed violence around the world, then when will it be a good time to do so? With the U.S. government preparing(and most likely already carrying out) a fresh round of bombings around the world in retaliation for the terror attacks, now isn't the time to be quiet about U.S. violence against defenseless people. The eleven year U.S.-led war of bombs from the air and draconian sanctions via the U.N. against the people or Iraq is just one example of the kinds of policies we shouldn't back down from denouncing.

    When I was still living Fort Collins, Colorado two years ago I attended a talk by the wonderful peace activist Kathy Kelly of Voices In The Wilderness(VITW). VITW has been campaigning against the bombing and U.S. imposed sanctions regime against the people of Iraq for about a decade now. VITW has courageously and openly defied U.S. government enforcement of the unjust U.N. sanctions by smuggling badly needed humanitarian aid into Iraq over the past decade. Kelly offered the small audience who came to see her speak that October evening a chilling anecdote about an Iraqi boy she met while making one of her many humanitarian tours of Iraq. The single digit aged boy described to a crowd at a gathering what he wanted to be when he grew up. He said, "I want to be a pilot so that one day I can bomb Americans!"

    That anecdote has haunted me ever since and I knew it was only a matter of time before that angry Iraqi boy's apocalyptic wish would come true. It's a chilling sentiment but it's completely understandable. The only world that poor Iraqi boy and countless other children his age have ever known, if said boy is even alive today, is one of U.S. bombings and sanction's imposed misery. Yet this pre-adolescent boy is(was?) sophisticated enough to figure out that it's the U.S. government that is ordering the bombings and imposing the devastating sanctions against his country, not Saddam Husein. Perhaps it's time for the majority of the U.S. adult population to match this Iraqi boy's sophistication and start demanding that their government end the bombings and the sanctions regime.

    The combination of bombings and sanctions has led to a death toll in Iraq over the past decade that easily tops 1 million. I haven't seen much, if any, concern in the mass media about this horrible U.S. caused suffering in Iraq. This is the same mass media that treated the intense six week bombing campaign against Iraq at the beginning of 1991 like it was a video game where no Iraqis were being injured or killed(talk about disrespecting the victims of massive military violence!). The bombings have never stopped. Yet about the only time the media covers new bombings is when the president is looking for a boost in his poll numbers and holds a press conference after the fresh round of bombing begins.

    The sanctions aren't even a topic of debate in the mass media. Try to find some commentary anywhere about Thomas Nagy's September Progressive article, which demonstrates how the U.S. government intentionally used the U.N. sanctions against Iraqi to degrade the country's water supply. Meanwhile, peace activists like Kathy Kelly are hardly mainstays in the media pundit circus. However, every time a U.S. president orders bombings of countries like Iraq or Serbia the mass media gives plenty of airtime to retired military officers for the purpose of fanning the flames of war.

    Now peace activists are going to be asked to shut their mouths about U.S. violence around the world out of respect for the thousands of victims of the September 11 terror attacks. What a bunch of bullshit. I say, honor the memory of the victims of September 11: Denounce and oppose U.S. violence everywhere.

    1. Re:Why the Suprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What balls," is all I have to say. These terror attackers risked being caught and possibly beaten and tortured while in custody. They sacrificed themselves in what may have been the boldest terror attacks in history. And who has ever turned airplanes into bombs for taking out office towers and government buildings? Yeah, it was a group of mean fuckers who did what they did on September 11, but they sure as hell weren't cowards.

      Are you insane? These were cowards who are unable to get layed, and have each been promised seven virgins waiting for them in the after life. Seems they are stupid too.

    2. Re:Why the Suprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I completely disagree with the statement:

      "... U.S. government that is ordering the bombings and imposing the devastating sanctions against his country, not Saddam Husein."

      The U.S. may be ordering the bombings, but the sanctions where imposed by the U.N., supported by many nations around the world, sanctions due to the actions of Saddam Hussein. If one disagrees with the justice of these sanctions, fine, but that's a seperate issue.

      Regarding the bombings, Saddam Hussein has violated the conditions of the 1991 surrender. One could argue that a state of war still exists based on these violations.

      Unfortunately, I believe the only available politically-tolerable solution is to leave Iraq alone until they rebuild their military and WMDs and do something like invade Kuwait again or worse. At that point, the situation that began with Iraq's invasion of Kuwait can come to a final end with the complete destruction of Iraq's military and political structures and a new and peaceful Iraq build in its place (similar to Japan 1945-48). Otherwise, the U.S. will continue to waste its money dropping one or two smart bombs at a time on missile launchers and AAA sites and the Iraqi people will continue to starve and suffer under sanctions.

      -a

  361. Recommendations if WTC 1 and 2 *are* rebuilt by kd5biv · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Build in some means of fire suppression that can control a fire involving at least one or two entire floors of the building, and make that system able to survive a major aircraft impact.

    The basic structure probably would have survived more or less intact, thanks to the core's penetrable structure, if it hadn't been for the fire that involved at least one entire floor below each impact point, presumably from pooled fuel. The heat from the fire was what caused the collapse of the upper sections of the building, and when the framework failed and the upper sections fell 20-30 feet, that overloaded the remaining parts of each tower and caused the rest of the tower to collapse.

    Go back and look at the footage -- you can see this yourself. The collapse was essentially straight down, with scattered outfall of debris -- vertical enough to shear off the fascia panels, which you can see standing about 40 stories high for several seconds after the north tower collapses. If the crash had caused the structural failure, the collapse would have been asymmetrical and the building would have toppled sideways. Thus, this was essentially fire damage and thermal weakening of the steel.

    How to make this system survive an impact? Best suggestion I can make is an armored standpipe system, possibly near the corners so at least some of the standpipes survive, with heat activated discharge nozzles that flood the floor if it gets hot enough to threaten the structure itself. May not put out the fire, but could at least cool the framework to where it remains intact .. I'll let the engineers take it from here ..

    --


    73 de N5VB (ex-KD5BIV) AR SK
  362. Re:Navigation not a problem by cybermage · · Score: 2

    Buy a handheld aviation GPS. $1000 for a nice one that will happily tell you exactly where to point the plane and let you know if you're off course to teh left or right.

    I shouldn't laugh at how easy this is, but you're right. Reading your comment made me picture a terrorist pilot with a talking GPS calmly giving computerized directions totally unaware of the horror it's facilitating.

    Kinda makes you look forward to AI so that the GPS can refuse to give directions. "You want to land this plane where?!"

  363. Pilot guidelines by QuietTimbo · · Score: 1

    The Boston Herald story gave me pause for thought. Given the level of damage that a plane laden with fuel can do it seems imperative that the pilots not give hijackers control of the plane. Trading this off against the lives of stewardesses and passengers would be incredibly difficult.

    It seems like there should be some guidelines for pilots otherwise how can we stop this happening again?

    1. Re:Pilot guidelines by akeRoo · · Score: 1

      Steel doors on the cockpit that can only be opened when the plane is at the gate, or a door that can only open when the outside door is open. Take the descision away from the pilot. What does a pilot need to come back into the cabin for anyway? Put a head and a galley in the cockpit.

  364. America: The Good Neighbor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Widespread but only partial news coverage was given recently to a
    remarkable editorial broadcast from Toronto by Gordon Sinclair, a
    Canadian television commentator. What follows is the full text of his
    trenchant remarks as printed in the Congressional Record:

    "This Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as the
    most generous and possibly the least appreciated people on all the
    earth.

    Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy were lifted
    out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of
    dollars and forgave other billions in debts. None of these countries
    is today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to the
    United States.

    When France was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans
    who propped it up, and their reward was to be insulted and swindled
    on the streets of Paris. I was there. I saw it.

    When earthquakes hit distant cities, it is the United States that
    hurries in to help. This spring, 59 American communities were
    flattened by tornadoes. Nobody helped.

    The Marshall Plan and the Truman Policy pumped billions of dollars
    into discouraged countries. Now newspapers in those countries are
    writing about the decadent, warmongering Americans.

    I'd like to see just one of those countries that is gloating over the
    erosion of the United States dollar build its own airplane. Does any
    other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo
    Jet, the Lockheed Tri-Star, or the Douglas DC10? If so, why don't they fly
    them? Why do all the International lines except Russia fly American
    Planes?

    Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or woman
    on the moon?

    You talk about Japanese technocracy, and you get radios.
    You talk about German technocracy, and you get automobiles.
    You talk about American technocracy, and you find men on the moon -
    not once, but several times - and safely home again.

    You talk about scandals, and the Americans put theirs right in the
    store window for everybody to look at.

    Even their draft-dodgers are not pursued and hounded. They are here
    on our streets, and most of them, unless they are breaking Canadian
    laws, are getting American dollars from ma and pa at home to spend here.

    When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down
    through age, it was the Americans who rebuilt them. When the
    Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke, nobody
    loaned them an old caboose. Both are still broke.

    I can name you 5000 times when the Americans raced to the help of
    other people in trouble. Can you name me even one time when someone
    else raced to the Americans in trouble? I don't think there was
    outside help even during the San Francisco earthquake.

    Our neighbors have faced it alone, and I'm one Canadian who is dar n
    tired of hearing them get kicked around. They will come out of this
    thing with their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled to
    thumb their nose at the lands that are gloating over their present
    troubles. I hope Canada is not one of those."

    Stand proud, America!

    1. Re:America: The Good Neighbor by frank249 · · Score: 1
      America the Good Neighbour has been posted on the internet quite a bit. It is amazing that it still stands up so well even though it was written 28 years ago.

      This explanation is supplied by Xanada2

      "I thought you might like to hear the "origins" of this 1973 piece written by Gord Sinclair (who passed
      away in 1984).



      Origins: On June 5 1973, Canadian radio commentator Gordon Sinclair decided he'd had enough of the stream of criticism
      and negative press recently directed at the United States of America by foreign journalists (primarily over America's long
      military involvement in Vietnam, which had ended with the signing of the Paris Peace Accords six months earlier). When he
      arrived at radio station CFRB in Toronto that morning, he spent twenty minutes dashing off a two-page editorial defending
      the USA against its carping critics which he then delivered in a defiant, indignant tone during his "Let's Be Personal" spot at
      11:45 AM that day.



      The unusualness of any foreign correspondent -- even one from a country with such close ties to the USA as Canada --
      delivering such a caustic commentary about those who would dare to criticize the USA is best demonstrated by the fact that
      even thirty years later, many Americans doubt that this piece (which has been circulating on the Internet in the slightly-altered
      form quoted above as something "recently" printed in a Toronto newspaper) is real. It is real, and it received a great deal of
      attention in its day. After Sinclair's editorial was rebroadcast by a few American radio stations, it spread like wildfire all over
      the country. It was played again and again (often superimposed over a piece of inspirational music such as "Battle Hymn of
      the Republic" or "Bridge Over Troubled Waters"), read into the Congress Record multiple times, and finally released on a
      record (titled "The Americans"), with all royalties donated to the American Red Cross. (A Detroit radio broadcaster named
      Byron MacGregor recorded and released an unauthorized version of the piece that hit the record stores before Sinclair's
      official version; an infringement suit was avoided when MacGregor agreed to donate his profits to the Red Cross as well).



      Sinclair passed away in 1984, but he will long be remembered on both sides of the U.S.-Canadian border -- both for his
      contributions to journalism, and for his loudly proclaiming what no one else at the time would stand up and say.

      --

      Today's vices may be tomorrow's virtues.

  365. I just got that email by wrinkledshirt · · Score: 1

    Really twisted. I hope the Better Business Bureau can get on this.

    --

    --------
    Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...

  366. Words of wisdom for dark times. by theghost · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

    ~ Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

    --
    The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
  367. slant-six still hosed - was Re:Hints of War by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    And this:
    Microsoft JET Database Engine error '80004005'
    Could not use ''; file already in use.
    /./pagetop.inc, line 62
  368. PA Crash was casued by passengers by aminal · · Score: 1

    apparently a man on his cellphone called his family and told him about the WTC attacks, he took a poll of the male passengers on board and they stormed the cock pit.

    if they did that rather than allow them to hit the white house or soemthing - they deserve some sort of medal.

    --
    Aminal - DRUMMS!!
  369. Lasting Image by an+ominous+cow+ward · · Score: 1

    One of the most enduring images of this attack should be our White House, still standing. It looks now that it was spared only because of the brave actions of individuals on two of the planes. Terrorists sacrificed their lives in the name of hatred, but more Americans were willing to sacrifice their lives yesterday in the name of freedom, both passengers/crew on airlines and rescue workers on the ground. Every time I look at the White House, I'll remember just how much worse it could have been, if not for these brave people. Thank you, whoever you were.

  370. If Geeks ran the world... by shking · · Score: 0

    rm -rf /bin/laden

    nb. This is a bash command

    (thanks to Damien H. for sending me this)

    --
    -- "At Microsoft, quality is job 1.1" -- PC Magazine, Nov. 1994
  371. FBI Report by hether · · Score: 1

    On the radio the FBI asked us not to belive any reports but the ones that were coming from them and had this new:
    -The White House and Air Force one were definite targets and they still had not determined why the plane on target for the WH turned towards the Pentagon
    -The terrorists who were pilots, several of the group, were trained at Huffman Aviation in Daytona Beach, FL. Because they signed up for training some time ago and learned to fly probably for this reason, they believe they had planning this for quite some time (http://www.huffman-veniceflying.com/ - I think)
    -They positively identified the weapons as box cutters, knives and knife like implements
    - They have identified most if not all of the terrorists that were on the planes
    - They refuse to associate them with some particular country or ruler

    --

    Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do.
  372. www.userfriendly.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was very touched this morning looking at Iliad's comic. It was really heartfelt. Thanks.

    Scott

    1. Re:www.userfriendly.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      me too

      But seriously.. I don't think I've seen anything else cut down to the bone so well today.

    2. Re:www.userfriendly.org by Skyshadow · · Score: 2

      Wow. Yeah, that's it exactly.

      --
      Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
  373. 300 Sun employees killed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Two floors of the WTC were home to over 300 Sun employees as part of Sun's NYC operation.

  374. not true, actually by Once&FutureRocketman · · Score: 2

    There is a thing called a Glaser Safety Slug. It's basically a pistol bullet loaded with shot suspended in oil. Devastating against flesh, but it won't penetrate even wood: It's market is for people who want a gun for home defense, but don't want to risk having the bullet go through the wall and hit a neighbor

    --

    "Research is what I am doing when I don't know what I am doing." -- Wernher von Braun

  375. A bright spot by PhoenixFlare · · Score: 1

    Saw this post on a Gamefaqs.com board a bit ago...A bit of cheer for those that need it, maybe, and something for anyone that's been bashing the US lately to consider :)

  376. Rick Giombetti: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Needs help.

  377. Comment and Response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Comment: "Personally, I don't want to hurt Bin Laden or whoever is behind these attacks. I simply want them to STOP. If force is required to achieve this, then I will accept that. But I refuse to act out of anger or the desire for my enemies to suffer."

    Response: "If they are dead, they will stop."

    (For more interesting responses, go here!)

    1. Re:Comment and Response by Rivabem · · Score: 1

      Answer:

      If their cause (most of them just want land to live) is solved, they will stop...

      Stop suffering the symptoms, face the illness. No terroristic attack would have happened the last 50 years in israel haven't Israel invaded the other countries.

      Not saying who is wrong or right(nor saying palestinians are these time responsibles, the chance is ridiculous), but the land given to jewish was the same land palestinians fought for during all their lives, and they continue on that..

      I bet the sixty billion for the spacial shield would be a lot more effective if spent on EARTH helping to solve great part of these problems.

      If USA still wants to be the major imperium it has to act like this. Of course war is a great industry, but i dare the ones that have never tried the peace industry to give it a chance...

      just to think:

      Put youselves in their place for just a minute..
      You have always lived on one house, and suddenly a gang expels you from there.. time after, the police goes there and ban them from there, you think you are back to your home sweet home, but when you finally get there, surprise, the major gave your home to another guy, a rich rich guy friend of him..

      Maybe you'll agree with this(wil you?), maybe you will complain to the major..and if you don't get a positive answer not even in the justice? (remember you're not in the US) Maybe, i hope not, you will start to offend and threaten the rich man, cause it's the only thing you have now rocks and your voice.....ANY COINCIDENCE?

  378. Re:Hijacker Hackers? by oni · · Score: 1
    Yes, precisely. This attack worked because it was the first of its kind, noone could expect it to happen.

    I've been thinking about this and I know it sounds morbid but these hijackers were in fact hackers - all they did really was find a previously unknown security hole.

  379. wear black. by 3am · · Score: 1

    what? he's right...

    celebrate unity and the greatness of the us until you arms fall off and donate 5 pints of blood.

    still close to 10000 dead, and nothing that can be done. there's not enough wounded to use half the blood being donated. they're all dead. there's not even 1% of that number that can be held really responsible. they won. wear black, that's the only appropriate color. this is the worst tragedy of your lifetime, not the 4rth of july.

    --

    A: None. The Universe spins the bulb, and the Zen master merely stays out of the way.
  380. Re:They'd admit shooting it down by digifuzz · · Score: 1

    Well, the reason I'd think they wouldnt just yet want to admit shooting down a commercial plane, is due to the civilians.. americans no less, on board... It's almost like one of those things you know you have to do, but are ashamed of doing, for whatever reasons there may be.. and I dunno, maybe right now isnt the time to come out with it yet..

    Which reminds me... I heard about a 5th plane going down once on the news, and that's all I heard about it.. Not even a single word was said (that i've heard) about the plane afterwards.... anyone else remember hearing that? It sounds to me like something's being kept secret/covered up for some reason... and no, im not a 'conspiracy' person.. it just seems odd to me.

    -- fuzz

    --
    http://www.digifuzz.net
  381. Pearl Harbor or Hiroshima? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Many have compared this tragedy to Pearl Harbor. It reminds me more of Hiroshima, except that the magnitude of death in Hiroshima was much greater.

    I doubt the comparison to Hiroshima will be made much though in the media -- we prefer to feel like we are innocent of committing anything similar to what has happened yesterday in New York.

    Of course, one could argue that Hiroshima was not a terrorist act because the bombing was undertaken to end a war, but was not the target also a civilian one?

    I offer these thoughts not as any kind of justification for what has happened, only out of hope that we never use a nuclear attack on civilians again. We now may have gained real, yet slight sympathy, of what the victims of Hiroshima may have felt.

  382. Re:Cowards - We're not talking about criminals by plugger · · Score: 1
    We should send in the army, bomb bin Laden's camps to the ground, and invade Afghanistan if they try to protect him.

    The British and the Soviets both failed in the attempt to conquer Afghanistan. Even the Taliban don't control the whole country.

  383. Collapse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More detailed article: Engineers Seek Answers (Unfortunately, lacks dead-tree version's diagrams.)
    And also, mainstream-press coverage of yesterday's internet meltdown: Internet Not Up to Need for News

  384. Carnivore is needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Before yesterday I hated Carnivore, but the truth is there was evidence that something big was going to happen this week on the net.
    I thought is was a joke or just your average a$$hole blabbing off.
    If someones looking over my back to save lives I'm all for it. I don't care if my privacy is in danger, privacy is privacy.
    Human life is much more valuable to me.

  385. Japan, Pearl Harbor Re:Iraq theory creditable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Japan's leadership, which was by that time basically the military, didn't think it had any choice but to attack. The United States had imposed an embargo on oil, iron, and other resources. Unless Japan found replacements for these resources, its war machine, heavily engaged in a long drawn out invasion of China, would operate for maybe 18 more months. The obvious place to go get these resources was to take Dutch and British possessions in the area of what would become Indonesia. As the Netherlands had already been conquered by Germany and England was being heavily pressed, the major question would be: Would the American fleet, which had bases in the Philippines, intervene? In retrospect, Japan should have taken their chances with hoping the US would stay on the sidelines. This was probably one of their failures of their leadership being composed of the military--people who might have had training in other areas and better understanding of American intentions were not in authority positions. One Japanese leader with extensive experience in the United State including studying at Harvard and being a military attache was the commander of the Japanese fleet Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto. When it became evident that the leadership was going to war with the United States, Yamamoto offered an alternative of a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor to fatally weaken the fleet.

    Both Japanese and American militaries had been preparing for some time for a single decisive naval battle. I believe the Japanese overestimated the capacity of submarines for direct naval action and underestimated the capacity of submarines to devastate a defenseless merchant fleet. Their naval plans including the attack on Pearl Harbor generally included some ineffectual use of submarines. Furthermore the traditions of the Japanese military, and perhaps their society, betrayed them when Vice Admiral Chuichi Nagumo, who had never commanded a fleet with aircraft carriers, was assigned to command the attacking force because of long dedicated service. I have read claims that Nagumo did not believe in Yamamoto's plan, claims that would be consistent with the men's different background.

    The attack actually succeeded beyond all expectations except the US aircraft carriers were not in port. Perhaps one could argue this eliminated any chance Japan could stalemate the US and force a truce. But at Pearl Harbor itself, Nagumo simply chickened out in fear of the missing aircraft carriers. He did not share Yamamoto's belief (Yamamoto is often described as a poker-loving gambler) that all had to be put into the pot to win that one hand. This was the one chance for Japan to eliminate Pearl Harbor's repair facilities, oil tanks. With those facilities intact the US was within months able to repel the Japanese at Coral Sea which saved Australia and then smash the Japanese carrier force at Midway, which turned out to be the decisive battle that both sides had been planning for, although perhaps neither side had anticipated that war in the Pacific would basically be fought out of sight from the carrier decks. And after the US fixed its problems with its torpedoes, the submarine fleet went on to sink the entire Japanese merchant fleet.

    It would have been best for Japan to have not attacked the US directly, instead seizing Indonesia and hoping for the best. But that decision was not Yamamoto's to make. Given that the Japanese leadership was going to order war with the US, Yamamoto's plan to attack Pearl Harbor was ingenious and the only hope. Any hope of the plan's success was foiled by lack of daring and initiative.

  386. Look at the date of this message! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go to yahoo.com, the VVVV stock/finance message board (that's 4 V's), message #2254, or read below.

    Re: VVVV to THE MOON!!!!
    by: strategists2000 09/10/01 06:59 pm
    Msg: 2254 of 2719

    to the deapest part called the center of the earth by this wekend north east region will be destroyed new providance soon to fall apart

  387. How to deal with Bin Laden by sterno · · Score: 2

    Okay, basically what it boils down to is this, those who are responsible should be dealt with. If Bin Laden was acting on his own in a midwest city, fine, go arrest his ass and put him in prison.

    If it was Bin Laden acting out of a foriegn nation without their support (basically they let him be there but weren't actually funding him, helping him plan this, etc), then we should simply ask that government to hand him over. If they refuse, to do that (or at the very least hand him over to an international court), skip to the next paragraph.

    If it was Bin Laden being sponsored by a foreign government, then that government has committed an act of undeclared war and we should deal with them as such. Historically speaking that means bomb them til they surrender, then go in and reconstruct their government as we see fit (see Japan and Germany for reference material). Note: focus of attack should be squarely on government and military. After we have torn them down, and this is the most important part, we should fund reconstruction of the country (buying good will and perhaps a future stable ally ).

    I make a point of mentioning a reconstruction effort because WW2 was in large part created by not doing that with Germany during WW1 (IMHO). They were in bad financial shape which is what allowed a dictator like Hitler to come to power. By building them up financially (perhaps leaving it even better than we started), we burn out one more holes for terrorists to hide in.

    --
    This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
  388. They followed the Hudson river by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Undoubtedly why they turned south near Albany, NY. The Hudson river flows south. Just follow it until you reach the ocean. Then look for the two big towers.

    1. Re:They followed the Hudson river by TH4L35 · · Score: 1

      mod this comment up. Its THE obvious point that has been missing from this discussion. The very point that I intended to make myself in this thread. (i do agree with the GPS idea as well though).

      --
      When Thales was asked what was difficult, he said, "To know one's self." And what was easy, "To advise another."
  389. Close call by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The girlfriend of someone I work with was actually supposed to be on flight 11 but decided to take a later flight because she didn't feel like getting up so early - he didn't know she wasn't on the flight though, and because everyone was trying to do the same thing couldn't reach her on her cellphone. Eerie.

  390. Re:How to prevent this from EVER happening again . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yea, emergency autopilot override...can you imagine creating the ability for someone to overtake an aircraft remotely? Can you say 'bak-doar'? how bout 'rewt-kit'? ...as ye so, so shall ye reap.

  391. Mobilization? by Legion303 · · Score: 1
    A friend's Army husband was bundled into an airplane at 2am this morning. All he was told was that he was going "overseas." Anybody with military families have something similar going on?

    -Legion

  392. Executive Orders? by zor_prime · · Score: 1

    Does anyone else notice how the tactics of this attack mirror the attack on the Capitol building in Tom Clancy's book "Executive Orders". If I remember correctly, I read it a few years ago, he talks about how hard it would be to stop a large plane near the target, due to the sheer momentum and size of a modern airliner.

    Just another random thought.

    --
    "We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." -Mark Twain
  393. Forgot Tim? by Gorimek · · Score: 2

    Only excerpts (I have no interest in reading more) - the unbelievers are not people and are to be converted, by the 'sword' if necessary.

    It's pretty easy to find those kinds of genocidal passages in the bible as well. Especially if you quote with a purpose.

    But then again, the Christians haven't crashed into any towers or exploded car bombs in busy streets lately of which I am aware

    What about the christian Timothy McVeigh? Or the catholics and protestants in Northern Ireland?

    And of course, it is far from clear that this was done by moslems acting on religious grounds in the first place.

    I'm pretty old and I've come to the conclusion that evil is amazingly evenly distributed among different religions, political views and ethnic groups. I used to think not, but I've learned.

  394. Re:Er..thats enough? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Haven't been paying very close attention to reality lately, have we?

  395. Re:Navigation not a problem by topham · · Score: 2
    I was suprised to find my GPS unit is still working perfectly today. I expected they would enable Selective Availability and, or entirly disable the GPS service for atleast 48hrs.

    I bought a GPS a couple of months ago, even the $300C model I have would be adaquate to navigate a plane if you had someone capable of using the planes controls. Even if all the electronic navigation aids on the aircraft were non-functional a small handheld GPS unit would be adaquate. (Even with selective availability it would get you within 100meters in pitchblack, never mind this was done after sunrise.

  396. DivX videos of both plane crashes by KlickSlice · · Score: 1

    4 DivX videos of both plane crashes, very high quality. Check out http://www.watership.org/media under Movies, look for wtc-*tower*-A.avi (good quality) wtc-*tower*-B.avi (same vids, high quality)

  397. FIGHT BACK - HERE'S WHAT YOU CAN DO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am trying to distribute this URL as widely as possible. It lists 10 simple ways ordinary citizens can fight back against these terrorists. Please take a minute to look at the site, it's just one page.

    http://www.geocities.com/fightterror/index.html

    So many people feel like they need to help, either by giving blood or donating to the Red Cross. These are some other ways that will have a tremendous collective impact.

    Thank you,

    John DeFalco

  398. Re:You are utterly naive. Prepare to be deflowered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Those who are tolerant of the intolerant are
    > themselves intolerant. Only by being intolerant
    > of the intolerant can we, ourselves, be
    > tolerant.

    uh, "we had to destroy the village in order to save it"

  399. Re:WARNING : GOATSE link! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thankyou for bringing a voice of sanity into this forum, and reminding us what slashdot is really all about.

  400. Thats to land a plane. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    $10 in quarters is enough to learn how to steer and control altitude. They can kill the pilots when they see Manhattan, they don't have to d it right away.
    $50 for MS FLight Sim lets your learn enough to land (if not gently on your first try) with a few dozen hours playing.

  401. typo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    One pissed of American.

    Should read: "One pissed off moron."

  402. Absurdity of knives. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First off, the knives were plastic (polycarbonate) or ceramic (speculation), and as such were larger than 4 inches.

    Big knives are already illegal - you _can't_ make it more illegal to bring on a plane. Banning box cutters and pen knives won't stop that. It's a knee-jerk reaction that serves no real purpose, much like censorship "for the kids".

    If you want, you could break the mirror in the bathroom, oick up a shard of the glass in a gloved hand (OJ's maybe) and take a stewardess hostage. The pilot, despite knowing better, will likely let the terrorist into the cockpit, they both get killed and bammo, 1 more plane down.

    Peopel will say "The FBI/NSA/CIA needs more money." Bull. They need to deal with real crimes like this, and not be corporate thugs for hire, as evidenced by the prosecutuion of Dmitri or the DeCSS kid.

  403. One more thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To the idiots on the planes the next time. If you know your going to die, or can reasonably expect it, die fighting. I know I would have - and I state that having been attacked by a knife wielder before. But no, the preaching of "Don't be a hero" and "tell a teacher" when confronted by bullies is what we are taught. Screw that. Take a stand, be a man, and roll those dice.

    My hat off to the 3 guys that did just that in the PA flight. They died bravely, and foiled their terrorists. Had they better luck, they might have lived, had they not tried, they would still be dead, possibly with firends of their on the ground dead as well.

    One last thing: This places the Egypt Air pilot who rammed his plane into the sea delibeately in a new light. If he did so to foil his terrorists, Allah will have heard his prayer and taken him in. Assuming their is an Allah, Budha, God, etc.

    1. Re:One more thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i know you cant reply to this as YOU must be heading down to "join up" and go and actually put YOUR life on the line. I know you will join the infantry or marnines so Youe up the sharp end fighting for everyone.

      Grow up wanker YOUR coments are a disservice for those of us who have been in combat

  404. Re:Mass Sentator Kerry says: "Rebuild the Towers" by shanek · · Score: 2

    I would like to add that the walls of the new towers should be covered with the names of the victims of this atrocity.

  405. The Americans quote of Sinclair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Widespread, but only partial news coverage was given recently to a remarkable editorial broadcast from Toronto by Gordon Sinclair, a Canadian television commentator. What follows is the full text of his trenchant remarks as printed in the Congressional Record:

    This Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as most generous and possibly the least appreciated people on all the earth.

    Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy were lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts. None of these countries is today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to the United States.

    When the franc was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who propped it up, and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris. I was there. I saw it. When distant cities are hit by earthquakes, it is the United States that hurries in to help. This spring, 59 American communities were flattened by tornadoes. Nobody helped.

    The Marshall Plan and the Truman Policy pumped billions of dollars into discouraged countries. Now newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent, warmongering Americans. I'd like to see just one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United States Dollar build its own airplane. Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tristar, or the Douglas 10? If so, why don't they fly them? Why do all the International lines except Russia fly American planes?

    Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or woman on the moon? You talk about Japanese technocracy, and you get radios. You talk about German technocracy, and you get automobiles. You talk about American technocracy, and you find men on the moon - - not once, but several times - and safely home again.

    You talk about scandals, and the Americans put theirs right in the store window for everybody to look at. Even their draft-dodgers are not pursued and hounded. They are here on our streets, and most of them, unless they are breaking Canadian laws, are getting American dollars from ma and pa at home to spend here.

    When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down through age, it was the American who rebuilt them. When the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke, nobody loaned them an old caboose. Both are still broke.

    I can name you 5,000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble. Can you name me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble? I don't think there was outside help even during the San Francisco earthquake.

    Our neighbors have faced it alone, and I'm one Canadian who is damned tired of hearing them get kicked around. They will come out of this thing with their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled to thumb their nose at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles. I hope Canada is not one of those.

    Origins: On June 5 1973, Canadian radio commentator Gordon Sinclair decided he'd had enough of the stream of criticism and negative press recently directed at the United States of America by foreign journalists (primarily over America's long military involvement in Vietnam, which had ended with the signing of the Paris Peace Accords six months earlier).

    from snopes2.com

  406. The Americans - 1973 Sincalir by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    from snopes.com

    Widespread, but only partial news coverage was given recently to a remarkable editorial broadcast from Toronto by Gordon Sinclair, a Canadian television commentator. What follows is the full text of his trenchant remarks as printed in the Congressional Record:

    This Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as most generous and possibly the least appreciated people on all the earth.

    Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy were lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts. None of these countries is today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to the United States.

    When the franc was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who propped it up, and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris. I was there. I saw it. When distant cities are hit by earthquakes, it is the United States that hurries in to help. This spring, 59 American communities were flattened by tornadoes. Nobody helped.

    The Marshall Plan and the Truman Policy pumped billions of dollars into discouraged countries. Now newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent, warmongering Americans. I'd like to see just one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United States Dollar build its own airplane. Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tristar, or the Douglas 10? If so, why don't they fly them? Why do all the International lines except Russia fly American planes?

    Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or woman on the moon? You talk about Japanese technocracy, and you get radios. You talk about German technocracy, and you get automobiles. You talk about American technocracy, and you find men on the moon - - not once, but several times - and safely home again.

    You talk about scandals, and the Americans put theirs right in the store window for everybody to look at. Even their draft-dodgers are not pursued and hounded. They are here on our streets, and most of them, unless they are breaking Canadian laws, are getting American dollars from ma and pa at home to spend here.

    When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down through age, it was the American who rebuilt them. When the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke, nobody loaned them an old caboose. Both are still broke.

    I can name you 5,000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble. Can you name me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble? I don't think there was outside help even during the San Francisco earthquake.

    Our neighbors have faced it alone, and I'm one Canadian who is damned tired of hearing them get kicked around. They will come out of this thing with their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled to thumb their nose at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles. I hope Canada is not one of those.

    Origins: On June 5 1973, Canadian radio commentator Gordon Sinclair decided he'd had enough of the stream of criticism and negative press recently directed at the United States of America by foreign journalists (primarily over America's long military involvement in Vietnam, which had ended with the signing of the Paris Peace Accords six months earlier).

  407. American Aid - Sinclair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Widespread, but only partial news coverage was given recently to a remarkable editorial broadcast from Toronto by Gordon Sinclair, a Canadian television commentator. What follows is the full text of his trenchant remarks as printed in the Congressional Record:

    This Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as most generous and possibly the least appreciated people on all the earth.

    Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy were lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts. None of these countries is today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to the United States.

    When the franc was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who propped it up, and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris. I was there. I saw it. When distant cities are hit by earthquakes, it is the United States that hurries in to help. This spring, 59 American communities were flattened by tornadoes. Nobody helped.

    The Marshall Plan and the Truman Policy pumped billions of dollars into discouraged countries. Now newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent, warmongering Americans. I'd like to see just one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United States Dollar build its own airplane. Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tristar, or the Douglas 10? If so, why don't they fly them? Why do all the International lines except Russia fly American planes?

    Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or woman on the moon? You talk about Japanese technocracy, and you get radios. You talk about German technocracy, and you get automobiles. You talk about American technocracy, and you find men on the moon - - not once, but several times - and safely home again.

    You talk about scandals, and the Americans put theirs right in the store window for everybody to look at. Even their draft-dodgers are not pursued and hounded. They are here on our streets, and most of them, unless they are breaking Canadian laws, are getting American dollars from ma and pa at home to spend here.

    When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down through age, it was the American who rebuilt them. When the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke, nobody loaned them an old caboose. Both are still broke.

    I can name you 5,000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble. Can you name me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble? I don't think there was outside help even during the San Francisco earthquake.

    Our neighbors have faced it alone, and I'm one Canadian who is damned tired of hearing them get kicked around. They will come out of this thing with their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled to thumb their nose at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles. I hope Canada is not one of those.

    Origins: On June 5 1973, Canadian radio commentator Gordon Sinclair decided he'd had enough of the stream of criticism and negative press recently directed at the United States of America by foreign journalists (primarily over America's long military involvement in Vietnam, which had ended with the signing of the Paris Peace Accords six months earlier).

    from snopes.com

  408. Re:You are utterly naive. Prepare to be deflowered by DFaraway · · Score: 1

    I hear a lot of talk about "values" from a lot of right-wing idiots. Somehow their "values" always mean that doing whatever THEY want is good, and now they want to lash out and kill for revenge without even waiting to confirm guilt. They're just as fanatical as the terrorists -- fanatics and terrorists of Muslim, Christian, Jewish, or any other religion or ideology are all the same -- too bad they can't just blow each other up and leave people who AREN'T fascist morons alone. If someone thinks the Taliban is bad -- and it is -- why would bombing the hell out of the women and children suffering under it be a good thing? Is slaughtering the helpless a "good American value"? Is someone living in a country automatically a "supporter" of a tyrant?

  409. Amazon cap is now $100 by Scryber · · Score: 1

    Update: Amazon has upped the donation cap to $100. Again, I presume you could donate multiple times if you wanted to.

  410. Control Afghanistan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We don't need to control it. We don't need to set up a saint. We just need (if it is a need) to remove the Devil we know. If the Taliban wants to hand him over, fine. If not, fine. If they interfere, so be it.

    Some people fail to understand that the US, if it chose to, could eliminate every MidEast country, raze the land, execute the governments and people.
    The US could do this without resorting to nuclear weapons, if it was willing to lose 1-5 Million people.

    It could supply the military power to India, who hates Muslim nations such as Pakistan to do it for them.

    But the US doesn't do these things.

    The U.S. doesn't deliberately try to kill civilians as a goal. It goes to great lengths to avoid doing so, wherever possible. (i.e. flyers being dropped prior to the atmoics).

    There are idiots in the US just as there are in every other country who will jump to knee jerk reactions. As in every other country, those loud obnoxious poorly thought out voices are in the minority, despite popular news coverage which focuses on them. Such as the city in Palestine celebrating this terrorist action.

    To be perfectly honest, the powers that matter, militarily, are the US, China, Russia, and India, in that rough order. Pakistan, despite being nuclear, is dwarfed by India and the others.

    Russia doesn't particularly love the MidEast, they dislike parts of it historically. China has never loved religious countries. And India pretty much dislikes the MidEast as well.

    Israel, whether US pawn, or Zionist empire, could be manipulated into willingly nuking the surrounding area, and taking the brunt of the return fire, if any.

    The US could credibly nuke the MidEast with hundreds of TACTICAL nukes, to mimize fallout as compared with dozens of huge bombs.

    If the US is pushed and goaded and eventually does deteriorate to the level of the terrorists, the US will lose much, but the MidEast would lose everything.

  411. No country harbored McVeigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your comment makes no sense. The country McVeigh was in immediately turned him over to the cops. That country was the US. But we didn't harbor him once he was a criminal.

  412. Thats what happened on Flight 93 in Pa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They took out the terrorists, but no one knew how to fly the plane. Jeremy Glick was the leader of the resistance.
    They saved hundreds of others, and possibly their own friends if any in the target area.

  413. Populated? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And pray tell, that area in the US is more populated than the WTC?

    That crap about all the possible places a plane could crash are NOT cumulative. It can't crash at them all, and a plane exploded at 10,000 feet burns most of the fuel in the air on the way down.

    Given that the people in the plane die either way, and the gas left burns either way, shooting the window and explosively decompressing any of these planes would have saved lives.

  414. Prosal Denied. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can't make the cockpit door into a bank vault. The engineering stresses of pressurization phrohibit this sort of thing on commercial planes which need to fly every day. The Shuttle flies less than a dozen times a year, that's why it can be secure.

    You can add an additive to Aviation fuel to make it inflammable. They did a study in 1980 (nap.gov i think) but didn't implement it because it was not previously viewed as cost effective.

  415. Your point about NASA isn't very complete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And all thanks to the director of the project himself, the man behind the Mercury project and who gave NASA its wings: Doctor Werner Von
    Braun. He was director of research being the most brilliant man in the field. A true American hero!

    Here is a picture of the man at his previous employer:
    http://www.v2rocket.com/start/chapters/von07.htm l

    Legend: Visit to Peenemünde May 26, 1943. At the extreme left is Dr. Walter Thiel, A4/V2 propulsion designer, and next to him is Councilor Plendel. The officer behind him is Colonel Claus Count Schenk von Stauffenberg. Further to the right walks Infantry General Herbert Olbricht, an unidentified officer, and then Grand Admiral Karl Dönitz in the navel greatcoat. General Heinz Brandt is seen in front of the A4/V2 rocket, hands behind his back. Colonel Walter Dornberger has turned to talk to the officer behind him while von Braun in the dark suit follows to his left. The officer at the extreme right is unidentified.

    Holly Shit! Donitz and Stauffenberg all in one picture!? He must have been some serious hotshit that Herr Von Braun at the time. Ever seen
    that V2 in the Smithonian? A few room later there is the Messerchmidt 262 the first true jet and not a rocket plane like the Messerchmidt
    Komet. Oh by the way, the last test pilot of the Komet, Mano Zeigler, was letter an USAF commander testing the Starfighter, a legendary plane.
    He wrote a great book called Rocket Fighter, a must read!

  416. Media Blackout : Banned song list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) Gerri Halliwell - It's raining men Halilujia.. sung in wall street district while jumpers were doing it.
    2) Come Fly me me, by Sinatra
    3) Imagine all the people - Lennon..
    4) Stuff by crash boom orchrestra
    5) Fly like a bird..

    Sheesh - even elevator music DJ's under the microscope- as is entire rescue units that got heavied. Make them pay....

  417. Re:S11: bullshit numerology by c+o+r+e · · Score: 1
    The flights that were hijacked, from United and AA, were numbered as follows: 11, 93, 175, and 77 11 = Yesterday 9+3 = 12 = Today 1+7+5 = 13 = Thursday 7+7 = 14 = Friday

    Ugh.

    Such illogical drivel. Trying to find meaning in the meaningless and trashing rationality in the process.

    Notice how you tried to make a consistent point but conveniently ignored the inconsistency that would have destroyed your so-called "order": all of the numbers you derived were found by adding the numbers of the flight numbers _except_ for the first one. You took that one without modification simply because it seemed to support your hypothesis and would not have if you were consistent in adding the numbers of all flights.

    See http://skepdic.com/numology.html for interesting look at the fallacy of "numerology".

    "When you get your reading, you may find yourself ignoring the parts that don't fit you at all, and focusing on those parts that do seem to fit. They may actually fit you or they may fit your image of how you would like to be. No matter; if they fit, you may fall for it."
    -core
  418. Theory: by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
    Is it just me, or does it seem implausible that the U.S. secret services would not be aware of such an attack days or weeks before it happened? I mean, Tom Clancy movies and Echelon aside, I have difficulty buying that they'd be so utterly in the dark or unable to stop an action like this far in advance. But it could be that this is just my corruption meter dinging again.

    Still. . .

    Look at the recent media content. We've got a whole load (like five) new spy drama T.V. shows coming out this fall. (Which is almost exactly 5 more than any season of the past decade has come out with.) And also, that chest thumping, 'Pearl Harbor' movie this summer just happened to be there in time to help set the mental state of the American public. If that painfully kitsch, "America Under Attack" logo banner used by CNN was prepared months or years ago, (as it surely was in preparation for this day which everybody knew was coming), then what kind of planning do you think has been done by the secret service, military and various secret government agencies?

    Notice how the plane crashed into a wing of the Pentagon which had been closed for renovation.

    --Or how the recession being sold to the public over the last few weeks has just been kicked into VERY high gear. (Prime conditions to sell a start-up of the ultra profitable American war machine.)

    Or that the only foriegn country being bandied about in the media just happens to be land-locked by Iran, India, Russia, and Pakistan, thus forcing an issue which might otherwise have be dealt with by a sea assult had any other country been given the spotlight. (Two countries for the price of one!)

    If this whole thing wasn't choreographed from the get go, (a sick but, I think entirely plausible notion, far easier to accomplish than the uninitiated might suspect. Look up 'Greenbaum Lecture' and related.), --Sheesh! Even a clunky theory like, "It was Isreal. If they engineered an Arab attack, then they can gurantee the swift destruction of at least on aggressor nation," has its appeal. But at the VERY least, it seems plausible that there are agencies who have been waiting in the wings for just such a ball as this WTC thing to get past the national security goal posts. -Agencies which come armed with whole six course meals of propaganda and manipulation plans so that when the music stops, the people they want will get the choice seating on the new world stage. And you can bet that the poor & wretched will get more numerous and more wretched as a result. And the privileges of the power elite will increase.

    You watch.

    Anyway, the current set of working theories run as follows:


    -Nato Article 5 invoked.

    -U.S. will go to other, non-U.S. friendly countries who have in the past have harbored terrorists, and ask for public and direct help in eradicating cell groups of whatever terrorist organizations reside in the given countries. They will either get it, or they will march in and take it. In either case, the result will likely be instituted systems and personel forced into the current bureaucracies of non-U.S. friendly nations, which will more than likely become permanent fixtures, enforced by the U.N. and NATO.

    -All NATO countries will agree that terrorism must be battled unilaterally, meaning the global curtailing of human rights and freedoms. Information networks even more drastic than Echelon will likely be implemented, (or revealed).


    I wonder how long it will be before the concentration camps are re-kindled. Luckily, the Arians from Outer Space Nazi crap, (yes, according to the old propaganda, Arians actually came from outer space), does not currently have an equivalent in today's U.S. And I don't think that basic racism as it is being programmed will be enough to send things to WWII levels of brutality once again. But something tells me that this is where we are headed. And sooner than we might like to think. . . We'll have to see what the powers that be come up with. This whole airplane terrorist thing isn't a bad start, though.

    In any case, while I hate and despise the concept of murder in any form, I must say that part of me completely 'got' the terrorist display, the WTC being pretty much ground zero of corporate, greed-based evil in the world. America has killed many thousands of innocents in other parts of the world with glib righteousness. Given this, part of me even thought that there was an almost noble quality about this week's terrorist act. --Let's be honest; the attack could EASILY have been far more destructive and far less discriminating. Biological. . . Nuclear. . . What happened was almost neighborly by comparison to what could have been. Like knocking over your mailbox to make a statement rather than throwing a burning bottle through your window.

    I don't think anybody thought that the WTC would actually collapse. It was common knowledge that the structures were designed to withstand such collisions with aircraft, which they did admirably. It was the melting superstructure due to so much aircraft fuel which caused the collapse. Of course, this might just have been more clever scripting. (Ding. Ding. Pardon my corruption meter.)

    Anyway, before anybody sets about lynching me, please recall that, 'Fight Club,' is a popular film around /. and is so for a reason. Anybody who tells me I am wicked for thinking these things is a damned hypocrite.

    Enjoy your freedoms while they last, and enjoy the clever scripting and of the upcoming CNN spectacular. It was written with all of us in mind. . .


    -Fantastic Lad

  419. Re:US Imperialism and anti-US sentiments worldwide by Rivabem · · Score: 1

    it's right..Any ore exemples?

    USA financed ALL except ONE dictatorial govts. in central and south america afraid the USSR could do that before them(the one is Cuba, of course). (and for those blind idiots, before the USSR colapse Cuba had undoubtely the best social conditions of all these countries, if one have no opinion on those places, at least could have health and education there)

    No, i'm not comunist, i'm 100% capitalist. I just like the so blessed american FREEDOM..the same freedom USA help to take away from most of Latin America

    the APARTHEID in S.A. was backed up by USA for it's whole existence after the zulu people started talking to URSS. It was not a racial problem, it as a POLITICAL problem..but who suffered? americans? not right?

    Lets Protect the american way of life, the "democracy and freedom" land.
    The american way to solve those problems? Blow up any "democracy and freedom" that is outside US borders..

    No one would ever hate US if had any reason..

    And for the "usa don't give a damn about the rest of the world" i would just see what they learn in scholl about the world in geography and history classes... if they do...

  420. piloting by Max+the+Merciless · · Score: 1

    I've flown lots of MS flight sim. If you lock on to a VOR, the equipment would lock right on and fly you driectly over it. If you had planned this you would know the heading and distance from the VOR beacon. Make the turn (or program the autopilot to do it for you). After that it is simply a matter of adjusting for wind (not much that day) and keeping the right altitude, which may well be the hardest part. I believe that big jets are much more stable than small ones which get buffeted around a lot.

    I heard another jet had to dodge one of the planes, which indicates they were in a lane heading for a VOR.

    Does anyone know what rate of knots they were doing - looked pretty damn fast! It would be hard to fly that fast and low as speed tends to give you lift.

    --
    * * Always question "the National Interest" - 9 times out of 10 it is a cover for evil
  421. Re:Slashcode by trelyle · · Score: 1

    My question was directed at you because out of curiosity to how SQL scales, I clicked your sig link.
    I know I should be a bit smarter in the future, and obviously should have explained myself further in my previous post. I assumed that the person who choses a sig such as that to deliberately mislead someone to be a dickhead.
    Mod this however you so choose. But before you do, maybe read the original post I replied to.
    Maybe see if YOU might be inclined to search for more info.
    See if you don't get a bit pissed.

    --
    "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both, and deserve neither. " Ben Franklin
  422. Rick Giombetti: by terracotta14 · · Score: 1

    Tucked in the middle of Rick's statment was a comment on how regretable it was that we bombed the poor Serbs. I have family members who volunteered in Bosnia. After seeing the level of carnage, torture & rape perpetrated on huge numbers of the men & women of Bosnia, with great enthusiasm by some Serbs & with the support of virtually all Serbs, my mild & decent relatives regretted that we hadn't bombed all of Serbia back into the Stone Age. Your perverted loyalties taint your views on the issue of the current attacks, Rick.

  423. Re:This means war. by launcap · · Score: 1

    ... which is exactly the same logic that the terrorists use to justify their atrocities.

    Congratulations. You just became like them.

  424. Nuclear Bomb to Follow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We may succeed in instituting security measures that prevent terrorists from hijacking airliners and crashing them into skyscrapers. Maybe.

    But eventually, someday, a group of terrorists will obtain a nuclear bomb, put it in the trunk of a car, drive that car to midtown Manhattan, leave it there, detonate it by remote control, and incinerate millions of lives.

    We can take steps to make obtaining nuclear devices more difficult, but eventually this will happen. Maybe not this year. Maybe not five years from now. But in the next fifteen years or so it will happen.

    The only way to prevent this from happenning is to stop the kind of people who become anti-American terrorists from becoming anti-American terrorists in the first place. And that is by stopping aid to Israel.

    Right now we provide billons of dollars for Israel to arm themselves. They use these arms to, among other things, shoot Arab kids. Other Arabs see this on TV and get extremely angry. A small percentage of them become so angered as to become killers themselves. And they decide to take out their anger on Israel's rich benefactor, the USA.

    Unless we stop aid to Israel, or at least threaten the Israeli's with the termination of our financial and military aid, Arabs will continue to be incensed with us, and some of them will violently attack us. Today with hijacked airliners. Tomorrow with nuclear bombs.

  425. Re:why wasn't the 2nd plane shot down, or intercep by dario_moreno · · Score: 1

    Well, maybe due to the traumatisms of WWI and II,
    proximity of the Eastern Block, and so on,
    but this used (I do not know if it was
    true until Tuesday) to be the case in Europe,
    at least in France for what I know. Not the
    stingers, of course, but the 10 minutes radius.
    Maybe it's because the country is smaller,
    or because the feeling of safety and the
    self-confidence is not as high. Are there any
    military airfields around NY, or was NORAD only
    fearing Russian Bison bombers coming
    across the North Pole with 6 hours notice,
    ready to be intercepted above Canada ?

    --
    Google passes Turing test : see my journal
  426. Europe by HendriX · · Score: 1

    And Europe?

    A consistent policy is a solution. If you can just cross the border and buy a gun....

    1. Re:Europe by Russ+Nelson · · Score: 2

      It would be interesting to see what happened to crime in a European state which allowed concealed carry. Of course, Australia and Canada are running the reverse experiment, and so far, their crime has gone up.
      -russ

      --
      Don't piss off The Angry Economist
  427. A Thought on what to do.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I usually don't appriciate people posting ideas to be spread "to everybody" usually because the idea is insincere or coercive, or some damn form of advertizing.. But somehow I feel like spreading this one around. At least I'm sincere about it..

    I was watching a news report that covered the expected economic impact of this terrible event. One thing they mentioned was that the impact of just one day of people not shopping, going to restaraunts, stores, etc., would be on the order of $15 billion.

    I realized that part of the reason of striking at the WTC, besides the great number of people there, is that it's a blow to the financial and business heart of America and the West. They struck to injure not only so very many people, but the economics of our society.

    I suddenly thought, "If everybody goes out and buys the groceries, toys, tools, sees a movie, goes out to eat, etc., that they would have not done in the days of mourning after this terrible tragedy, it would more than make up for the loss THAT THEY WANTED!"

    And it goes right along with denying them the rest of the victory they want -- all of us staying at home, shocked and afraid.

    Well, we're not going to do that.

    Don't allow yourself to feel powerless. Don't allow them to panic us into recession. Go out with some friends. Buy someone a gift. Take some friends out to dinner. Donate blood. Give some money to a charity. Get some extra stuff at the store to make a special dinner. Buy your kids those toys they've been wanting. Do something for somebody else.

    Let's show the world that America, despite adversity and serious tests, goes on and lives life!

    I'd like to see everyone spread this message and take it to heart. They're not going to get satisfaction from us.

    Jon

    A PS on this, I read on another board a post from a Swedish guy, that they had started a groundswell of investors vowing to not sell their stock yesterday. There was little to no selling, they actually boycotted selling and made it happen... and the Swedish stock market ended rallying up 6%.

    Who says people are powerless??

  428. Severe Asbestos Hazard? by mrthoughtful · · Score: 2, Informative

    I seem to remember hearing that the WTC towers were constructed with large amounts of asbestos. (Apparently the PA was able to circumvent environment restrictions for this project).
    There has certainly been some engineering work done- "ASB abate" on the towers over the last few years.
    Does anyone have the details? Is there a severe asbestos risk in the area? Is the smoke and dust highly carcinogenic?

    --
    This comment was written with the intention to opt out of advertising.
  429. principles, teritoriality and - assholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh yes, an another arrogant American asshole :)
    Sorry, bad joke. But there is a lot of true in that.
    The main problem is that you can be in view of others
    an arrogant asshole and you don`t know about this.
    Interactions between people - it`s not a physics, mathematics and so on. You have no real "black and white"
    and no "good and bad" You have some axioms, got by
    culture enviroment around you. Something, you think about
    of as of good could be in view of others a malicious act
    of .... (use imagination). You needn`t to accept the view
    of others, but have to have it on the mind and respect it. For example, I`m from Europe. Of course, I don`t think too much good about "american culture" and "shiny, great american lifestyle". But - that`s not important. More important is, I don`t think, I have patent on truth (nor MINISTRY OF TRUTH behind me) and I respect your style, decisions and so on - in USA. And I assume your respect to my lifestyle in my country. That`s main and very old principle, encoded in humans just that way as in many other animals on this planet - principle of teritoriality. If you try, or more - you needn`t actively try, you can let - expand your culture or anything other "yours" to my country without my !!!!real!!!! permission, you are an attacker, enemy and I will defend my teritorium at all cost. Push a rat to a corner, and you will see.
    So, if you come to my country, you have three choices.
    Act as me, there is not important if you like or dislike my
    style, intensively study it and act this way, because you are
    at my teritorium. Or, you dislike my style too much or can`t understand enough to act as me, so return to your country.
    Or, you can try to act in my coutry the way, you act at home - the best way to war and millions of dead. (Of course
    your dead, you arrogant bastard - sorry, irony :)
    The tragedy of Manhattan has two views: One - It`s the mass murder at your country and the ones who prepared the attack and are not dead yet must be caught and executed. That`s not principle of good and bad and shouldn`t be. That`s simple principle of teritoriality. The other view - it was attack on the symbols of USA, direct
    attact on your country. Sure, you will hate me, but -
    USA got, what asked for. Buildings destroyed by terrorist attack, people killed or enslaved by organizations supported by USA, "Humanitarian" bombing of Beograd.
    Where is the difference? All of this came from disrespect
    to teritoriality. Of course, you had a good reason for
    "humanitarian bombs" I`m sure. The people, who destroyed
    WTC would argument by good reasons too - in view of theirs. I read a lot idiotic about "nuking Arabs back into stone age". What about "nuking Americans into stone age to try it" Great idea, I think (irony, of course). Your politics
    have lips full of "defense of american interests" You
    have no right to "defend" your "interests" outside your
    country. Of course you have the interests in other countries,
    everybody has. But you have no "right" to "defend" them.
    What great asshole used this term first? And - "humanitarian" actions are the same in ligt blue.
    For example - your controversial law - DMCA. In my view,
    this act enslaves you, it`s undemocratic, unhumanian and
    very, very Orwellian. Great, I will grab carrier and send a flight to bombard your capital to save you from your
    "slavery" Or better, I will nuke it. That`s better. Your "enslavers" will vaporize in one second and good and
    peace rules everywhere forever. I see in the TV Palestinians
    celebrating the attack. I know enough of your dead, so I
    really dislike this. I heard about people demandig them
    to nuke. But - they are the same people as we, there is
    no enough genetical difference. Why they celebrate? They
    like the people dead? No, they don`t see your dead, they
    see the DEATHSTAR destroyed, they see the EMPIRE got
    a serious blow. Ask, ask why they treat you as an EMPIRE.
    Ask not, how to destroy them, ask why they treat USA as an EMPIRE. And whom to ask? Of course the Palestinians and other "dirty Arabs" That`s not a question of islam or any other ideology. That`s a question of teritoriality.

  430. My Webcam Pics from Tuesday's Attack by kensdot · · Score: 1

    Here are a bunch of pics from webcams around Manhattan and some of the Pentagon on fire that I grabbed Tuesday upon getting to work.
    Most show the WTC in its final moments.
    http://aslan.wheatonma.edu/~ken/wtccat

  431. Re:Ambulance Chasing by beardcz · · Score: 1

    With recently uncovered facts, we now know how these deeds were perpetrated. No guns, no explosions. Simple hand implements and the knowledge of how to use them. Airline staff aren't combat trained, but what if they were? How could things have happened differently if people were better equipped, mentally and physically, to handle a hand to hand attack? Could you defend yourself against someone with a knife? Having studied some martial arts and sword fighting techniques, I'm glad I can say I could hold my own against an untrained attacker or even a slightly capable one.

    Anything we can study (martial arts etc...), the hijackers could too. Banning knives is only part of the solution, given the human body's capability to act as a deadly weapon. Eliminating the terrorist threat calls for:

    1. Elimination of the motives for terrorist recruitment - if they can't find desperate fanatic people, it will be a lot harder for them to recruit and train people.

    2. Damage to the terrorist organizations themselves - economic, physical, head-hunting (get the leaders and the experts), moral (do not give them an excuse to attack us - if we treated the Arab world as fairly as we do the European world, this might never have happened).

    3. I'm hung over (too?) and can't think of a good point 3, sorry.

    --
    No sig for me - too lazy to fill one in...
  432. Were there other targets that didn't get hit? by Clerric · · Score: 1

    I'm an over the road truck driver. Bear in mind that 98% of things that drivers say over the CB radio are bull. However what I heard around/during the time of the WTC attack seems less like a driver tale, and more like something out of Conspiracy Theory. At the time of the WTC attack, I was in VA on my way to my next stop in SC. While I was heading down to Charlotte, there was plenty of chatter on the CB about the attack of course. I have a "big" radio in my truck, which means on an average day I can communicate 100 miles or better, it also means I can tune in AM/FM/SSB (upper and lower). During the trip there was a man on a base station talking about the bomb they found in one of the parking garages under a skyscraper. I believe he said the Wachovia bank building (I was still adjusting my clarifier to tune in his exact frequency). At the time I knew that Charlotte had planned to do another dry run in their Anti-Terrorist exorcises, they made those public. The 11th was the scheduled day for their run. From what was said on the CB, and bear in mind that this is from a source with questionable credibility... What was said exactly was that during the exorcise, and before the attack, a suspicious vehicle was parking in the garage. After inspection of the vehicle, they called in the bomb squad and diffused the bomb. Later on that morning the attack occurred on the WTC. I didn't talk to the Han (person) transmitting this, I find it's better to let people talk too much to give them enough rope to hand themselves. He didn't seem to be as full of it as I thought when FBI and SWAT were swarming all over that area. The news made mention of a "possible" bomb. Then re-canted their statements about it saying "it was a false alarm" and a "hoax". I haven't heard another mention about the incident. But I'm curious. Was it really a hoax? Who would risk making a bomb, real or fake... Putting this device in a car, something that CAN be traced, and putting it under a sky scraper? That seems like an awful risk to take, and not quite something that I would buy as being just "some pranksters out for a laugh". Then again, I'm just another ignorant truck driver, what do I know right? ~Clerric

  433. Re:Iraq theory creditable - Follow the river by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The planes turned south near Albany NY because that's where you can see the Hudson River. Any wannabe terrorist with a map can see that you follow the river straight to Manhatten.

    Ever flown? A river is one of the few landmarks that an inexperienced person can recognize from
    the air.

  434. Re:Seismic Observations (WTC - Impact & Collap by mkelley · · Score: 1

    I found out later that evening that the collapses register about a 2.1 on the richter scale.

    --

    m.kelley
    life is like a freeway, if you don't look you could miss it.
  435. Re:Ambulance Chasing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, shut up asshole. If you don't like it, don't look at it. Jeezus, some people.

  436. A modest Canadian's modest proposal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...if you want to know the difference between Canadian and American society (I've lived and have relatives in both), it boils down to learning to listen before learning to raise your fist. Try it. It's important: more important than how available guns are. When you visit elsewhere, act as a guest. And don't be afraid to learn from your hosts. If you need to defend, do so. And you have our very best wishes.