More On Tragedy

There's been lots more happening today - arrests and suspect taken from the Westin Hotel in Boston, as well as the Park Hotel in Newton, MA, which is right down the road for me. There's been some thoughtful submissons about people saving the feeds on their [PVR]s, so that the moment isn't lost in time. NATO has invoked Article 5, meaning that for first in history, I believe, the mutual defense clause has been activated. More news included below. Scott Laird writes "We've received notice that our network facilities in NYC are going to run out of Diesel in ~2 hours, and there's no way to get more diesel to them until lower manhattan is opened up. Since we're located in the same facilties as most of the other major network providers in Manhattan, odds are there are going to be a lot of things dropping off the air this afternoon."

ELBnet writes 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 - and that is a great idea. I set up the search engine at WWW.ELBnet.com/wtc but need URLs to populate it. Please e-mail me any suggested URLS and I'll add them.

Also please don't /. the site... let the people who need it get to it. Spread the word."

Radio Free Wazee writes "Radio Free Wazee has suspended its normal programming in order to provide a relay for National Public Radio. Most of the sites are slammed -- we've got room for about 320 listeners. You'll need an MP3 player (WinAMP, etc.) -- the stream is at http://live.str3am.com:2310/listen.pls Our web site is http://www.ideashot.com/wazee.org Howard @ radio free waee"

GatorMan writes "The Red Cross and Amazon.com have setup a donations page for disaster relief to aide in the recovery of our people. I've seen it jump $100,000 in an hour (thanks to my $10 I'm sure) with over 25,000 donations so far, very promising. No where else on Earth could you find support like this."

winksmith writes "as many of us look on the recent crashes in horror, we will also be pushed towards more tech solutions to some of the scenarios witnessed. i believe experts agree that the buildings may have stood up to forces of the crash had it not been for the very hot fuel burning w/i the building. the building themselves were designed to take aircraft impacts (albeit circa 1960 aircraft). this disaster may spark re-interest in fuel additives for jet fuel that would immediately put out fires upon impact.

the faa and nasa ran some very extensive tests including the purposeful crashing of a large boeing jet (B720) in december of 1984. the tests were not encouraging. details are available. figure 1-1 shows the jet crashing.

no one can second guess what would have happened, but perhaps continued research into this area might have played a role in saving a few more lives. and still may in the future."

Wiggins writes ""The Internet Fraud Complaint Center recently received several complaints that someone is using the letters, "FBI" or "fbi.gov" in an e-mail address in order to make it seem that the message is coming from an FBI employee. In several cases, the message said, "Your application is approved. Please fill out this form to confirm your identity" and solicited the person's name, address, credit card number and expiration date." More on the http://www.ifccfbi.gov/. I am sure /. users know better, but the general populace doesn't (always)."

Comments

What can be done about terrorism?

[kiwaiti]

Yesterday, immediately after the attack, it was hard to think anything but "nuke the middle east back into stone age", which seemed to fit the would-be nukees' level of cultural development.

Today, having calmed down a little, I have been thinking about feasible ways to prevent such acts of terrorism.

Experts seem to agree that security measures can never completely prevent a determined, well organized attempt involving suicide killers. Never being fully secure, maybe we could still make pulling off something like this hard enough so it won't happen again. Please share your ideas.

One thing I read on /. was "physically separate the pilots from the passenger cabin". I think that would make it a lot harder. It could be improved by adding security personnel in plain clothes (preferably Constable Angua von Überwald ;o) israeli-style.

This act was obviously planned by a close and disciplined group. Such groups need money to operate. It has been suggested that Osama Bin Laden be involved in this. Regardless, he is definitely actively supporting terrorism, which is what we are trying to make more difficult.

IIRC, Bin Laden is a sort of rich businessman from Saudi-Arabia. Probably he still owns some company (or companies), drawing his income from it (or them). The huge, illegal, (nonexistant) cartels of (nonexistant) multinational corporations (not) governing virtually all international trade all (don't) have well established procedures (not) to crush possible competitors. Considering the degree of interdependency in our economy and the fact that the WTC housed some quite influential offices, Bin Ladens commercial efforts might suddenly prove unfit for competition on global markets, as did many others, surprising unsuspecting watchers.

Apparently, he gets lots of cash from fund-raising organizations operating in rich (read: G7) countries. Could these be found out, their efforts proved illegal, their money confiscated?

These methods could be used against multiple targets. They seem to involve less martyr potential than nukes. Any other suggestions?

Kiwaiti

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[jiheison]

Today, having calmed down a little, I have been thinking about feasible ways to prevent such acts of terrorism.

Simple. Here are just a few ways:

1) Take actions to prevent the conditions that breed terrorism and show the people of the world that we pay more than lip service to the idea of 'defending liberty'.

2) Reign in corporate greed and globalization. As long as our bottom line takes precendence over human rights, we will be a target of (quite justifiable) rage and (condemnable) violence.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[LordNimon]

it was hard to think anything but "nuke the middle east back into stone age"

Hard for you, maybe, but not for the 7+ million Muslims in the United States who condemn this attack just like everyone else. No, these people are thinking, "Shit, now everyone is going to blame all of us right away."

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[millerjl]

physically separating the pilots from the passengers is easily said... but you still have to prevent passengers from bringing on things that can get through walls (explosive, or otherwise)... some of which can be detected... some can't without more intrusive means of detection... this would also mean the scrapping of the entire airline fleet until planes can be retrofitted with kevlar, steel, and force fields.

expansion of the air marshalls is the best plan i've heard yet... assuming that you can have enough of them on each plane at the same time to prevent massed attacks... uggg...

no perfect solutions is there.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[zpengo]

I have to commend the US Government for having shown a lot of restraint. I know everyone's itching to figure out what country we can bomb, but they really are taking their time and trying to make sure they've got the right person.

They've already dropped hints that war is probably imminent, but it is possible that they're just bluffing in an attempt to get political leaders to turn over the terrorists. The Taliban are peeing their pants right now.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[skwog]

Um, WAS from Saudi Arabia. He was kicked out the country and hides in many places such as Afghanistan for good reason. Even fail to recognize this. More accurately, he was formerly Saudi Arabian.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[Anonymous Coward]

And why shouldn't they? When did the last Christian suicide bomber blow up a building in the United States?

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[henley]

Yesterday, immediately after the attack, it was hard to think anything but "nuke the middle east back into stone age", which seemed to fit the would-be nukees' level of cultural development.

I don't think you have any idea how much such views under any circumstances scare the bejesus out of me and many other people.

Regardless of any justification, righteous anger and emotional response I urge you to consider one very very simple point: How would acting on such an impulse or (horror) reasoned response make you any better that those you seek vengence on?

If you want to be the good guys, you have to act like good guys.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[Kallahar]

Fedex recently wanted to automate the flying of their cargo jets. With some work, couldn't we add that as an emergency system to a plane? Put a button in the cockpit that will activate an automatic emergency landing when pressed. Locking out all the onboard controls would effectively prevent anyone from seizing control.

Travis

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[perrin5]

Experts seem to agree that security measures can never completely prevent a determined, well organized attempt involving suicide killers.

In this case, I tend to agree. The only defense is to make it annoying enough to hijack a plane, that they have to do something else that is more likely to be detected. That said: I seriously doubt that anyone will use this method of terrorism again any time soon.

On the other front, I would like to say something about the "nuke the bastards" methodology.

Not only is it rather barbaric, but it doesn't really discourage future acts of terrorism. Martyrdom and religious fanatiscism are powerful tools in the hands of a terrorist. The only way to stop others from attempting an action like this is to take a more creative approach to reprisals than death.

Death is not an appropriate punishment for suicide bombers, nor for those who are willing to send suicide bombers to do thier dirty work.

Instead, I would like to see what the /. crowd thinks about more creative approches.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[LordNimon]

but you still have to prevent passengers from bringing on things that can get through walls (explosive, or otherwise)

Just make the walls thick enough so that any explosive force that can take out the wall will also destroy the plane. And make sure it's obvious that this will happen.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[linzeal]

Throwing out rhetoric about the abortion issue is not something you want to get into if you have little facts and no real opinion.

1. no one has ever suicide bombed an abortion clinic and those that do are not pro-life

2. Not all pro-lifers are christian or fanatical, see my http:// above

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[Anonymous Coward]

I say we send in Max Payne. Or Jet Li.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[martyb]

Yesterday, immediately after the attack, it was hard to think anything but "nuke the middle east back into stone age", which seemed to fit the would-be nukees' level of cultural development.

I was re-reading "The Great Hunt" by Robert Jordan this afternoon and found this on page 648:

"But men often mistake revenge and killing for justice."

May it be said by all after our response that justice was served.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[hoggoth]

This isn't supposed to be flamebait, but I'm sure I'll get slammed for it. I'm not going to be an anonymous coward over this, so please respond with thought not blind bigotry.

The people who did this are barbaric animals with no regard for life.

Having said that, perhaps the U.S. should think twice about supporting and funding Israel's occupation and methodical elimination of the Palestinian homeland. It's no surprise that the Middle East region all refers to Israel as the 51st state of the USA. I wish influential American Jews would do more to push for moderation in Israel and for US separation from the issue.

Just recently the UN discussions used some 'heated' words to describe Israel's policies (racist, etc) and both Israel and the US walked out of the talks. Why is condemnation of Israeli policy an insult to the US? The US and Israel are rightfully seen as a political unit. Why are my tax dollars paying for this?

Now I'm sure public opinion will swing even more strongly against any Arab viewpoints, making any peace unlikely.

For the record I am neither Arabic nor Jewish. Just a citizen of the USA that has become more and more disheartened to see a nation of people that know terrible oppression firsthand now dishing it out.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[Toony]

and let me guess... Microsoft can write the program for such a project.

Now I really feel safe in the air...

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[tang]

In your reasoning...someone from the ground will be able to control ANY and EVERY plane. Does that sound like a good idea? Think about it...They wouldn't even need suicidal people, they would just take control of 20 planes in the sky and crash them by remote control!

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[Ghoser777]

Ohpss, I meant to say some; I didn't want to implicate all. Secondly, I am a Chrisitian, so that's why I abhor this type of conduct. Thridly, there may never have been a suicide bombing by a Chrisitian, but there defintely have been bombings.

Oh yeah, what about Christians that are for the death penalty (they exist). If they are against the death penalty, do we still consider them pro-life?

F-bacher

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[jgerman]

How can you say that no one has ever suicide bombed an abortion clinic, and in the same sentence say that those who do( present tense) are not pro life? I'm not taking sides but think before you speak, especially in a hot issue like this.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[dranga]

I dunno if I like that.. if the ATC could gain control, so could some outside force.

I believe commercial planes have good enough auto-pilots that they can land themselves; perhaps one solution would be the ability for the pilot tohit a panic switch, then the plane commits itself to land itself at the nearest airport and the manual controls are locked out. This wouldn't help if someone just wanted to blow the plane apart to make terror, but it could prevent general hijacking or intentional crashes like this one...

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[caseydk]

Have you ever driven a remote control car?

How long did it take you to get used to the controls... now try to imagine flying a three dimensional car loaded with people hundreds of mile away reacting to stimuli that you can't feel in the control tower (turbulance, etc)...

oh, now add in the the fact that you would have to do a live video feed...

FOR GOD SAKES, THIS ISN'T MS FLIGHT SIM!!!!!!

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[FatRatBastard]

The interesting (frightning) thing about this is

a) how low tech it was
and
b) when you think about it how it succeeded much better than you would have suspected.

Two to three people (what they're claiming right now) with box cutters / knives and boxes they claimed contained bombs. Frankly I would have thought the success of

a) getting weapons onto planes
b) overpowering pilots/crew
c) keeping folks at bay while you fly the plane

would be a lot less than 75%. The hijackers IMHO were in some respects very, very lucky.

Aside from the obvious horrible human toll this has exacted I wonder how this effects our society in the long run? Off the top of my head the things that could have prevented this (or at least minimized the damage to strictly aircraft) are not 'political' solutions, by which I mean a roll back of civil liberties / increase in the police state, but things such as secure cockpit doors and policies that (no matter the urge to help when you know there's trouble) keep pilots from exiting the cockpit in a time of emergency (FYI, some early reports in the Washington Post claim the hijackers lured pilots out of the cabins by killing stewards).

I hope that in the coming weeks we don't start down the path of passing laws that, frankly, would not have prevented this from happinging in the first place.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[LWATCDR]

I would be willing to go even farther and say that most of the Muslims of the world condem this. To The Muslims in the States I say. I do not blame you. Please try and forgive the few angery people that are blind with rage. And may God protect you and everyone else.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[caseydk]

they walked out because they were bashing the Israelis and completely forgetting that there was another side doing very similar things...

not to mention that up until the Wye River Accords (1998), the PLO constitution states 3+ times that their goal was the destruction of the Israeli state..

I'm not taking sides, I'm pointing out the fact that there are two sides to this conflict.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[gstovall]

Your brush is so enormously broad that I can't see any kind of sensible picture on the canvas.

Real Christians and real Muslims don't commit acts of terrorism. Phonies and followers of perversions do.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[orangesquid]

My view exactly! Retaliation on such a grand scale is simply an excuse for more mass murder.

(Of course, I've already posted that several times already, and gotten modded down as "Troll"...)

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[jayhawk88]

I've heard the Air Marshall idea propsed a lot, but personally I think it's unworkable. Reasons?

- It's incredibly dangerous to have any firearm on a plane, no matter who it belongs to. I don't care if you hire Chuck Norris, if a terrorist organization puts 5 of it's men on a plane, chances are they're getting that gun, or something else bad is going to happen. You don't want bullets flying around an airplane. And if you don't give the air marshall a gun, he's just another passenger, who perhaps knows a few self-defense techniques. Hardly the kind of protection you want against a terrorist with a weapon.

- It will cost a bundle. I know that sounds very callous right now, but think about how much money it would take to keep an air marshall on every flight within the United States at any one time. You would need literally thousands of air marshalls, perhaps even tens of thousands. To say nothing about the support structures (computer tracking systems, training, background checks, etc) needed to keep such an operation up and running logistically. And of course that doesn't count international flights, which would only add to those logistics. The costs would be tremendous, and would either drive the cost of flying sky high (no pun intended), or require a massive tax increase if the government were expected to foot the bill.

- People wouldn't like it. It might be well recieved at first, but once shock of this event wear's off, it will be seen by most as just another flying inconvenience. Most people wouldn't like the idea of firearms on board their flight. Also, an air marshall would presumably have the authority or even responsibility to search anyone getting on the plane, which is sure to be ill-recieved.

Your right, there are no perfect solutions here.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[thetman]

key word: was.
We have the capability of learning and progressing. Slowly but surely over time we are becoming better people. Muslims are essentially at a standstill culturally. Look how they treat their wives for chrissake!

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[AshPattern]

What's amusing is that the terrorists probably consider themselves the "real" Muslims, and others are just pansy pretenders who are too afraid for their lives to give them up to Allah in holy surrender to the jihad.

Otherwise they wouldn't be so bloody dangerous.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[update()]

This isn't a useful place to have a substantive discussion of this issue, but can I respectfully suggest you try to acquire a fuller and more balanced understanding of this topic if you're going to hold forth on it?

Having said that, perhaps the U.S. should think twice about supporting and funding Israel's occupation and methodical elimination of the Palestinian homeland.

I don't know if you're aware of this but the fundamental problem in that area is that since the founding of Israel, the Arab countries have continuously devoted themselves to its destruction. I think you also have some major misconceptions regarding the nature of a "Palestinian homeland" which could be more accurately described as "whatever area happens to be under Israeli control at the moment".

Not to diminish the reality that many Arabs did lose their homes and property and that the current occupation is untenable and harmful to both sides.

Just recently the UN discussions used some 'heated' words to describe Israel's policies (racist, etc) and both Israel and the US walked out of the talks. Why is condemnation of Israeli policy an insult to the US?

The use of the word "racist" is a non-event. The issue was conference ostensibly intended to fight racism that turned into a wildly anti-semitic assault depicting Israel (one of the most ethnically diverse countries in the world) as the sole locus of evil. Yes, it's appropriate that the US government didn't lend legitimacy to it, and European countries should be ashamed of their compliance.

Why are my tax dollars paying for this?

If it makes you feel better, think about how much we spend on defense each year. Now think about the dollar value of the fact that Iraq didn't have nukes in 1991. Was aid to Israel cost effective?

Just a citizen of the USA that has become more and more disheartened to see a nation of people that know terrible oppression firsthand now dishing it out.

I'm not going to relentlessly cheerlead Israel -- their settlement policy in the West Bank was a mistake and it's come back to haunt them. But it's worth keeping in mind that the only country in that region in which Arabs can vote is Israel. In the rest of the area, the best they can hope for is a reasonably benign king (Morocco, Jordan) or despot (Egypt). And also that the current hostility isn't because Israel denied the Palestinians a homeland but because it offered them one.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[KingAzzy]

these people are thinking, "Shit, now everyone is going to blame all of us right away."

Regretfully, this is what happens during war. I do not think they will be treated the same as the Japanese and Germans during WWII, however.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[daviskw]

Nuking them back into the stone-age is a satisfying thought if you don't mind the fact that the rest of the world would villify us for it. I have a different approach.

Find the countries that host these people. Give them time to get their people out of their cities and out of their country. Carpet bomb the cities until nothing but sand remains. March into the country and herd every living thing out and then poison the land and the water supply. Make the hosting country disappear as a nation. Make their land uninhabitable. Let the world know that an attack on the United States is an invitation for national suicide. I'm not for mass murder. I'm for retribution so vast and so terrible that ten thousand years from now they remember our response as if it were yesterday.

As for the actual terrorists. There comes a point when punishment isn't enough. You kill the terrorists. You kill their family and their friends. You kill there neighbors. You let people know that if they are willing to commit acts of terror not only you will die but all of your friends and family will die as well.

Would suicide bombers be so casual with there lives if they new that everything they know and everything they believe would cease to be because of their actions?

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[Wyatt Earp]

Your average terrorist that is willing to smash jetliners into buildings with 25,000 people in them, doesn't give a flying fart about corporate greed and globalization.

Those are just buzz words for dissatisfied Western youths whom don't know what evils lurk out there in the world.

What will prevent terrorism? Through out history, the only way to prevent terror is to cleanly and violently defend your interests and remove the heads and bases of the threat.

I cite the Barbary Coast 1797-1806 and the German Spy threat in the United States and UK from 1939-1945 as examples of this working.

The Mossad has also had some good experiances with this working as well.

The French experiance in Spain during the Neopelonic Wars and the German experiance on the Russian Front and Balkins during World War Two as tacticts that do not work.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[theMAGE]

The people who did this are barbaric animals with no regard for life.

The people who did this are dead. They did not died when the plane hit the building though...

They died when they were born in the West Ghaza bank, in an encampament where they were herded after the Israeli took their land.

The Palestinians are dying as a _group_. They are fighing a lost war: light guns against tanks, gunships, jet fighters... Israel and US together against those people.

That's why the Israel it buying time with negotiations: in 20 years there will be no more Palestinians to ask for their land back.

And American civilians are not completely _innocent_. It's your tax money that pays for Israel's weapons.

If not for Israel, America would have to field a big military force to keep control of the oil fields...

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[ocie]

One thing I read on /. was "physically separate the pilots from the passenger cabin"

The question I would have about this is how many lives have been saved over the years because somebody was able to enter the cockpit and land the plane.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[monkeydo]

You seem very proud of that article on your site, however it really doesn't have any information other than the fact that the flag behind the president was showing the arrows of war instead of the olive branch.

I think your assertion that this was deliberate is downright silly. I have heard similar musings about the carpet in the oval office, but the flag is always hanging on the pole the same way and it is obviously eaier for it to drap this way. Do you by chance have a picture of it hanging in any other position?

I also do not think the fact that the word "war" was used indicates a desire for war. If I say "I do not want a war", does that automatically mean I do? By your claim if I say, "I do not want peace?" then in fact peace is what I want, but how can that be?

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[squidfood]

Another: The original Assassins sect were a serious problem in the middle east until Genghis Khan swept thru. He wasn't exactly a soft-on-crime dude. (Sorry, no ref., this is from memory).

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[david duncan scott]

You're right -- the fact that McVeigh ran away before the explosion makes all the difference.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[jiheison]

1) That is what they are doing. They see us meddling in their affairs to further our own interests (politics, oil) at their expense. They are defending themselves from us!

2) Force our corporations to comply with basic rules regarding their conduct in foreign markets. Prevent them from exploiting the people and environments of the countries they do business in, and prevent them from manipulating foreign governments to further their ambitions.

You're right, there is no difference between 'personal responsibility' and 'corporate responsibility.' Whatever the perceived flavor, it needs to start in the US. We have the power, it is up to us to set an example.

3) Damn straight!

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[swinginSwingler]

1) no entry from passenger comparment to cockpit. (ie. no door, steel plated firewall)
2) federal marshalls on every flight
3) regular security checks at all airports. Airports subject to lengthy closures if they fail.
4) no carry on bags, not even a purse.
5) pat downs in addition to metal detectors.
6) serious deterance. Nuke Kabul, Afg.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[olim]

Personally, I have gradually been coming to the conclusion that US policy towards the Isreali-Palestine conflict is seriously backwards. The Isreali policy of shoot second, but twice as often, does not sit well with me, and will never bring about peace. However, now is the *WRONG* time to think about changing policy towards Isreal. Foreign policy cannot be dictated by terrorism.

It is clear to me that the best long term solution to terrorism is probably 'get people to stop hating the United States [or whichever other place/country you are in].' But, in the short term, political gains that are perceived as consquences of terror can only increase the terror. In other words, I think the US should pursue a gradual softening of it's policies in the Mideast, but that softening should be set back by years for each terrorist act (only that can't be public, because such a policy may provide incentive to some groups...).

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[chinakow]

I believe that was the original posters point, that we should never react on our emotions, especially something with this many concequences and that is why they mentioned calming down, the the poster only reffered to a thought, and that thought makes him as much a nuke dropping american pig as thinking about robbing a bank makes me a bank robber, its only a thought no action.

Jon

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[mindstrm]

First, let me say I'm not sure what I'm saying is accurate, it's only based on what I've heard.

I recall seeing on Television a year ago or so about the Sky Martials... trained agents who randomly rode flights, armed, to prevent hijackings. Apparently, according to what one conrgressman or senator was saying on TV last night, they no longer use the sky martials.

Second.. is airline policy of doing what hijackers say.

I would guess, perhaps, if those on the plane new what the hijackers were going to do, it would have been trivial to ovwerwhelm them. The problem is we are not used to such things. Now that people realize that hijackers could be killing a great many people.....it may be much tougher to hijack a plane in the united states.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[smannell]

Very little. As long as there are too many people competing for too few resourses, there will be killings. Murder, terrorism, war; they are basically the same thing on different scales. When you throw organized religion into the mix, it only gets worse. Now you can convince people to kill each other because their imaginary friends tell them it is rightous. Granted, if the US government had sensible foreign policies it would help a hell of a lot, but the basic problem remains. There are simply too many of us.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[jiheison]

Do you think that Mossad has more or less terrorism to deal with thanks to their effort? If we crack down on terrorist, inevitably harming the innocent and killing the supposed guilty extrajudicially (as Israel is doing), will there be more or fewer people motivated to strike us?

We haven't exactly taken a soft line on terrorism so far, and look what happened. You simply can't kill them all, and the more you try, the more you spawn.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[erostratus]

If it makes you feel better, think about how much we spend on defense each year. Now think about the dollar value of the fact that Iraq didn't have nukes in 1991. Was aid to Israel cost effective?

Well, perhaps you are not aware we funded Hussein with military weapons until six months prior to the Gulf "War" because the U.S. government supported his killing of Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq. So long as it didn't affect American oil interests, the gov't didn't care who he killed.

I'm not going to relentlessly cheerlead Israel -- their settlement policy in the West Bank was a mistake and it's come back to haunt them. But it's worth keeping in mind that the only country in that region in which Arabs can vote is Israel. In the rest of the area, the best they can hope for is a reasonably benign king (Morocco, Jordan) or despot (Egypt). And also that the current hostility isn't because Israel denied the Palestinians a homeland but because it offered them one.

Apparently you have never been to Israel. Go there and have a crime committed against you. See how strongly the police officials try to get you to say an Arab committed the crime. See how you can't find out what the convicted's punishment is (so he or she can be tortured by CIA-trained Israelis).

And by the way, the CIA is involved with the Palestinians, too. It's just that the CIA supports Arafat, and Palestinians do not. The PLO is a CIA-supported, pseudo-government that doesn't care whether Palestinians have a homeland. You may be saying you're taking a neutral stance, but to underestimate the US's involvement in preventing the Palestinians from gaining a nation-state that they want (read: not PLO approved) is also wrong.

But that's just my 2 cents.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[bonehead]

thinking of ways to provide sustainable peace throughout the world.

An unattainable fantasy.

Unrealistic fantasies are fine things to debate, and can even provide us with nice ideas when setting our goals.

Times like this, however, require realistic answers. The only effective response to violence of this magnitude is violence of an even greater magnitude.

A lot of people are uncomfortable with that truth. Tough. Our hands have been tied, we have no alternative now other than to respond with extreme and merciless violence.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[cybermage]

1. Ban *all* carry-on luggage.
2. Pass *all* passengers through metal detectors and pat downs.
3. Place Air Marshals trained in hand-to-hand combat on all domestic flights armed with rubber bullet firing guns (something that will not puncture the plane.)
4. Anything that absolutely must be carried on should be checked with the Air Marshal and thoroughly searched.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[Jethro]

For the record, I am a citizen of Israel, but have been living in the USA for three years. Probably become a citizen soon if I feel like it.

Media coverage of the middle-east situation is horrible, biased and very, very one-sided. I've even heard a reported on NPR comment that "...it's hard to sympathise with the three Israeli teenagers who were clubbed to death."

Israel's so-called military and racist actions are all in response to terrorism - suicide bombers blowing up school busses, streets crowded with children, etc.

In the past, palestenians have complained about mistreatment and such, and went on a terror spree for years. Israel's response was giving them autonomy, helping the PLO (a known and established terrorist group!) transition into the Palestenian Authority, and pump money into the PA to help them develop. Israel also supplied the PA police force with weapons.

The current mideast crisis started about a year ago, when the PA was well established, Israel had a pro-peace government, and it looked like there might be peace at long last.

Then an Israeli official visited a site that's holy to both Islam and Judaism. This is what sparked the whole affair. I will repeat this, because it's important.

The current Palestenian terrorism was all sparked by an Israeli official visiting a Holy site, holy to both Jewdaism and Islam. They claim he visited, and thus desecrated the muslim part. Their response to this was not a formal comlpaint, not simple outrage, not anything within reason. They broke into the jewish site, killed people, ripped up holy books, and basically wrecked the place. Basically they started rioting, with the PA police force armed by the Israeli governemnt doing absolutely nothing to stop the riots. In fact, they were shooting at the Israeli forces who were forced to come in and take care of the rioters, who were threatening Israeil citizens.

Point is, Israel went above and beyond what anyone would have imagined a few years ago to solve the terrorist problem in a peaceful way - granting the PA autonomic control of the so-called Occupied Territories. The PA may have tried to make it work for a while - but couls not control the HAMAS and HIZBULLA. Eventually they stopped trying to cnotrol them. Now the PA is basically a launching ground for terrorism.

Despite this, Israel has acted with restraint - trying to deter terrorists rather than all-out military action. Ironically this is largely due to US demands.

And don't assume Israel's just taking your tax-money and giving nothing back. Go ask Intel how much of their tech was developed in their Israeli labs. A lot of high-tech stuff originates from Israel.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[Arandir]

During the crusades the Islamic communities of Asia Minor and the Middle East supported and harbored Jewish and Christians from the barbarian Europeans.

For thirteen hundred years the Islamic faith has been one of peace, civilization and high culture. The Quran condemns the killing of the innocent. It condemns suicide in any form. It condemns the degredation of women.

Every faith has its extremist bigots who use religion as nothing more than an excuse for their acts of evil.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[claes]

Oh yeah. Really great. Now you have 10 million refugees with complete disgust for the US and nowhere to go. I guess you can recruit plenty of suicide bombers out of them.

This idea is so stupid that I have no words....

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[Stonehand]

Well,

a) Security was pretty lax on the domestic flights I've been on -- e.g. I've never been searched, nor had my carryons examined beyond being X-rayed (guess I don't fit the profile of a drug courier...), and the one time I brought a laptop, even that wasn't examined at all (and that was on an international flight).

So that means that I basically could have concealed all sorts of plastic / ceramic / wood / rope weapons. For instance, at one point the cord that closes off my backpack broke, so I replaced it with braided, knotted twine -- which could probably serve as a crude garotte if cut with, say, seemingly harmless safety scissors. Fishing line would also pass the detectors, and could easily be palmed when walking up the aisle (seemingly, to use the forwards restroom). And a backpack is a lot more innocent than, oh, a ceramic knife.

My watch passes metal detectors without causing a blip, and it's a normal-size Timex with a metal band. My eyeglasses (metal core beneath the plastic) also have never been examined (say, the tips of a spare pair could have been sharpened).

Pittsburgh Int'l, AFAICT, doesn't even use nitrogen detectors. FYI, those devices go back at least a few years, and are meant to detect the nitrogen found in many, many explosives -- but at least back then, they were expensive and often generated false positives, meaning inconvenience and longer delays. Convenience and cost won out over security.

Another tidbit: pilots don't go through the detectors, and I've never seen any pilot need to go through an ID check at that checkpoint.

b) It's not like the entire passenger section could have rushed at a few guys at once. Figure that an aisle is pretty narrow, and anybody climbing over seats to get at them is going to be at a huge disadvantage, so with three to four guys, they could probably watch each others' backs and keep passengers at bay. And that's *if* the passengers act in unison, and before the bad guys gain entry to the cockpit (which they may be able to re-lock, depending on how they breached it)... which, up until yesterday, was unlikely given that most hijackings have not had the intention of mass death (and hence, the passengers had a better chance of survival if they sat tight).

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[sql*kitten]

Take actions to prevent the conditions that breed terrorism and show the people of the world that we pay more than lip service to the idea of 'defending liberty'.

That's the problem, see. For better or worse, the West has chosen to defend the liberty of Israel. I do not think it is possible to even become neutral by withdrawing from the world, since terrorists would try to extort "aid" for their nations.

Reign in corporate greed and globalization

Corporations do far more good for the world than religions could even comprehend.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[homebru]

OK. You don't think it will work. Let's re-examine your objections.

You don't want bullets flying around an airplane.

Bean-bag guns. Never hard of them? Think low-velocity 12-guage shotgun/pistol throwing bean bags. One to the head and perp is down long enough for six passengers to stomp his head^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Htake him into custody. Don't like that? How about the new tangle-foot throwers. Spit a very sticky goo that will bind your arm to a bulkhead in nothing flat. Point is, you don't have to use traditional firearms. And we haven't even gotten to a discussion of rubber bullets or Tazers.

It will cost a bundle

True. What was the World Trade Complex worth? How many insurance companies are going to go broke trying to settle claims for the deaths / damage? How much are your taxes going to go up to make up the difference that the federal government is going to have to put into the pot? Don't just sit there a cry "It's too expensive". Think about the alternative.

You would need literally thousands of air marshalls

Again, true. The US air fleet is just over 4300 aircraft (as of 1999. See : http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/ites/1000/ijee/tr ans-faa.htm ) Let's assume that you can't work an air-crew member more than 40 hours a week. (I don't have the correct number at hand; someone chime in if you know.) This means you will need at least five marshalls per aircraft.

So what. The cost of each seat on a flight goes up (less than) $5.00US ($75,000 per year / 2080 hours per year * 8 hours per day = 288.46 per day direct cost * 2 to cover total employee cost and we add under $600US per day. Or per one long cross-country or two or three quarter-continent jumps.) $5.00 against the increasing odds of never hugging your kids or parents or SO again. Oh, and ground police don't make anywhere near $75,000 so they would be standing in line to get a job like this.

To say nothing about the support structures

Good. We'll say nothing about it since the support structure is already there. Or had you never noticed the people in the matching blazers who stand between the ticket counters and the boarding gates?

People wouldn't like it [snip] Most people wouldn't like the idea of firearms on board their flight.

Really? Let's ask the passengers of AA flight 11 how they feel about having a sky marshall on board.

an air marshall would presumably have the authority or even responsibility to search anyone getting on the plane

Nope. Not even. That functionality is already in place on the ground. No reason to abandon it completely, since they do seem able to detect professional football players with (oops...) forgotten handguns in their carry-ons.

Your right, there are no perfect solutions here.

Well, finally something we can agree on. And, for what it's worth, I don't like the marshall idea. Hell, I don't even like the inspection stations in the terminal. But there are too many morons in the world who will not be stopped by being told "We trust you to behave nicely". And they have to be stopped.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[update()]

Well, perhaps you are not aware we funded Hussein with military weapons until six months prior to the Gulf "War" because the U.S. government supported his killing of Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq.

The US was sympathetic to Saddam and supported his military, although I think what you're presenting as undisputed fact isn't as obviously true as you think. But what does that have to do with what I said? Obviously Harry Truman didn't begin the policy of support to Israel with he goal of destroying Iraq's nuclear power but I think it's clear that the investment paid off tremendously.

Apparently you have never been to Israel. Go there and have a crime committed against you. See how strongly the police officials try to get you to say an Arab committed the crime. See how you can't find out what the convicted's punishment is (so he or she can be tortured by CIA-trained Israelis).

You know, people go to foreign countries (especially Israel, which has a near-zero crime rate) without having crimes committed against them. ;-) I've been there and a lot of other countries and the Philippines is the only place I've needed the police, and the Filipinos advised me that I'd be better off without them.

As for what you're saying, I have no idea what the truth of it is. But again, I don't see where it invalidates my point. (Out of curiosity, did this actually happen to you or are you just repeating what you read goes on? My understanding is non-political crime in Israel is mostly committed by non-Arabs.)

And by the way, the CIA is involved with the Palestinians, too. It's just that the CIA supports Arafat, and Palestinians do not. The PLO is a CIA-supported, pseudo-government that doesn't care whether Palestinians have a homeland.

OK, now I'm wondering whether you've ever been there. I agree that the PLO wants the Palestinians sitting in camps as long as possible (why they walked out of Camp David) and the last thing Arab countries want is a Palestinian state. But I've spoken with Palestinian Arabs both there and here, and my impression is that support for Arafat and the PA is tremendous. And the people who don't back him are supporting Islamic Jihad and other extremists who are even less inclined to compromise.

Anyway, you know what? Yesterday wasn't about Israel -- otherwise it would have been aimed at Israel. It's looking increasingly like a fundamentalist Muslim attack on the center of the Christian world. The Israel-Palestine situation is messy enough without dragging them into this issue.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[rw2]

I have been thinking about feasible ways to prevent such acts of terrorism.

Here's one. Drag Reagan into the streets and kick the shit out of him as an example of what we do when our Presidents circumvent congress and train people like bin Laden. Bin Laden may think it's funny that we trained him, but I can think of about 280M people who find it a lot less amusing these days.

(As always, the latest news is available at Poliglut (see below))

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[Brian_Ellenberger]

I am sick and tired of reading this extremist left-wing crap on Slashdot. Get a clue!

1) This attack had nothing to do with greed and globalization. It had to do with our brave stand in supporting the Jewish people and their state. Remember them? The people who for the past several thousand years have been the object of hatred from the Babylonians to the Greeks to the Romans to the Europeans to the Russians to the Germans and many places inbetween. The Arab militiant extremists want nothing less than the annihilation of Israel and to drive every Jew into the sea! We support Israel, so they hate us and want to annihilate us. Whenever we try to negotiate with them they simply call us pigs and tell us how we deserve to die to. Israel was willing to give up pretty much everything except its existance, and that wasn't good enough for Arafat.

Not every Arab state is so bad. Egypt's government has been very reasonable (costing their president his life). There are Arabs who are reasonable. Unfortunately, with 80% of Palestinians supporting the suicide bombings in Israel (and presumably the US) the reasonable people seem to be in the vast minority

2) This corporate greed ranting is some of the most ignorant garbage I've ever heard. Those corporations are the basis of everything we have, from the computers that we are using to the food we eat. A corporation is merely a large organization structure. Nothing more. Without such structures how can you do things like organize the billion dollars to build a microprocessor facility?

Do you think government is a solution? Ha! Government is the ultimate monopoly! It is our worst nightmare---a monopoly with guns that can force you to pay money to it. At least you can choose Linux. You can bet that if the government ran OSs you would have no choice.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[suprslackr420]

McVeigh said that he was prepared to kill himself, and that he just got lucky, so he didn't have to. Of course, WE had to. Take a look at the f'ed-up things that the Christian Identity movement in america believes about "lone Wolves" such as McVeigh. They love him.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[Lonath]

Raytheon and Teledyne (among other companies) have technology that lets planes fly themselves. What could be done is to have AI that absolutely prevents airplanes from flying into certain illegal areas (like cities. :))

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[wtpooh]

I am on the mailing list of a group that advocates third-party nonviolent observers in crisis areas . Here is their press release:

Quote for the lazy: "Instead of hundreds of billions for weapons of destruction which we manufacture for ourselves and sell around the world, we should allocate hundreds of billions of dollars for feeding the world's hungry, housing the homeless, healing the sick and helping heal the wounds of war and hatred around the world. The only real security is for the United States to become a real friend of all the world's people."

For immediate release

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

We at Peaceworkers are heartbroken by the tragedies that continue to unfold in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. The depth of the violence is incomprehensible. It is a time for us to draw our loved ones close. And, it a time for us to draw close to our hearts those not immediately in our circles and to keep those who have died close in our hearts and prayers. We also hold up the families and friends who either know their loved one has died or who wait in anguished limbo. We wish strength and endurance to those police, firefighters, rescue workers, medical personnel and public officials working to save lives.

And, we ask each of us to draw close to those who will be scapegoated for these horrific acts. These acts were not carried out by an ethnic group, race of people or religion. Each of us individually and collectively, must be forthright in resisting any scapegoating or attempts to retaliate with violence.

We also call upon the United States government not to respond with violence, thus escalating the spiral of violence.

This is a time for deep reflection and grief. The horrible carnage reminds us that no amount of armaments can protect us from such violent attacks. It is a time to understand the unity of all people and to build our security based on that understanding. . Instead of hundreds of billions for weapons of destruction which we manufacture for ourselves and sell around the world, we should allocate hundreds of billions of dollars for feeding the world's hungry, housing the homeless, healing the sick and helping heal the wounds of war and hatred around the world. The only real security is for the United States to become a real friend of all the world's people.

From: Ken Butigan,
Adjunct Professor at the Franciscan School of
Theology, Berkeley; 510-533-8181
kenbutigan@paceebene.org

Nightmare and A New Beginning?

September 11, 2001. It is late afternoon. By now, it seems unnecesary to recount the facts of this unspeakable day. We know the details neither by dint of will nor by the rigors of memorization but by the molten visceral after-image burning through us in the way that one passenger plane, then another, and then still another burned through the skin of buildings and then ferociously through the flesh of the unsuspecting within.

The radio all day long repeats the facts. A troupe of airliners, three headed for California, swung away from their their appointed paths and slammed with almost impossible precision into New York City's World Trade Center and the Pentagon, buildings teeming with people even as they are (or were) fraught with economic and military power. But the facts give way to deeper realities. Just as the 110 storey twin towers at the southern edge of Manhattan seemed inconcievably to lose their shape and dissolve as they imploded before the horrified and disbelieving crowd in the street below (one news account reported that they strained their arms upward in unison as an autonomic, if futile, attempt to keep the skyscrapers from collapsing), so too do the facts seem to dematerialize.

It is not that the facts about this catastrophe are not real. Rather, they are like the ten thousand bits of debris that have blasted across the banks of the Potomac, the rugged wilderness of western Pennsylvania (where the fourth hijacked plane went down, presumably not having reached its target), and the concrete canyons of New York City.

The facts are everywhere and nowhere. They peel away to reveal the nightmare just below the surface, the landscape of endless loss and sorrow. The ashes of death are in our mouths. Laid before us is the unutterable collision of two worlds, made suddenly and irretrievably concrete in the finality of this destruction.

The nightmare is just beginning for the victims of this violence, for their families and friends. We must clearly articulate our horror and condemnation of these premeditated acts of murder. We must find, as negligible as they may be, ways to offer solace to those most directly caught in the stunning brutality spreading out from this most recent ground zero of horrific violence.

The nightmare, however, is not theirs alone. We as a nation have added this experience of violence to the long tapestry of violence that stains our history. The great danger lies in how we interpret and respond to this nightmare.

It is too early to say who perpetrated them. There will, nonetheless, likely be strenous efforts by the U.S. to retaliate. As a nation, it is critically important that we recognize that, quite likely, this nightmare is not a new one. Quite likely it is a nightmare drenched in the blood of a retaliatory cycle of violence, and that if the U.S. responds(as government war planners put it)either "proportionately" or massively" there will not only be enormous -- and likely indiscriminate-- bloodshed, it will strenuously escalate and accelerate the wheel of what has been named "redemptive violence." Unfortunately, our history as a species and as a nation painfully reveals that retributive violence is not "redemptive" at all. It does not "save" or make "secure." In fact, it increases the liklihood for new retaliation.

Now is the time for us to clamber off the wheel of violence. It is the only worthy legacy we can offer to those who died today.

To this end, I feel personally moved in more profound way that ever to recommit myself to the spiritual journey of creative nonviolence so that true justice can flourish and genuine peace can be every being's lot.

This means mourning the dead, condemning this horrific violence, but also once and for all acknowledging our own violence and justice and seeking a new path. In this most shocking moment, we have paradoxically been given a moment to desire -- and work for -- the well-being of all. Let us let the unimaginably horrific violence experienced today in the Eastern United States help us understand, in a way we perhaps have never understood before, what such "death from the skies" means, and help us to humbly acknowledge the violence we have perpetrated in this way in the past and continue to contemplate, under certain politically-defined circumstances, in the future.

Most of all, let us be transformed in light of this horror to recognize, again, that we are all one. In this moment of unspeakable fire, may we once and for all commit ourselves, in a deeply powerful way, to the path of active nonviolence for justice, love, and well being for the earth and for all its inhabitants. Let us take action so that, hope against hope, we can choose -- as Martin Luther King, Jr. implored -- nonviolence, not nonexistence.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[fjordboy]

i got this in an email..but i almost completely disagree with both of your points. I would say that even if this was true (which it is not)...saying this sort of crap in the wake of a tragedy of this magnitude causes more grief and solves NOTHING. that was a pure flame intended only to cause anger and I am dissappointed in anyone who would do this. Thank goodness the majority of americans aren't like you or else we wouldn't have the heroes that are going into the dangerous situations to rescue people.

this is the email I got.

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 tired of hearing them get
kicked around. They will come out of this thing with
their flag high. And when they do, they'll have every right to turn their
backs of the lands that are gloating over their present troubles (even
though they won't). I hope Canada is not one of those."

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[bnenning]

If these suggestions are implemented (particularly 1 and 2), a large number of people will choose to drive instead of fly. Because driving is much more dangerous than flying, this could very well increase the total number of deaths.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[SteveM]

No, these people are thinking, "Shit, now everyone is going to blame all of us right away."

This is a bit from an email from my brother as part of an ongoing discussion about yesterday's events:

I too have trouble with people looking at Middle Easterners in the US and blaming or feeling ill will toward them. I wish some high ranking government official would say, "if you blame them, then please blame all white people for Oklahoma City. Since that thought probably seems ridiculous to you, stop associating bad things with people just because they might look like people who are suspects".

I hope some high ranking official does.

Steve M

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[jiheison]

1) Do you think that Arabs would care about Israel if we had put it in our backyard instead of theirs? Lets remember that Israel is a figment of our own guilt stemming from our own history of anti-semetism. How brave of us to make up for not defending them against oppression by carving a nation out of someone elses land and propping it up with guns and a mandate to kill anyone in their way. How dare they call us pigs when we refuse to do anything about the lives and land that are illegally taken from them everyday with the weapons we supply.

2) Yes corporations are the basis of everything we have. So? Does that mean that they aren't exploitative? Are you so arrogant as to believe that the reason that American's don't live hand to mouth is because we just work harder than the rest of the world. Or that we are inherently smarter. I hate to break it to you, but your comfortable life is built on the backs or third world labor and evironmental destruction. Wake up and smell the rainforest burning. The next time you buy a cheap meal, ask yourself how many people starved to make it possible. The next time you buy anything made overseas, ask yourself who's land was stripped of resources to build it.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[Inthewire]

think about how much money it would take to keep an air marshall on every flight within the United States at any one time
OK. Let's see...instead of looking at the aggregate cost, let me look at the per flight cost. I'll assume this is an issue for any flight capable of holding 60 or more passengers...cuts out the smaller planes. These can still cause damage, but are less of a concern. I assume each flight will have a pair of agents. Each agent will be paid an average of $52,000 per year, amortized out to $1,000 per week. Aggregated and inclusive of administrative expenses, each agent pair will cost $2,500 per week. This translates to $500 per 8 hour day, $62.50 per hour. If these numbers are ANYWHERE near realistic then I'm all for it.
Of course there will be a higher cost, for training, recruiting, vacations, etc. But the direct agent and supervisory cost is in no way excessive.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[Anonymous Coward]

See how you can't find out what the convicted's punishment is (so he or she can be tortured by CIA-trained Israelis).

That is an insult. Calling the Mossad "CIA trained"? The Mossad has the best, most undetectable torture in the world that far EXCEEDS the torture capabilities of the CIA (anyone Israeli knows that). Also, crime in Israel is rarely pinned on Arabs, as Israeli-Arabs are not considered a threat.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[smallpaul]

Reign in corporate greed and globalization. As long as our bottom line takes precendence over human rights, we will be a target of (quite justifiable) rage and (condemnable) violence.

Give me a break. Do you really think that Osama is angry about GLOBALIZATION? About the hegemony of McDonald's? He's pissed about American support for Israel. He's pissed about US bases in the Middle East. He's probably pissed about the decimation of Iraq. Globalization is something North American college students get pissy about. Most of the world has real problems (AIDS, oppression, genocide) and globalization doesn't even rank.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[ansible]

Every faith has its extremist bigots who use religion as nothing more than an excuse for their acts of evil.

I think this point can't be emphasized enough.

Are the guys that bomb abortion clinics fair representitives of Christianity? No, I don't think so.

If these terrorists were in a different country, they'd probably be a different religion. That doesn't matter. They use things like religion and nationalistic pride to give credibility to their actions.

To give a computer example, these terrorists are like the little punks that write viruses. They can say that they're raising awareness about some issue, but the fact of the matter is that they get off by causing destruction. Relatively minor destruction in the case of virus-writers, but destruction just the same.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[crawling_chaos]

I'm guessing, but I'd say far less than 1/10th of the lives lost yesterday. it's time for a bulkhead and a separate exterior door for the cockpit.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[jiheison]

Most of the world has real problems (AIDS, oppression, genocide) and globalization doesn't even rank.

And what do you think is at the root of or at least a conributing factor to these problems?

Why do you think we have bases in foreign countries? To proctect the interests of American civilians?

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[q-soe]

When you post this sort of shit have the balls to use a name and email address - no im not muslim but this is the sort of simple minded and feeble crap that leads to these sort of events, this country has stodd by when Israel invaded palestine in the 70's, stood by when the friendly Shah was overthrown in, ignored Serbian mass murder, ignored Indonesian mass murder in East
Timor, etc etc

It sometimes seems like the US is the beacon of freedom and democracy but only for white christian states or those who are wealthy allies.

Maybe this is a clarion call for us to get back to reality and look at what this country does in the world and why - have any of you stopped to think a simple question---

Why do these people hate us so much ??

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[Wyatt Earp]

I think Mossad did a really good job dealing with those surviving Nazis that were involved with the Holocaust and also did a good job dealing with the Terrorists from the '72 Olympics.

I do not agree that if you try and kill them all more will spawn. The United States dealt harshly with the Barbary Coast Pirates in the early 1800s and we didn't have problems there again until the 1970s-80s.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[jcast]

May it be said by all after our response that justice was served.


Impossible.

Want a proof?

Bin Laden's (sp.?) supporters will never regard our hunting him down and executing him as ``justice''. Most people in the US will not regard anything less as ``justice''.

So, after our response, ``all'' cannot include any of Bin Laden's supporters, nor most of the US. So, we'll have to destroy them.

Bingo, justice has not been served. See any other way to do it?

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[linzeal]

Pro-life = pro all human life. (Note the period)

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[linzeal]

No. A human life can not become so degenerated of value that it is worthless except as a means for revenge and spectacle. A human that is cabale of dehumanizing the act to the ritual of capital punishment or lynch mob logic is not pro-life, not by a long shot.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[seagis]

Well said!

That's some of the most lucid commentary to surface since this shit started.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[Wolfier]

I'm opposed to nuking. However, I'd advocate liberal applications of e-bombs (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/military/ 2001/9/e-bomb/) into all big cities of the terrorists.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[rbannon]

I recall a long time ago, a comedian saying that everyone should carry a firearm on a plane. It's kind of funny, but I am sure this disaster would not have happened if everyone was well armed.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[crush]

Give me a break
OK, I'll help sort out your comprehension problems Do you really think that Osama is angry about GLOBALIZATION? About the hegemony of McDonald's?
Indirectly, yes. The "real reasons" that you cite later:
US bases in the Middle East. He's probably pissed about the decimation of Iraq
are actually surface, proximate reasons. They are the top of the chain of causes, they are the immediate spur to reaction.
But it is plausible to argue that the US is supporting the bombing of Iraq and the sanctions that murder so many innocent children, and the butchering of Palestinian innocents with US bought and made weapons and the torture, repression and murder in Central and South America precisely so that a crap, worthless product like McDonalds can be made cheap enough to be bought by gasoline-burning, wasteful consumers. This is all of course a gross simplification. But it's closer to the truth than you are.
The rest of the world's "real problems" exist so that the US and its European client states can have slave populations that are better housed, fed and entertained than the majority of the world slaves. And Bill G. and Jack Welch and Phil Knight and Dubya and all the other worthless, pointless, swine can be rich.
Get yourself a break. Construct falsifiable models of world economy and politics and then tell me that globalization is nothing to do with it.
Yesterday people died horrifically because the US elite acting in their own interests only have done similar but larger scale things all over the world.
I believe that this is wrong. I believe that capitalism is a gross, horrific abomination that produces this sort of terror. If you believe otherwise then I hold you accountable.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[Dastardly]

The above are good points, and the final point is you don't put them on every flight. You put sky marshalls on essenitally random planes, and no less than half. And, they should all be plain clothes.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[giantsquidmarks]

The same thing that was done to end global Fascism. War.

1. create a laundry list of the bad guys.
2. urge them to surrender unconditionally and submit to international justice.
3. if they refuse, find them and destroy them... don't let anyone or anything stand in your way.
4. work to minimize collateral damage, but expect it will happen.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[jiheison]

And who will enforce this? No one, because it's in our (developed countries) interests to manipulate foreign governments.

That's the point. We (developed countries) need to change our ways.

If you think that corporate greed and globalization aren't germane to this discussion, I will gladly pit my knowledge of how the world really works agains yours. Attitudes like yours are the reason why we (developed countries) are so oblivious to the animosity directed toward us and so helpless to stop it.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[nomad_monad]

If a more reasonable understanding of the topic is to be gained, then some inaccuracies in your presentation should be corrected... To the meat:

the fundamental problem in that area is that since the founding of Israel, the Arab countries have continuously devoted themselves to its destruction. I think you also have some major misconceptions regarding the nature of a "Palestinian homeland" which could be more accurately described as "whatever area happens to be under Israeli control at the moment".

Incorrect. The Oslo declarations and repeated statements by the PNA, amongst other organizations involved in the (now defunct, I suppose) peace process have strictly defined the legal boundaries of a proposed Palestinian state as the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and the portions of Israel that are beyond the "Red Line" crossed and occupied since the war of 1967. Prior to that war, that land was wholly occupied by the Palestinians and Jordanians. Of further note, though Palestinians make no claims to Western Lebanon and the Golan Heights, these are additional territories that were occupied by the IDF in the aftermath of the 1967 war. As for the statement that Arab nations are committed to its destruction, this is also inaccurate insofar as it overgeneralizes the nature of the conflict. Egypt and Jordan have signed official peace treaties explicitly accepting the premise of a Jewish state, while the sole sticking point for Syria is the unjustified and continued occupration of the Golan Heights. In terms of nation-states explicitly opposed to the very idea of a Jewish state, Iraq, Iran, and Libya are pretty much it.

If it makes you feel better, think about how much we spend on defense each year. Now think about the dollar value of the fact that Iraq didn't have nukes in 1991. Was aid to Israel cost effective?

This mischaracterizes cause and effect. To break it down: 1) Israel has nuclear weapons. Arab nations don't. As the first entrant in an arms race of weapons of mass destruction, it can appropriately be assigned causal (though not necessarily moral or ethical) blame for such an arms race. THINK: would Arab nations be in such hot pursuit of nuclear weapons if Israel did not have them??? 2) How in the world does military aid to Israel prevent the acquisition of a nuclear arsenal by Iraq? If anything, UN inspections and Allied bombings contribute (however poorly) to the nuclear-free status of Iraq. Furthermore, it's likely that aiding in the overwhelming superiority of Israel's conventional forces only further contributes to Iraq's perceived need for a nuclear arsenal. Think again.

But it's worth keeping in mind that the only country in that region in which Arabs can vote is Israel. In the rest of the area, the best they can hope for is a reasonably benign king (Morocco, Jordan) or despot (Egypt).

While it may be true that Israel is the one country where Arabs can vote, it is also the one country in the region where Arabs are categorically disenfranchised (as in disenfranchised *because* they are Arab, or maybe more accurately, disenfranchised because they are not Jewish). One need look no further than the unrelenting pace of Israeli settlements that push out Palestinians further into the hell-on-earth conditions of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Not to mention, they are *branded* as different level citizens - persons of Arab descent are required to have license plates are on their vehicles designating them as Arabs. Though they may be afforded a political right that we assign some abstract worth to, the efficacy of that right appears to be pretty much worthless on the ground.

And also that the current hostility isn't because Israel denied the Palestinians a homeland but because it offered them one.

This last statement is so lacking in historical context that it makes any claim to "knowing what you're talking about" immediately suspect. As stated above, there are clear definitions as to what constitutes an official Palestinian state, and there is no denying that the territories that Israel occupies are ones that were captured, and not returned, during a war. This conflict has been going on for decades, and it has nothing to do with Israel offering a homeland - it has everything to do with Israel refusing to provide an acceptable homeland. Discussions of such only gained serious consideration in the aftermath of the 1987 intifada uprisings. The final sticking point to these negotiations was the status of East Jerusalem, the home of numerous Islamic holy sites, and occupied by the Palestinians before the founding of Israel. The negotiations collapsed when Israel could not agree to the reasonable request that East Jerusalem (not even all of Jerusalem) be run as an international city. In sum, when it comes to the question of a Palestinian state, at every stage, Israel has been the recalcitrant party. If there is any further doubt to the completely backwards claim that you're making, think about how things would be if Israel had never offered the prospect of a Palestinian state. I guarantee you, more than the world trade centers would rubble by now.

Re: What can be done about Terrorism?

[ShadowChaser]

http://home.execpc.com/~shdwchsr/deltree.bmp

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[Desert Raven]

>>The question I would have about this is how many lives have been saved over the years because somebody was able to enter the cockpit and land the plane.

Not counting movies?

How about none, zero, zilch. Cripes, crawl out from in front of your television into the sunlight now and again.

There's a reason why there are a minimum of TWO pilots on commercial airliners.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[Desert Raven]

- It's incredibly dangerous to have any firearm on a plane, no matter who it belongs to. I don't care if you hire Chuck Norris, if a terrorist organization puts 5 of it's men on a plane, chances are they're getting that gun, or something else bad is going to happen. You don't want bullets flying around an airplane. And if you don't give the air marshall a gun, he's just another passenger, who perhaps knows a few self-defense techniques. Hardly the kind of protection you want against a terrorist with a weapon.

Idiot.

#1, Air marshals are plain clothes. You can't take away his weapon unless you know who he is. Like any other plainclothes officer, they are well trained in when and how to act efficiently.

#2, There exists (on the commercial market) ammunition that will not penetrate walls, not even cheapass apartment wallboard. They're called Glaser Safety Slugs, highly effective at short ranges, with no ricochet and no penetration of hard surfaces.

Just because you're ignorant doesn't mean the rest of us have to be.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[IronChef]

I think that you have some good ideas on cutting off the financial support.

I still support military action. Rather than rehashing my own words for the nth time, I will readers to my hopefully non-ranting essay.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[BinxBolling]

I too have trouble with people looking at Middle Easterners in the US and blaming or feeling ill will toward them. I wish some high ranking government official would say, "if you blame them, then please blame all white people for Oklahoma City. Since that thought probably seems ridiculous to you, stop associating bad things with people just because they might look like people who are suspects".

This isn't just the right attitude to take on principle, it's also a supremely pragmatic attitude. A perception that Americans hate Arabs will only make it easier for the people who masterminded yesterday's events to find new fanatics to recruit. If we allow our anger to drive us to harm innocents, we'll only strengthen the sort of anti-American sentiment that killed thousands of people, yesterday.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[EastCoastSurfer]

I saw a show on discovery awhile back that said that air marshals are already on many international flights. I want to say that the program said that if you fly internationally with any frequency that you have probably sat next to an air marshal. From the training that they showed, it looked that one marshal could easily take out 5-6 terrorists with eactly that many bullets. The program said that the primary reason that air marshals fail the qualification test is that they don't score 100% on the marksmanship test. I don't see a problem with funding placing these guys randomly on domestic flights.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[TobyWong]

Sorry to say but a lot of those "angelic acts" had alterior motives. They helped rebuild japan to ensure a military staging point close to the western european front. For every legitimate gov't they helped support there are 3 more coups they engineered or illegitimate leaders they propped up.

By lumping a pile of vastly different political situations in with what is certainly a tragedy, the author attempts to legitimize some very questinable acts. It's in poor taste to use this tragedy to push a political agenda.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[jgerman]

As an American, well a citizen of the U.S. to be exact. That is an amazing thing to read. Thank you for sharing.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[Planesdragon]

Can you provide some quotes? A reference to an online translation (or rewording, or retelling, or paraphrasing in Englsih) of the Quran / Koran / "that holy book" ?

The Islamic Faith was just as militant as Christianity, and struck out on a wave of conquest that was stopped by barbarians in Spain, of all places. More recently, we've seen Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, and the Taliban--all of which are violent anti-USA folk. We're faced with religious muslims telling us that their faith is one of peace and respect, and muslim countries showing us that it isn't.

We're also faced with Christan leaders telling us that Christianity is a religion of forgiveness, but Christian countries falling into hate.

The difference is, of course, that I can go and study the bible. I can download the KJV translation into my palm for free. I have yet to see even one printed copy of the Koran--not even a "this is what it says" chapter by chapter. I desperatly want to know and study the word of God--but until I can see it for myself, I can't elevant Islam over my own dreams by catagorizing it as the word of God.

Please respond, even if off slashdot. I read all responses to my posts, and I *will* follow and read any link you give me.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[JohnG]

"I believe that this is wrong. I believe that capitalism is a gross, horrific abomination that produces this sort of terror. If you believe otherwise then I hold you accountable."
You'd be well to remember that it was a capitalist country that gave us AC Power, Airplanes, Helicopters, Nuclear Power, Computers, Radio, Television, a large bulk of Space Travel and the resultant satellite communications networks and pretty much every other modern convienance. Let's see how well you and your family would be doing without the major medical advances made by the "evil capitalists"

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[spaceyhackerlady]

Minor factual error:

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?

Sorry, not true.

Airbus make nice planes. Many airlines use them for international flights. The A330 (2 engines) is licensed for over-water flights under similar provisions to those that apply to the Boeing 767.

...laura

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[Planesdragon]

When you post this sort of shit have the balls to use a name and email address - no im not muslim but this is the sort of simple minded and feeble crap that leads to these sort of events, this country has stodd by when Israel invaded palestine in the 70's, stood by when the friendly Shah was overthrown in, ignored Serbian mass murder, ignored Indonesian mass murder in East
Timor, etc etc

Hmm....

Israel was attacked, and has had genocide declared against it. (Plus we as Western Civilzation owe them a debt or two, thanks to the Nazis.)

Shah who?

I distincly recall going to war in Serbia, and Milosivec is on trial today thanks to us.

And the last time we went to Polynasia the entire friggin' region told us to butt out.

We'd leave the middle east alone, too, save for two real simple facts:

1: it's important to our economy that the area trade with us.

2: We have very close alies (Kuwait, Israel, Saudi Arabia) who want us there to help.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[jgerman]

That's ridiculous. I would have made the point in my first post becuase I knew that you would say that, I also knew you'd back off if I shot it down before you said it.
The fact is that you can be pro-life and feel that sacrificing yours to save the lives of many is a noble thing. It's not hard to imagine a pro-lifer who feels that it's worthy to sacrifice a few in order to save the lives of hundreds of unborn children. In fact it is a necessary conclusion for any pro-lifer to come to if the individual is seriously about saving lives.

Not that I can blame you for your mis-guided stance, members of any group like to believe that they are morally right and they would do nothing wrong, but this is simply not the case in the real world.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[Rares Marian]

Methinks you're blowing it out of proportion. You need very little planning for a hit like this. You have a target. You get people on a plane. You drop the plane. It could have been planned in a few hours.

You've been watching too many movies. It takes much more work if you're attacking a defended target, or attacking on the ground because those take more time giving your target an opportunity to evade or counter.

The World Trade Center is unprotected from the air. Nothing would have stopped that plane.

That said, it was most likely a glitch. No one has yet claimed responsibility. Attacking targets without claiming responsibility is a funny way to get people to do what you want them to do.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[Fesh]

Ok, I've been critical of the Israeli government earlier in this story, but you're way out of line here. The location that Israel was founded in is the historical home of the Jewish people. To tell them that they can have a homeland somewhere in Oregon wouldn't have cut it.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[smallpaul]

Why do you think we have bases in foreign countries? To proctect the interests of American civilians?

Not to protect the American civilians in the foreign country but to protect American interests in a geopolitical sense. Those bases were all over the world even before we had globalization as we know it. And before there were American bases all over the world there were European bases all over the world.

Countries like Japan, Germany, Saudia Arabia and Taiwan have essentially no native army. The US protects those countries because they are allies. They are allies because the share US values. Even socialist-ic (not socialist!) countries like Sweden can share US values.

The geopolitical relationship is typically more important than the fiscal one. Japan and Germany were not great trading partners when the US set up bases there. The US would kick the asses of anyone who invaded Finland -- not because of Nokia but because they have the same values as America.

All of these countries are also trading partners because the two tend to go hand in hand. And guess what: that's a good thing! People don't tend to go to war with their trading partners. Globalization prevents wars.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[JohnG]

Thank you for posting this, and for the moderators for modding it up. As an American I am disgusted by how quickly even our own people forget the American money and lives lost to help people in need. Even at a time when almost every major country is calling us a generous friend (most recently Egypt, I just heard), our own people are blaming capitalism for the tragic actions of lunatic madmen.
It is at times like these that I wish America was as devoid of freedom as those people would have you believe, so we could exile their ungrateful asses out of here.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[steffl]

well, islam was trying to forcefully expand towards europe (and other parts of the world) for ages. so don't lie to us about peaceful culture.

also, the women in real life have close to no rights in islamic countries, I don't know what koran says about this issue but that's the reality.

extremists? what about these (straight from www.islamreview.com, these are, as I understand it, quotes from koran):

"Strike terror (into the hearts of) the enemies of Allah and your enemies" Surah 8:60

"Fight (kill) them (non-Muslims), and Allah will punish (torment) them by your hands, cover them with shame" Surah 9:14

"I will instil terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them It is not ye who slew them; it was Allah" Surah 8:12, 17

frankly, I do not like a religion like that. you can, of course, like it if you want, but don't lie to me (and others) about peacefullness of it.

erik

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[mmcdouga]

This was broadcast in 1973 after the US withdrew from Vietnam. Sinclair died in 1984.

(The Europeans have started making decent planes since then.)

More information is available here.

The original text is avaiable here.

For some reason, the email version (I received one too) omits the references to China, Israel, Egypt and Nicaragua, among others.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[cancrman]

>Well, perhaps you are not aware we funded Hussein with military weapons until six months prior to the Gulf "War" because the U.S. >government supported his killing of Kurdish >rebels in northern Iraq

Bzzt. Wrong. We supported them because the former Soviet Union supported Iran. We had to pick the opposite side. End of story.

>the CIA is involved with the Palestinians, too. It's just that the CIA supports Arafat, and Palestinians do not. The PLO is a CIA-supported, >pseudo-government that doesn't care whether Palestinians have a homeland

Nice rhetoric. Got any proof? Or are the black helicopters watching your every move?

Sorry but your $.02 isn't worth a shit.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[willy_me]

This should help with hijacked aircraft:

Have an emergency button placed in the cockpit that, it pushed, would put the plane into autopilot mode and prevented the pilot from being able to do anything. The plane could just go in circles until a pilot located on the ground in a aircraft simulator could take control of the aircraft and safely land it. If for some reason the button was accidentally pressed, the ground control could release the lock on the controls to re-enable the pilots to pilot the aircraft. It wouldn't stop the aircraft from being hijacked but at least the planes wouldn't get piloted into densly populated locations.

Willy

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[BinxBolling]

It's looking increasingly like a fundamentalist Muslim attack on the center of the Christian world.

New York is the center of the Christian world? Man, what have you been smoking?

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[fjordboy]

as a disclaimer, it was an email i got. It wasn't the first time i recieved it, but i certainly found it relevant...whether timely or not. And for the most part, true. (though appearently history has changed slightly with the plane thing as one of the responses mentioned) *shrug* whether it is old or not, tis mostly true and relevant.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[macinslak]

Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than
feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish
to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person,
it is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either
must be dispensed with. Because this is to be asserted in general of
men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and
as long as you succeed they are yours entirely; they will offer you
their blood, property, life, and children, as is said above, when the
need is far distant; but when it approaches they turn against you. And
that prince who, relying entirely on their promises, has neglected
other precautions, is ruined; because friendships that are obtained by
payments, and not by greatness or nobility of mind, may indeed be
earned, but they are not secured, and in time of need cannot be relied
upon; and men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than
one who is feared, for love is preserved by the link of obligation
which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity
for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment
which never fails.

I think we all know who said this...

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[wass]

I'm getting tired of these one-sided accounts portraying Palestinians as completely innocent victims. Especially these accounts that ignore all facts prior to the last year. Israel isn't innocent either, but they're not the sole aggressor here.

They died when they were born in the West Ghaza bank, in an encampament where they were herded after the Israeli took their land.

Much like the Jews that were born in the surrounding Arab countries. The Jewish population in those countries has been nearly eradicated, through either massacres or forced expulsion. Those countries completed their ethnic cleansing, yet the world seems to forget this in light of Israel's recent actions.

The Palestinians are dying as a _group_. They are fighing a lost war: light guns against tanks, gunships, jet fighters... Israel and US together against those people.

You're also forgetting that Israel tried making peace with the Palestinians. Many times. Palestinians were offered the option of living in Israel after it's formation. Many refused and left as attacks were initiated on Israel. After Israel successfully defended itself, it didn't let it's previous attackers back in its borders. That was the first peace attempt.

Israel also endured constant attacks against it from it's neighbors for 20 years. Finally it said enough is enough and occupied some of the surrounding territory, including Jerusalem. This brings up a question - If your neighbor is trying to kill you, are you entitled to occupy their land as you drive off their attacks?

Israel also tried giving the Palestinians their own country, and even equipped and trained their police forces. You can see how well this attempt turned out.

Not to mention that the official charter of the Palestians has called for the complete destruction of Israel. Most other Arab countries refuse to recognize Israel as a legitimate country, and call it the Zionist entity.

One of Palestine's biggest problems is their leader is a terrorist, manipulating them for his own gain. Much aid money for Palestine is used for weapons and attacks against Israel, instead of internal humanitarian efforts. Arafat lets his fellow Palestinians down, as his wife is shops in fancy stores in Paris. Their children are trained to hate Israel since birth, and are encouraged to join their fellow children that were killed in Paradise.

Israel has been far more conciliatory to the Palestinians than any Arab country has been with the Israelis. If you disagree, name one Arab country that has surpassed Israel in peace and concialitory attempts.

And finally, I don't agree with Israel's war tactics, and I think Sharon has got to go. Peres, IMHO, is a much better candidate for peace, and should be the Prime Minister. However, painting the Israelis as the sole aggressor in these recent events is nowhere near an accurate portrayal of events.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[dkoyanagi]

The first thing I think we can do is stop calling this an "act of war". Although these terrorists may train in military tactics, they are not soldiers. They are murderers, pure and simple. Calling their actions an "act of war", firing missiles at their camps, etc, only makes them think that they're warriors taking on the most powerful nation on Earth. They most certainly are not. We have to see them and their actions for what they are: crimes committed by criminals. This is matter of law enforcement, not military retaliation. I don't think the U.S. military should be in the business of trying to assassinate criminal leaders. Imagine a SEAL team hit on a Mafia don. I don't think so. The perpetrators should be hunted down, arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced like criminals. We may not get the viceral satisfaction of blowing things up in retaliation, but it will put these terrorist in their place.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[jiheison]

It's the historical home of a lot of other people too. Ever heard of Muslims or Christians?

How is any other homeland going to cut it for Palestinians?

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[shimpei]

Try searching for "koran" at Amazon or something. You'll get a whole bunch of hits on English translations of the Koran. I know Penguin has a translation that my university used in some classes.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[ocie]

Interesting, What is your source for that data?

I certainly don't have any data one way or another.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[RichiP]

1) Take actions to prevent the conditions that breed terrorism and show the people of the world that we pay more than lip service to the idea of 'defending liberty'.

One thing to consider is that some of the conditions are beyond our control. Religious fanaticism is tantamount to being illogical. What we think is the "decent thing" or "common sense" to do may have no value whatsoever to some people.

Tell me ... how can we control greed in people? Assuming our own corporations start behaving humanitarianly (preposterous), do you think we could influence others? (even more preposterous)

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[smallpaul]

But it is plausible to argue that the US is supporting the bombing of Iraq and the sanctions that murder so many innocent children, and the butchering of Palestinian innocents with US bought and made weapons and the torture, repression and murder in Central and South America precisely so that a crap, worthless product like McDonalds can be made cheap enough to be bought by gasoline-burning, wasteful consumers.

People go to war because they either have different beliefs or want each other's land. The Palestinians both have different beliefs than the Israelis and the two want the same land. I don't see what this has to do with globalization at all. Israel and Palestine could both drop off the face of the earth without affecting the United States' GDP. If the US was really interested in the money it would do well to side with the Arabs (with the oil) rather than the Israelis with their relatively worthless bit of desert. People went to war before there was globalization for the same reason they go to war now. What was the gross domestic product of Israel when the US became an ally. Probably $0

This is all of course a gross simplification. But it's closer to the truth than you are. The rest of the world's "real problems" exist so that the US and its European client states can have slave populations that are better housed, fed and entertained than the majority of the world slaves.

Oh sure, the western world caused AIDs and globalization is the root of the constant infighting in Africa. It has nothing to do with the results of pre-globalization imperialism. It has nothing to do with the aftermath of the cold war. It has nothing to do with the arbitrary borders drawn by notorious "globalizers" like 1950s Belgium and Holland.

Get yourself a break. Construct falsifiable models of world economy and politics and then tell me that globalization is nothing to do with it.

Globalization has nothing to do with it. People have constructed excuses to kill each other for thousands of years. The killing reached its height years before globalization was a term or an idea. If you call any inter-state commerce "globalization" then okay, globalization has been around almost as long as war but if you use a more reasonable generation then you can't blame globalization for the world's fucked-up-ed-ness.

Yesterday people died horrifically because the US elite acting in their own interests only have done similar but larger scale things all over the world.

People died horribly yesterday because the US is involved in a fight with people who are very desperate. Globalization or not, that can only be avoided by withdrawing from the world stage. That withdrawl would be a license to monsters all over the world to follow in the footsteps of Rwanda and Cambodia. The US needs to be more engaged in the world, not less. But there may be blow-back. It's the price of getting involved.

I believe that this is wrong. I believe that capitalism is a gross, horrific abomination that produces this sort of terror. If you believe otherwise then I hold you accountable.

Go ahead. Even today, I would much rather live in New York city than in a city in any of the countries practicing alternatives to democratic capitalism: Havana, Beijing, Pyongyang. Do you have a proposed alternative or are you just "fighting the machine", "getting back at the man" and all that other stuff that is appropriate to rebellious youth?

Would you rather live in mainland China or Hong Kong/Taiwan? East Germany or West? South Korea or North?

You know what they need in Africa, and Afghanistan and every place in the world where people are oppressed? They need democractic capitalism. We've done the experiment over and over again and we know the results. You are just cruel if you want to subject some poor people to yet another alternate system. I'm a left leaning liberal but I'm not naive enough to still believe we should be pursuing some alternate system.

Maybe once we've wiped out poverty and AIDs we'll have the bandwidth to experiment with alternate systems but right now we need to get those people good jobs, good homes and enough purchasing power that they can buy some influence over their own governments.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[Wavicle]

According to Godwin's law, you just lost.

Next time try arguing the point.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[wass]

Having said that, perhaps the U.S. should think twice about supporting and funding Israel's occupation and methodical elimination of the Palestinian homeland.

It's clear that you've been raised on either propaganda or have no knowledge of events before the last few months. Ask yourself:

• Who started the intifada, Israel or Palestine? (Either recently or back many times throughout history)
• Who repeated tried putting peace offers on the table?
• Who's official charter calls for the complete destruction of the other's country?
• Who rejoices and who mourns when casualties occur on the other side?
• Which group can walk on the other's soil without being indiscriminatly attacked?
• Which country's people lynch those they suspect have been helping the other?
• What Arab country wouldn't respond with equal or more force if their police and soldiers are attacked by rock throwers, much less machine guns?
• Which country allows all its citizens (regardless of religion) to vote?
• Which country attacks only those which it views as specific threats and directly attack it?
• Which country attacks random civilians and rejoices if those civilians die?
• Which country teaches it's children to HATE the other?
• Which country distributes blatantly false propaganda against the other?

It's no surprise that the Middle East region all refers to Israel as the 51st state of the USA.

If Israel is the 51st state, then Palestine is the Nth state of the Arab world. They get money boatloads of money and munitions from their surrounding Arab countries, why is that any different?

I wish influential American Jews would do more to push for moderation in Israel and for US separation from the issue.

And I wish influential Arabs and Muslims would do more to push for moderation in Palestine, and Arab separation from the issue.

Just recently the UN discussions used some 'heated' words to describe Israel's policies (racist, etc) and both Israel and the US walked out of the talks. Why is condemnation of Israeli policy an insult to the US?

It was an insult because Israel was singled out from all other countries. EVERY Arab country was against Israel, while nearly all of them are just as guilty of the same racist tactics they accuse Israel of. The US and much of the EU was insulted by seeing a conference aimed to prevent racism and hatred become dominated by those very qualities.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[Crixus]

The Oslo declarations and repeated statements by the PNA, amongst other organizations involved in the (now defunct, I suppose) peace process have strictly defined the legal boundaries of a proposed Palestinian state as the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and the portions of Israel that are beyond the "Red Line" crossed and occupied since the war of 1967. Prior to that war, that land was wholly occupied by the Palestinians and Jordanians.

Correct.

And there has been a UN resolution demanding that Israel return all illegally obtained land since the early 1970's.

Interesting how the US didn't enforce that resolution, but was quick to enforce the UN resolution against Iraq in 1991.

Rich...

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[lytefoot]

Hear, hear, jiheison! And I have a logical distinction between "corporate greed" and "individual greed".

An individual is bound by his conscience, by the social contract, and by the law. A corporation's only moral obligation is to further its bottom line.

If an individual kills to further his greed, he is, at least in theory, caught, and when caught, punished severely. If a corporation kills to further its greed (by poisoning the earth, placing its employees in unsafe conditions, selling ultimately fatal products (I'm considering cigarettes, here)) it gets off with a slap on the wrists. Like a military action, a corporation's quest for profit has a certain "acceptable" threshold of civilian casualties.

A corporation, legally, is not held to the same standards as an individual. Morally, the standards SHOULD be the same. This is why you hear so much about "corporate greed".

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[JohnG]

Oh you are absolutely correct, we should all be in horse drawn buggies and dying of Small Pox and Polio. MUCH sarcasm intended.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[Tsujigiri]

I'm not sure when this was originally written (or broadcast). But I would like to point out the efforts of the Australian Firefighters during the recent forest fires in the US. Many Australian CFS (country fire service) personel went to the US to lend their considerable expertise in fighting bush fires to help stop the blazes (in california??).

I know it's not much compared to the rest of that article, but it is a small token of thanks from a small burgeoning country.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[Fesh]

"My watch passes metal detectors without causing a blip..."

Which I think is damned funny, because I can't go throught the metal detectors in Jackson, Mississippi without being wand-searched because the metal in my shoes and in the button on my jeans sets the thing off every time. Why do they set them so sensitive in the sticks but ignore the problem in more densely populated (and highly threatened) areas?

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[einhverfr]

I absolutely agree with you. However, I would also add a few points.

We have to stop training foreign resistance fighters.

If we wage a land-war in Afghanistan, that would be a BAD thing and might require occupying Iran. Is that something that we as Americans want to commit to given the Soviets' failure in that area?

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[zama]

Mod this guy UP!

Lemme preface my own response with the fact that I am not an expert, and that I'm at work and haven't had the chance to look up everything. However:

I really, really, really hate to have to be a cynic at a time like this. But... it's not like we did all the things that Sinclair mentions out of generousity, there was blatent self-interest. The same time we were propping up the French government we were preparing to overthrow the prime minister of Iran. After we "pumped billions of dollars into discouraged countries" should we be surprised that "newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent, war mongering Americans" when you realize how much of that American money went into the pockets of brutal totalitarian regimes? Suharto, Saddam Hussein, Noriega, etc, etc... While we forgiving international debts we were arming and indebting various middle eastern factions against the Soviet Union. Many of the same factions that now hate the US for abandoning or manipulating them. Hell, we trained many of them. It's not like these people just started hating us for no reason whatsoever. We're reaping the rewards of about 60 years of a really nasty foreign policy in the Middle-East.

I don't want to be the bad guy when we need to be united - but what I hope comes out of this tragedy is a better understanding among American citizens as to why a sizeable portion of the world hates them. I hope to see guilt and redemption, not self-congradulatory patriotic pandering - we are not nor have ever been a "Good Neighbor". But it's about time we were.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[Planesdragon]

thanks. I'll keep looking for an online version, but when I get some free cash I'll buy a copy.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[LordNimon]

The current Palestenian terrorism was all sparked by an Israeli official visiting a Holy site, holy to both Jewdaism and Islam.

And then said, "Hey, this would be a great place for a Jewish temple!" (paraphrased from reports I heard at the time). Apparently, there was only a mosque there.

But I agree, the Palestinians are just too volatile.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[tfreport]

That article is from the 1970s from a dead author. So how about moding it down.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[GMontag451]

Please give an example of a non-capitalist country that was in a wealthy enough position to have a significant portion of their workforce have enough free time to be inventors during the times these things were being created. And to quell your next argument, please give an example of a non-capitalist country that started out with the wealth of natural resources that the US did which enabled it to become the economic ruler of the world.

Without these examples, you have no basis for assuming that the economic philosophy of a country affects in any way the wealth, and therefore inventiveness, of that country. Your thought experiment doesn't have adaquate controls.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[ChuyMatt]

You are beautiful. Thank you for making my point a bit more eloquently than I would have, sans expletives.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[bananabruce]

No japanese were interned until the latest stages
of the war . The people in the California camps
were Americans , many of which had served in the
armed forces of the United States in the first
world war . Many of the internees volunteered for
combat in the second world war, for a country which imprisoned their families . They served in Europe . Americans should never be interned without due process of law , regardless of race .
We should remember our enemy is bin lauden , not
because he believes in Islam , but because he has
killed American civilians .

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[zama]

I think coping with the bad guys when they are terrorizing America is fix and not a solution. This has to have some sort of root cause - you do not become the Great Satan for no reason whatsoever. (And if the only reason you can think of is Israel then please keep your mouth shut. I am not in the least an expert in the Middle East but I do know for a fact that there is a lot more to this antagonism than just Israel.)

I get the feeling that Bin Laden is like Edison. Edison invents the lightbulb among other things and is a genius for it, but at the same time, he's completely irrelevant. There were 20 other people on the immediate verge of inventing it and hundreds not far behind. The lightbulb was the product of numerous social, cultural, political, and economic events - it just manifested with Edison first. I think Bin Laden or whoever is the same thing - a manifestation of something bigger and deeper.

Yes, somehow or another the immediate threat needs to be dealt with but I suspect America is reaping what it's sown in it's Middle-Eastern foreign policy. An accumulation of resentment from being pawns in the Cold War, of having leaders overthrown and politics manipulated behind the scenes, Israel, etc... Probably much more. I'm sure the inequalities of wealth don't help. When I was travelling in Turkey for a month, I kept noticing how jealous they were of American wealth - and not nearly so jealous as the politicians who are mind-bogglingly corrupt and make fortunes at their expense! (note: that is no excuse for global inequalities of wealth) I can only imagine how that perception could be further misdirected in a less-democratic environment.

Otherwise - yes. I agree that pilot/pilot's compartment shouldn't be so accessable. Banks have armed guards, why not planes? In fact, why not give the flight attendants tasers or something? It'd also help with obnoxious drunks on the flight too.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[Pig Hogger]

1. Ban *all* carry-on luggage.
2. Pass *all* passengers through metal detectors and pat downs.

Naaah, just force every passenger to travel naked.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[averylowiq]

You can find at least three versions of English translation of the Quran at this site:

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/

Remember the different translation are for the same Arabic version so only their wording will be different, some more understandable than others.

If you provide an email and are interested I can do some research and send you specific verses about peace and harmony amoung human being as taught by Islam and its teachings. But for that you will have to directly write me an email.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[itch]

Hmm.. Isn't funny how Americans never hear about how other countires that help them out, or do they just forget easliy?

As an Australian I can think of several events, where Australians have gladly put their lives on the line for US causes during war, and we even sent out our elite fire fighters to help out the USA during their recent bush fires. And ofcourse USA has been there for us similar situations, such as the recent East Timour incident.

Its just what allies do for each other.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[patiwat]

> 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?

Nothing wrong with chearing a hurt neighbor, but the facts are way wrong.

Hasn't he ever heard of Airbus, the European aerospace consortium? Don't they make some mighty fine planes, like the A330, which is equivalent to, if not superior to, the Boeing 747? Even Air Canada buys from Airbus. Airbus is owned by EADS, which is a partner in the ISS and makes some extremely advanced fighter aircraft.

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

And a great achievement, one to be remembered till the end of human history. No denying that America was and is a great country. But belittling the achievements of others and mis-stating facts to further arguments will get you nowhere, and will even increase the scorn that many people feel torwards America.

Patiwat Panurach
patiwat@-nospam-.mit.edu

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[einhverfr]

Give me a break. Do you really think that Osama is angry about GLOBALIZATION? About the hegemony of McDonald's? He's pissed about American support for Israel. He's pissed about US bases in the Middle East. He's probably pissed about the decimation of Iraq. Globalization is something North American college students get pissy about. Most of the world has real problems (AIDS, oppression, genocide) and globalization doesn't even rank.

No, but I think that globalism is one of the things that brings him supporters. Get rid of the systemic problems and go after the terrorists. THat way more terrorists don't step in to fill the void.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[Fesh]

We're not talking population densities anywhere near what we have here in the U.S. or in other major cities around the world. What part of the word "share" do they not understand?

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[astr0boy]

my friend got a translation at the local book store... its an interesting read (especially if you have read the bible)

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[einhverfr]

I cite the Barbary Coast 1797-1806 and the German Spy threat in the United States and UK from 1939-1945 as examples of this working.

Only works when the enemy is motivated by greed or "duty," not by sense of hatred or ideology. I cite German attempts to crush the Maquis (French Resistance, WWII) as a counter-example.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[Planesdragon]

just fixed the slashdot prefs to allow contacting me. Should work.

dagondge&nycap,rr,com

:) slashcode sure is fun. Don't forget to de-obfuscate it.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[sid_vicious]

Any other suggestions?

Well, as far as onboard planes --

* Blast doors separating pilots from passengers.

* Time-controlled locks on the doors between pilots and passengers (I have heard that one pilot was lured out by the killing of passengers).

* Reduce or eliminate carry-on luggage, and institute *frequent* random bag checks on all luggage.

* Provide uniformed guards with weapons at the door to the cockpit.

* In addition to the uniformed guards, guarantee at least one plainclothes armed officer on board every flight.

* Consider -- and before yesterday, believe me, I would **NEVER** have thought such a thing -- retinal scans as passengers enter the plane itself to guarantee they are who they say they are. Force passengers to submit to a retinal scan before being allowed aboard ANY plans, similar to how we force them to get passports now for international flights.

*Sigh*.. I know how people will react to these suggestions, but believe me, I'm not flame-baiting. The plane that departed from Dulles took off from an airport ten minutes from my house. I am genuinely scared to get on a plane flight within the United States now, and nothing short of... well, basically Marshall Law is going to get me on one any time in the near future. I just keep thinking that it could have been me staring out the window of one of those planes as it headed for its fate...

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[speederaser]

Hmmm... wasn't it somewhere around what is now Iraq or Iran where Genghis Khan got so pissed off he killed every man, woman, child, and domestic animal in an entire country? I'm sure a whole host of internal problems were "solved" with that approach.
What's going on now in the Middle East is, in a nutshell, High-Tech Easy-going Society meets Dark Ages Religious-fanatic Society. That there is friction should surprise no one.

Let's hope both of these societies can grow up enough to avoid a modern repeat of the Genghis Khan Maneuver.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[darkonc]

It's worth some meditation that after Oklahoma, some people were quick to hunt down any Muslim to vent their anger against -- but when it turned out to be McVeigh, they didn't even THINK about taking their anger out against the nearest Christian, or American, or Vet.

I think it's because when painting with a wide brush threatens to paint ourselves, we're quicker to separate the extremists from the general population. Just like most Americans, Christians and Vets didn't agree with McVeigs actions (even those who agreed with his complaints), most Muslmims and palestinians disagree with the actions of the terrorists (even if they share the anger and/or pain).

BTW: Islam has strict rules against the killing of non-combatants -- especially women and children. In that context, most Muslims are horrified that these kinds of attacks could take place in the name of their religion.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[Neil Rubin]

Not to protect the American civilians in the foreign country but to protect American interests in a geopolitical sense. Those bases were all over the world even before we had globalization as we know it. And before there were American bases all over the world there were European bases all over the world.

This is an important point. Globalization is certainly not new. The amount of trade in material goods has not changed very significantly in the last century. It went down a lot during the wars, but otherwise has not changed that much. You doubt me? The effects of trade have been tremendous for centuries--slaves, weapons, gold, luxury items... For evidence that trade has been tremendously important for a long time, you need look no further than 1929 and the depression which spread through almost the entire world.

What has changed, is the greatly increased importance of multinational corporations.

Countries like Japan, Germany, Saudia Arabia and Taiwan have essentially no native army. The US protects those countries because they are allies. They are allies because the share US values. Even socialist-ic (not socialist!) countries like Sweden can share US values.

Pardon me for being blunt, but your first sentence here is terribly ignorant. World defense budgets(1997, in USD billions):

• 1. U.S. - 267.1
• 2. Russia - 71.0
• 3. France - 47.2
• 4. Japan - 44.5
• 5. Germany - 39.2
• 6. China - 38.0
• 7. United Kingdom - 33.5
• 8. Italy - 23.8
• 9. South Korea - 15.5
• 10. Taiwan - 13.6
• 13. Israel - 9.6

World active troop strengths (1997, thousands)

• 1. China - 2840
• 2. U.S. - 1448
• 3. Russia - 1240
• 4. India - 1145
• 16. France - 381
• 17. Taiwan - 376
• 18. Germany - 347
• 24. Japan - 236
• 26. United Kingdom - 214
• 29. Israel - 175

Source: World Almanac and Book of Facts 1999. These figures do not tell the whole story, but the overall picture is pretty clear. What would you say if I told you "Countries like the United Kingdom and Israel have essentially no native army."

The geopolitical relationship is typically more important than the fiscal one. Japan and Germany were not great trading partners when the US set up bases there. The US would kick the asses of anyone who invaded Finland -- not because of Nokia but because they have the same values as America.

All of these countries are also trading partners because the two tend to go hand in hand. And guess what: that's a good thing! People don't tend to go to war with their trading partners. Globalization prevents wars.

This is a common claim, but it demonstrably false. Large-scale international trade did not stop two world wars. In fact, one could argue that the second world war in the pacific was largely caused by trade relationships. It was after the U.S. (then the largest oil producer) cut off exports to Japan that the Japanese decided they needed to take the oil fields of Malaya and Indonesia and that conflict with the U.S. was inevitable.

Your argument reminds me of one from the New York Times Editorial writer Thomas Friedman--I think he called it the "Big Mac effect" or something. He pointed out that no two countries with McDonald's have ever gone to war. He then had to come up some way to explain away the McDonald's in Belgrade...

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[alfredo1]

The problem are the comunist .Yes the comunist ,

when the USA had competition ,the best thing that

could happen to a lot of countries was to go to

war with the USA and lost .Then the USA will

impose capitalism in this country and a few years

in the future you will have a Japan or a Taiwan

who will be rich countries with educated people

,who will be allies of the USA .

Since the competition dissapear ,the USA in the

last 12 years ,it only bombard the enemies

countries ,not imposing his economic system

and this poor countries ,with poor people ,

are the ideal of the terrorist .

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[artemis67]

Here's a newsflash for ya... In case you haven't heard, almost everything that humans do have an "alterior motive".

But are we evil for trying to export democracy, capitalism, and human rights? Whether or not we had an alterior motive in doing these things, it was doubtless the right thing to do.

And why do we support questionable leaders and oppressive regimes? Simple, we're trying to effect change, and we have to start somewhere. We can't just waltz into some third-world country with a leader we just hand-picked from the graduating class of Georgetown University and say, "Ok, we Americans have chosen a new leader for you people! Follow this guy!" Sure, we'd love to be able to do something even remotely close to that, but that's just not realistic. We have to work with governments, peoples and cultures where they are at. And no, we can't just simply erect a wall to the rest of the world and say, "Ok, when all you people clean up your act, then we'll do business with you!"

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[cyrushomi]

It occurred to me in a discussion (and I apologize if this has been mentioned) that this act could likely be conceived an act of information warfare. The only things that can be widely considered weapons in this case (if the present stories bear any truth) are the knives or hand held weapons used to forcibly hijack the aircraft. Everything else was a matter of knowing and timing what would otherwise be daily actions into a sequence of horrible events. Though I offer no solutions, I say this primarily in response to the piecemeal and technological solutions offered as a means of preventing this from happening again, since I hope the preventative measures can be implemented through an evaluation of the national conscience with respect to our foreign policy and practice. Those within American leadership seem in this case much more willing to accept the loss of hundreds or thousands of innocent civilians in the course of retalition than they are willing to accept the comparitively few judicial mistakes resulting in the death penalty. I simply don't think we are equipped to handle terrorism in any manner that can be considered just at this point. I think that we, if we consider ourselves leaders in this world, should demonstrate as much through a lack of military response.

Please write your congresspersons, please give blood and please continue to post about what can be done for those suffering.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[fault0]

Yeah, but most other components are designed in Taiwan. And made in China and Malaysia.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[Apocros]

They helped rebuild japan to ensure a military staging point close to the western european front.

ummm... i'm not particularly interested in debating the merits/motivations for the american government's actions (or lack thereof) throughout the world. but, your statement (quoted above) really leads one to believe that you are merely spouting inflamatory rhetoric or are quite misinformed about a great many things in this world.

put simply, japan is probably one of the last places that anyone would choose as "a military staging point close to the western european front." and i'm afraid that statement is really too far off-base to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[galego]

So...do you really believe everything was done to get something out of it? Are you just someone that has to find fault no matter what happens? I bet you'd find fault America was wrong if they didn't help...

At least some good was done. And if America is so bad...why don't you go try living somewhere else smart guy! Even better if you already do...

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[Arandir]

Cool! Quoting phrases out of context from an anti-islam site! Let me join in!

On veils:

that they should draw their veils over their bosoms, Surah 24:31. Note that the complete passage here says nothing about veils over the face, but does forbid dressing in a deliberately provocative manner. The previous verse also admonishes *men* to guard their modesty as well. I can find no references to veils needing to be worn over the face.

On murder:

nor kill (or destroy) yourselves: for verily Allah hath been to you Most Merciful! If any do that in rancour and injustice, soon shall We cast them into the fire: and easy it is for Allah., Surah 4:29-30.

On foreigners:

Serve Allah, and join not any partners with Him; and do good to parents, kinsfolk, orphans, those in need, neighbours who are near neighbours who are strangers, the companion by your side, the way-farer (ye meet) and what your right hands possess: for Allah loveth not the arrogant, the vainglorious., Surah 4:36

And about your quotes: Immediately AFTER your first quote is written:

But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is the One that Heareth and Knoweth (all things)., Surah 8:61.

From context, your second quote clearly refers to those who have broken oaths: Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths and initiated the aggression, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is Allah Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe!, Surah 9:11

As for Islamic women, I lived next door to one that went out in public daily with normal everyday American clothing, and used a bikini when at the beach. Perhaps you are confusing religion with culture, because she was not arab or Persian, but Turkish.

Don't get me wrong, I am not Islamic, and I have extreme opposition to it on theological grounds. But as a moral code it ranks among the best. One big problem with Islam, and which tends to cause extremism in some cases, is the deliberate joining of spiritual and secular authority. In other words, they do not believe in the separation of church and state.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[tjb]

"How in the world does military aid to Israel prevent the acquisition of a nuclear arsenal by Iraq? "

During the early 80's, I believe, Iraq was building a nuclear reactor. Israel promptly destroyed it. Iraq has yet to try again (as far we know).

Tim

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[update()]

Obviously, this is a complicated issue that's can't be addressed thoroughly in a Slashdot thread. But to hit a few of your points:

Re: Acceptance of Israel -- You're talking about today, while I was trying to give some context to the original poster's notion that Mideast politics consisted entirely of Jews arriving out of nowhere and kicking Arabs off their land. Isral has been under constant attack since its founding, by Syria, Egypt and Jordan. Some of those neighbors have accepted the reality of Israel's existance (or at least their inability to destroy it). I think you're naive about Syria's intentions, though, and I'd point out that Palestinian Authority-approved textbooks don't have Israel on the map.

Re: Iraqi nukes -- First of all, Iraq doesn't have nuclear weapons today because Isral destroyed their reactor, getting deplored by the world for its trouble. Second, I don't see any reason why Saddam wouldn't be interested in nukes, biological or chemical weapons regardless of what Israel has.

Re: Citizenship -- So you're saying Arabs are better off as subjects of a king or a lunatic than they are as citizens with full civil rights as a religious minority in the Jewish homeland? The scary thing is that they would probably agree, which is why the problem is so intractable.

By the way, I can't outright say you're wrong about the license plates, but I'm _very_ skeptical you've got that right. West Bank and Gaza Arabs who decline Israeli citizenship probably do have different tags than citizens but that citizens have their ethnicity published that way? I _really_ hope you've got that right because otherwise it's a deeply offensive misstatement.

Re: Current hostility -- Hey, it's a Slashdot post and I do realize that's a glib oversimplification. But note the word _current_. The current round of hostility did in fact come around not because of Israel's recalcitrance but when the Israeli government made an unprecedented gesture of concession. I find it hard to draw any lesson from that other than that it's everything (or at least complete control of Jerusalem) or nothing as far as the Palestinians are concerned.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[Squeeze Truck]

I don't think the solution would be that hard. All we need to do is simply close the border to all nationals of Arab countries that are suspect. All Americans of Arab descent may stay, of course (they are citizens), and Arabs who are here legally for legitimate purposes may stay for the duration of their visas.

This may seem to many to be racist policy, but it really isn't. It is nationalist policy. It is our right as a American citizens, whatever our ethnic background, to decide who can come here and who cannot.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[fault0]

yeah, and the crusaders not only killed other christians but also muslims and jews. talk about a peaceful religion there.

why can't we stick to (usually) peaceful and non-monotheistic religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism? :)

I think that most monotheistic religions that have started in the middle east, such as Judism, Christianity, and Isalm, are all pretty much militant for parts of their history.

As for the peacefulness of Islam, I'd point to Muslim Spain. They had the greatest cities in Europe (other than Istambul, which was also Muslim). They were full of Universities, Schools, etc.. They were among the most civilizaed socieites at that time. This of course, until the Barbaric Catholic Christians launched a reconqusita and forced all the Muslims to convert.

Of couse, the Muslims did the same in much of the middle east, especially in Persia with the Zoroastrians.

So to sum this post up, none of the middle eastern monotheistic religions are peaceful at all times. This includes Judism, Christianity, and Islam.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[smallpaul]

No, but I think that globalism is one of the things that brings him supporters. Get rid of the systemic problems and go after the terrorists. THat way more terrorists don't step in to fill the void.

The systemic problem is that after WWII a bunch of Europeans were given land in the Middle East and the people who were there are understandably pissed. If you have a solution to this problem that doesn't require the removal of either group, then I would love to hear it. Nobody else seems to. Globalization is irrelevant.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[hysterion]

Countries like (...) Saudia Arabia (...) are allies because the share US values.

I'll assume you mean the Saudi monarchy here, and invite you to think over what you have written. To the extent that this is true, it's rather sadly true.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[VivianC]

This may seem to be a stupid question, but I've really been wondering this for a long time:

What is wrong about supporting Israel?

As far as I can tell, they deserve a country as much as anyone else does. Israel was at least a country at one time. Palestine was a Roman territiory and most recently a British colony. Why don't any of the Arab nations want these Palestinian people?

Skip the rest of my questions and just tell me why we should let Israel be overrun and the Jews slaughtered.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[fault0]

Christians have had their militant-in-the-name-of-religion past too. Think about the Spanish in the reconquista. Think about the crusaders. Think about the conquistadors. Think about the imperialists. Hell, think about the Americans nearly decimating the Native Americans in the territory of the United States (a lot of tribes were lost, and all of them shrunk in size by a lot).

As for predominatly Muslim countries which have/had peaceful relations with the rest of the world, look at Turkey. They've even had a women head of state this decade.
Another _was_ Pakistan. Although they are in the shitter right now.
Another _was_ Iran (f.m.a. Persia). They were quite open until 1979. Well, actually, the Shah was prolly not moderate. He was very pro-Western, which tends to piss of Converatives in countries. It'd be like if suddenly, the US had an autocrat who was extremely liberal, legalized all drugs, legalized homosexual marriages, etc.. I'd guarentee that there'd be a revolution by the countless number of Conservate Christians living in this country.
Another is Bangladesh. They have a women head of state.
Another is Indonesia.
I'm sure there are countless more.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[nolesrule]

Uh, no it's not. It's a religious center for the Christians because of Jesus, not a homeland. Christianity itself is much more European in its birth. The Muslims built a mosque there as a way to desecrate the site that once was the Temple. The Muslim holy cities are Mecca, Medina and Damascus.

And besides, check your timeline. The Christians and Muslims showed up 1000-1500 years after the Hebrews had created a nation-state from the land.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[Pulzar]

Apparently, the article was originally written just after the Vietnam war. There was no Airbus, then, and the trip to the moon was still fresh in people's memories.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[averylowiq]

I just did the same, now my email address should be visible as well.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[Arandir]

Polytheistic religions aren't must better in terms of violence: Romans, Greeks, Vikings, Mongols, etc.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[smallpaul]

This is an important point. Globalization is certainly not new. The amount of trade in material goods has not changed very significantly in the last century.

If the amount of trade is your measure of globalization and that hasn't changed very much then we aren't "globalizing" are we? We're maintaining our level of globalization. Do you want us to roll back to 19th century levels of trade? Is that what the protests are about? If this isn't your measure of globalization then why do you raise it?

What has changed, is the greatly increased importance of multinational corporations.

So is this "increased power of multinational corporations" globalization or not? Is amount of trade globalization? If not, why did you mention it? You give me your definition and we can work from there. Can you perhaps explain how the "multinationals" are at the bottom of all of these problems in the Middle East?

Pardon me for being blunt, but your first sentence here is terribly ignorant.

Fair enough. I was wrong. It really doesn't demonstrate anything about globalization. The US has bases in allied countries. That predates the "rise of multinationals" by many decades. The US does not have bases in the countries it has the most trade with (the "defending the profits" theory). It has bases in particular countries for historical reasons.

This is a common claim, but it demonstrably false. Large-scale international trade did not stop two world wars.

You're right. The essential links are democracy and capitalism. What two democractic, capitalist countries have fought a major war against each other?

Anyhow, it is very easy to swing sticks at strawmen. Globalization is an especially easy one because the "bad guys" are corporations. What are you proposing as an alternative? Cessation of trade? Outlawing of multinationals? Tobin tax?

Democratic caplitalism has solved more problems than it has caused and that is much more than can be said for competing systems. If you want to tweak the system, by all means, let's do so. But if you're going to argue against the whole thing you'll have to demonstrate that there is a deep problem and present an alternative that solves it.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[VivianC]

I saw this somewhere a long time ago but I think it is an appropriate measure. They say that you can't stop a suicide bomber because they are such fanatics. The Islamic bombers have been promised that they would be martyrs and go directly to heaven. Each person they kill will be their slave in the afterlife. This is what their religion teaches and they fully believe it. So let's use it against them!

Let's get the bodies and parts in PA identified. The hijackers remains should all be put in steel drums but make sure to fill them only half way. Next, in a large televised event, fill the other half of the barrel with pig remains and excrement. Seal the drums and dump them in the ocean.

You see, according to their religous beliefs, this process will make them forever unclean and keep them from entering heaven. You have just effectively revoked their martyr status. And the best part is, if you hit innocent people with the pig parts, they can wash it off, fast and become clean again.

Let's see how they deal with that little bit of terror.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[TedSbar]

During the crusades the Islamic communities of Asia Minor and the Middle East supported and harbored Jewish and Christians from the barbarian Europeans. awww This is a nice story It was a Moderate Muslim country Turkey that killed millions of Orthodox Christians during the early 20th century. Whole cities were slaughtered and disappeared. That a few Muslims would feel sympathy for Christians is hopeful but the religion teaches that anyone who does not believe Muhammad is not worth anything anyway, a dog, woof woof. What he was saying is the same thing that any white Southerner would say about jim crow and slavery. What my grandmother says - oh we had slaves in our family but they were treated better than anyone else did. Islam is not like Christianity it is much more homogenous and intolerant of dissention. It is after all a Christian heresy and one of the ways the people who made it differentiated it from Christianity is that they turned from a love for humanity and a need for a spiritual and mystical growth and replaced it with hatred and distrust for anyone else who did not believe as they do, and hope of deferred lust. This is true no matter how much poetry and mathmatics there is basically no theology to Islam. It is shameful that American Muslims would try to distance themselves when they should be looking at the way their religion treats people. We live in a place that does not need Islam We are not Arab or need a highly structured, misogynistic culture to support. It is simply not nessasary

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[smallpaul]

Thank you for pointing out this contradiction. I should write slower and think more. Saudia Arabia has strategic value from a geopolitical standpoint (as they proved in the Gulf War). They also obviously have financial value. This has nothing to do with any kind of recent phenomenon called "globalization" that involves trashing McDonald's and breaking down the doors at trade summits.

If anything, globalization would work against the Saudi monarchy because foreign companies who want to invest would like to know that that their investments are protected by laws and not subject to the whims of King's sons. Unfortunately Saudi Arabia has enough financial clout to dictate the rules. I highly doubt that Saudi Arabia is a very "globalized" country in the sense of a country where many important businesses are owned by outsiders and where insiders have substantial assets elsewhere.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[Salis]

Taken from 'The Prince' eh? Machiavelli would be proud.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[DunbarTheInept]

The article to which you are responding was written in 1973 - before the advent of Airbus planes.

Granted, that wasn't made clear. The spam of this broadcast, while it might seem timely today, should have been accompanied by the explicit mention that it was NOT written recently.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[istartedi]

This act was obviously planned by a close and disciplined group. Such groups need money to operate

Wow! It just occurs to me... There was money to be made (by the terrorists) through short selling. I hope the financial institutions involved can dilegently investigate any suspicious short sales in the days leading up to this attack.

This just occured to me. I hope it is not just occuring to the investigators. Large short sales of insurance companies and other businesses housed in the WTC could lead us straight to the terrorist "network".

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[Zero Sum]

>1) I don't think you can effectively defend the liberty of others. They've really got to do it for themselves.

That can be a bit hard when the CIA is willing to conive the overturn of your government (Australia 1975)

>2a) How? How can you "reign in corporate greed"? How can you reign in greed? Is "corporate greed" worse than "regular old greed"? How do you provide incentives for the non-greedy? Award the blue ribbon to the second place contender, or the guy who comes in last?

>No. The answer is responsibility, or more precisely a lack of value placed on it. It is really too bad that the proponents of "corporate responsibility" are generally not proponents of "personal responsibility" (and vice versa, perhaps). Unfortunately real responsibility does not come in flavors.

That's dead right. Unfortunately you also have to take responsibility for what the people you vote for do in your name.

>2b) "Globalization" is getting the "thumbs up" from many political leaders, including many who probably shouldn't. Remember to inquire about the opinions of those you vote for, and for heavens sake VOTE!

Much as I agreewith you, er, how many of you was it that voted for Bush?

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[einhverfr]

Yes they do. All religion is evil. Magical thinking is so destructive I don't have to list its horrors, any history book contains a litany genocide and terror. All For God.

Go ahead-- while we are blaming all Arabs, All Muslims, go ahead and blame Plato (and wish the Muslims hadn't helped us rediscover his works), and Keppler who was a professional Astrologer (as well as Astronomer), and Francis Bacon, and Isaac Newton, and many other famous scientists who were occultists, alchemists, and astrologers!

Am I the only practicing ceremonial magician here?

The problem is NOT religious. It is economic and social. We, in America do need to re-evaluate what we do to encourage these actions, and we need to retaliate against the actual terrorists. But if we do not target the root economic sources, we will face an endless stream of these sorts of individuals.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[other_things_to_do]

If you are so disgusted with the States then why don't you leave the cushy environs of Stanford? I suggest resuming your studies in some country that has not played military or economic power to their advantage. Of course, this means that you would not be resuming your studies, since such a country would have vanished at the hands of other, less foolish, geopolitical players.
You may disagree with my opinion on this, and you are certainly free to do so and post it for the world to see (Yet another benefit of "Globalization").

"This is a common claim, but it demonstrably false."
If it were "demonstrably" false then why isn't accepted as such?

"In fact, one could argue that the second world war in the pacific was largely caused by trade relationships."
"Fact" and "one could argue"? FACT: You CAN argue that gravity does not exist. Facts and arguments are logically very different things.

"What has changed, is the greatly increased importance of multinational corporations."
Great! Let me list some of the ways that multinationals are currently benefiting YOU:
-The electricity that you depend on for your current state of life was generated using turbines made by a multinational company.
-Driven lately? Ride the bus instead? Yep, made by "multinationals."
-The computer you are using? Multinationals.
-Your fine University? It does business with many countries, and is thus "multinational".
- On and on and on ...

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[FeTrut]

A society where criticism against the government, no matter what form(save violence) it takes, is condemned as "ungrateful" is perhaps a society that will fail to progress. When one is unhappy with the way the government does something, to NOT express opinions regarding it is far more offensive in the long run. The common question towards such critics is "Why do you still live here if you say such things?". Probably because America is one of the best places on earth to live, period. Probably because they have family here. Probably because they love America as much, possibly even more, than you. But is it perfect? Is it "angelic"? In some cases, yes, in some cases, no. The need to speak out on the cases where the government IS imperfect is essential in order to affect change. So if someone criticizes America, or any country, disagree if you must, by all means, but do so intelligently, point by point, with logic and facts instead of calling them "ungrateful". It just so happens that "ungrateful" yet outspoken people have made America as good a country as it is today.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[JAVAC THE GREAT]

I don't think there's anything Rainbox Six could have done about this.. The only people who had the power to stop this were already aboard those planes. It looks like some unknown heroes on flight 93 may have saved thousands of lives by taking action, however drastic it may have been. I imagine that those aboard the other planes would have had they realized what was going on... one things for sure, even without tighter security restrictions it's going to be a lot harder to "sucessfully" hijack a passenger aircraft. I doubt this same thing will happen again.. but it's frightening to think what the next logical escalation may be.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[einhverfr]

The systemic problem is that after WWII a bunch of Europeans were given land in the Middle East and the people who were there are understandably pissed. If you have a solution to this problem that doesn't require the removal of either group, then I would love to hear it. Nobody else seems to. Globalization is irrelevant.

Interestingly, I should mention that in WWI, Britain made a declaration supporting the foundation of the state of Israel so long as it did not impinge upon the human rights of the residents at the time. It did not happen during WWI, and in WWII, people I think were not guided by such concerns.

I hope I am alone in seing parallels to the shot that started WWI?

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[cancrman]

True.

I didn't think that one through. That is also why Iraq has Soviet era tanks.

The gist is the same though.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[Object Broker]

Vivian

The sad truth is, the Israelis gained their country by conquest, and by driving out the indigenous population. The Palestinians would like to have their country back. That is the basis for the conflict. It is not clear to me why the United States or any other Western country has any rational basis (beyond an emotional sympathy for the Jewish people) for supporting either side in this conflict.

From the Arabs' point of view, the history of Palestine since the end of the first world war is the story of invasion and occupation by people from the West - first the British, and then the (mostly European) Jews, supported by the US. I for one can no longer see why their view is not essentially correct.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[Vicegrip]

"Really, if you want to spew your anti-semetic bullshit, try to do it with at least the sembelance of logic. Otherwise, people like me are going to proceed to wipe your face in it gleefully for all to see."

Dear anonymous coward, while you have some points, I'd like to educate you on a point of protocol: criticizing the state of Israel is not an act of anti-semitism. This kind of name calling debases the value of some of things you said and totally ruins your argument.

Neither side in this conflict is innocent.

Israel is at a more significant crossroads than it ever has been. Its choices are either never ending bloodshed or difficult compromise. Time for both sides to tell their respective religious nuts to clamp it and bring an end to the conflict.

The alternative is too gastly to imagine.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[JAVAC THE GREAT]

extrajudicially... how else do you suggest we deal with this?

Like whoever did this is going to get a fair trial. That's a good one.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[soloport]

Probably goes without saying, but I've heard some news clips on the subject of Arab-looking folk in the US getting harassed by "good-ol' red-blooded Amerr'cans".

People, please! Few Muslims would do or agree with what happened in NYC/WDC. Not everyone who looks like they are Arabic are terrorists.

Remember that one of the worst terrorist acts ever commited on US soil was perpetrated by a US citizen; a good ol' Amerr'can white boy!

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[jdriller]

I am astonished at the naivete of so many here - I understand that many are trying to voice restraint and peacefulness. Sure, fine. In this culture, with our moral constructs that is all dandy - but it does not apply to those that see death via terrorism as the road to paradise and the real life after this world. You just do not fathom this. Travel and learn - surfing just doesn't do it here...

Those that say do not condemn Hamas or Bin Laden till there is proof miss the point that explicit proof of acts is not necessary. The World can condemn and step on ALL people espousing or training for acts of violence. We do not have to wait for the planes to hit.

And for all you pacifist whiners; ok, it can be done economically vs. with death. But I say nuke em all - one way or the other.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[JAVAC THE GREAT]

I agree. This guy's rationalization of how everything America does is evil is probably on par with the terrorists'. What a sick fuck.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[Bakeneko]

I may be wrong, but I have some memory of them being given the OPTION of a homeland in Brazil, which Brazil was more than happy to give. But they refused. They wanted their historic homeland.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[JAVAC THE GREAT]

...based on reference boards designed by the same (American) companies that designed the chips.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[JohnG]

I agree with you 100 percent, but these people are blaming a government for the deaths of thousands of people by a terrorist attack, and ignoring some crucial points.
First Israel might not be saintly, but the Palestenians damn sure aren't either. It is the Palestenians who are ungiving during peace talks (peace talks carried out by the US I might add. The terrorist apologists would have you believe we are doing nothing to work toward peace in the area).
There is a time and a place to express concerns over the government. At this point we are for all practical purposes at war with an invisible enemy. No is not the time to start wars amongst ourselves. Now is the time to band together and neutralize the threat. THEN we can see what changes might need to be enacted in foreign policy.
Once again this "The USA is hated by much of the world" attitude is pure propaganda. The evidence is out there. Our long time enemies, the Russians have sided with us, the European Union, the Canadians, the Egyptian leader called us a "Generous Friend" and the Palestinian leader himself has denounced the attacks and even given blood to the cause! A few citizens of a few third world countries might not like the United States because we are trying to put an end to decades of fightings, something Israel is willing to do, and the Palestinians aren't.
People would be well to remember what happened the last time we stayed out of world affairs. It was very similar to what happened on 09/11/01, Pearl Harbor. Sometimes ignoring conflicts around the world isn't always the answer, and fighting amongst ourselves over foreign policy while a terrorist organization responsible for the death of thousands is on the loose is never the answer.
It's easy to sit back and say that the US needs to just change foriegn policy and not worry about retaliation, but not bringing the terrorists to justice would be welcoming future attacks, and that isn't just America's "warlike" behavior talking, that's a worldwide consensous, NATO agrees with us enough to have initiated Article V.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[bambiscat]

1. reduce US involvement in the Middle East
2. undermine the Middle East's economics

duh!

Development and wide dissemination of an abundant renewable energy source would reduce our motives to meddle in Middle East affairs and reduce the value of their main source of wealth.

Perhaps with the focus and resolve created by this tragedy we can finally overcome the understandable but short-sighted resistance of the transportation and energy lobbies to large-scale government sponsored energy research. We put men on the moon, we're very close to curing cancer, and now we need to put the same muscle behind developing abundant renewable energy sources. Such a plan of "attack" plays to our strengths and their weaknesses. We are good at technology, research, and innovation. They are only good at pumping oil out of the ground (and, sadly, at terrorism).

Bush has talked about spending on technology to address our nation's energy problems. Will he put our money where his mouth is and spend on the basic research needed for abundant renewable power? Or does he really just mean better technology for using (more) oil, coal, and natural gas?

Echoing a post from /. about a week or so ago: if we spent 10 billion dollars on fusion power research instead of on a missle defense, we are more likely to make a substantive difference in our national security over the long term. Sooner or later we *have* to find abundant renewable energy to sustain *our* way of life. Why are we procrastinating? If you're thinking "that's dumb, its gonna take at least 30 years", then remember that its that kind of thinking that got us to where we are today. The ~20K people that died on Tuesday are at least partly (and certainly indirectly) the victims of 30 years of misguided energy policy.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[KilljoyAZ]

Iran has F-14s because we gave them to the much friendlier Shah of Iran, who was overthrown by the time the Iran-Iraq war started. Although we did support Iran in their war I don't think North, Weinberger, Reagan et al tried to sneak F-14s past Congress. Maybe spare parts for the ones they already had.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[Gizzmonic]

We can't just waltz into
some third-world country with a leader we just hand-picked from the graduating class of Georgetown University and say, "Ok, we Americans have chosen a new leader for you people! Follow this guy!"

Actually, back in South Vietnam in the Fifties, we did some thing very similar to what you just described.

America decided to prop up Ngo Dinh Diem's regime, though his popular support was vastly eroding. BUT he was an anticommunist, so our lovely government continued to support him as he committed atrocities against his own people.

By 1963, we realized that he was going to lose his power, so the CIA let some of his political enemies assassinate him. For the next ten years, we juggled several leaders with even less popular support, while countless Vietnamese and Americans died.

And why do we support questionable leaders and oppressive regimes?

We used to say it was to stop the Communists. We don't have many good excuses anymore.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[JohnG]

You make a good point. But compare capitalist countries with non-capitalist ones, which would you rather live in?
Granted Russia is having some problems, but the switch is very recent, and any such large change in the way a country operates is going to take a while to adjust to.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[Moofie]

Let me get this straight. In order to justify capitalism, you are asking the poster to cite examples of successful non-capitalist countries? Huh?

By your logic, non-capitalist countries are not successful enough on the world stage to invest in technology research. And one would want to have a non-capitalist economy why exactly?

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[zulux]

Let's hope that Pakistan is not involved - they supposidly have low-grade nukes. If we were to strike against Pakistan, we would have to take out their nuclear capability quickly. And that means using nukes.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[GMontag451]

No. I was asking the poster to cite examples of non-capitalistic countries that had as much of a starting chance to be successful as the US did (i.e. natural resources, soci-political position to take advantage of the industrial revolution, etc.) and yet did not succeed. Basically, I'm asking what any well-trained experimental scientist would ask for, controls to rule out the influence of other variables. With the evidence I've seen, the amount of resources the US had to start with is a much better explanation of its success than its economic philosophy, especially siince it hasn't been following it very closely recently.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[GMontag451]

Oh, I can see your point, because no one in there right mind would want to live in socialistic countries like Sweeden or Holland or Canada.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is exactly this sort of arrogant ignorance that enrages some people quite a bit...

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[JohnG]

"- AC Power came from Telsa, Hungarian, admittedly living in the US. The native US solution was Edison's DC, a dead end."

A mans native country seems irrelevant. Why do you think Tesla, Einstein, and Sikorsky all came to the US in the first place?

"- Airplanes were being developed across the world. The Wright Bros were only one of several who couldhave made the first flight. Most of the significant early flights were French anyway (qv Bleriot)."

Actually your best bet to debunk me would have been Russia. In early days the French might have been influential, but even today The USA and Russia remain the dominant force in high-tech airplane design. Mig, Mil, Ilyusion (sp?), Antonov, and others are all great designers. France gets credit for the Concorde, but generally speaking are still way behind the US and Russia. Russia of course has since dropped communism, and ones things settle down I think they'll be happier.
But isn't France a capitalist country? I honestly don't know for sure, but I know old communist propaganda referred to France, England, and the US as "capitalist democracies"

"- Helicopters. Developed by Germany in the 1930's. Developed from Spanish work on autogyros."

But perfected in it's present form in the US by Igor Sikorsky

"- Radio. An expatriate Italian living in the Uk called Marconi had something to do with this I believe"

You believe wrong, actually. Marconi had his patent stripped for violating 14 Tesla patents. It irks me that he still gets credit for the invention.

"- Television. Ever heard of John Logie Baird?"

Same as France isn't England a capitalist country?

"- "a large bulk of Space Travel". Who orbited the first satellite? Who orbited the first animal? Who orbited the first human? Who sent the first probe to the moon? Who built and sustained for three times its design life the first practical space station? Hint: it wasn't a capitalist nation..."

I've already given huge credit to Russia with regard to airplanes. And you are correct it wasn't a capitalist country, but the rub is that it IS a capitalist country. They obviously see some benefits to the system.

"- "resultant satellite communications networks". The ones that work were heavily-regulated, quasi-government geosynchronous satellite networks. We have of course seen separate purely capitalist networks since: take a bow Globalstar and Iridium!!!! (Funny how they're not taking over from the nasty old government ones...)"

I'll admit again to not knowing a whole heck of alot, but aren't EchoStar, the MANY C-band GE Satellites, etc. Owned by those corporations?

"Basically all *major*, quantum advances come from publicly funded research, which is then *commercialized*. Capitalism is only involved in the second."

Ummmm, where do you suppose the public gets the money from?

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[JohnG]

Once again you have a good point. Socialistic countries have done fine, however that doesn't mean that Capitalist countries have done BAD does it?
In general people in capitalist democracies are fairly happy people. Granted there are occasionally corporate guided injustices such as the DMCA. The problem is most people would rather complain about the DMCA and the "evil" corporations than use their democratic right to do something about it.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[Strange Attractor]

Thanks for a simple sincere statement. I agree with most of your sentiments. Rather than wishing "influential American Jews" would do anything to influence Israel. I wish Americans of conscience would push for an end to our reflexive support and funding of Israel.

On the other hand, as another poster observed, now may not be the best time to beat that drum.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[mpe]

The US was sympathetic to Saddam and supported his military,

Were they ever sympathetic or was the aim more revenge on Iran for deposing a US backed government...

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[Zero Sum]

You asked who has helped you? Why don't you do some research. Not so long ago you had some huge fires in California. Firefighters came all the way from Australia to help you. Local firefighters, everyday people who have normal jobs when they are not fighting fires and our best professionals to boot. They weren't paid to do it.

But of course you don't remember this. We don't expect it. After all you are Americans. and don't need help from anybody. Selective memeories.

And that is despite the fact that you (your CIA) manouvered the overturn of our government in 1975.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[Adam Jenkins]

There is nothing that can be done to stop this sort of insanity. I have been arguing with people about this; everyone seems to think it's because of US foreign policy. That is total bullshit. Whoever did this is insane, there is no justification for trying to kill 50,000 innocent accountants, secretaries and business people. Whether it is some evil billionaire waging his personal vendetta against America or a pack of the insane justifying their intense jealousy of the US with religion, it does not matter. Nothing the US could have done would have stopped this, all that they can do is to use intelligence gathering etc to TRY and stop similar events. This is a very sad world we live in.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[scottgfx]

Planes have been a target for terrorism for decades. My thoughts go toward making the planes more benign and less desirable. Currently there are really only two companies making passenger jets, Boeing and Airbus. As far as philosophies on control and instrumentation go, they are quite different. Airbus allows for more control by computers for take-off and landing of the aircraft. I'm not sure, but I think it borders on complete automation of the flight of the plane. Boeing has less computer intervention, for better or worse. People with more knowledge on this can pick this apart if they wish. I'm sure we're all open to ideas.

With the knowledge that there are computers that can do everything on a plane and the fact that we have a wonderful thing called GPS, a "failsafe" system could be built that could take a hijacked jet and land it safely. Ground control saw the jets leave their predetermined courses. Either ground control or the pilot could flip a switch and completely take the control away from the terrorists. We have the technology, It's just a matter of cost. I think, based on the events on the past day, that we may find it a small price.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[KjetilK]

Do you really think that Osama is angry about GLOBALIZATION?

He is. It is one of the reasons he have explicitly mentioned for his declaration of war against the US.

He sees it as just another way america extends it's imperialism.

Why don't you do some reading (oh, I forgot, this is /.)

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[John Allsup]

The difference between that post and its parent should indicate the multiple different `interpretations' that one can get from the world's religious texts, most probably from any religious text that explains how one should live one's life.

Whilst the first quotes were clearly out of context, that is the sort of thing that can be shoved down the throat of the sort of suggestible people that make suicide bombers---'. You can read it yourself, but you know it to be true anyway, as do all you brothers in arms...'

Eventually one has to oppose that which is against his beliefs, and it is writings about this that are so open to being twisted.
The fact that it has happened with more than one religion (to name two: Islam and Christianity) indicates that it is not a problem confined to one religion.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[Neil Rubin]

I think that the term "globalization" is a very confusing one. As commonly used, it includes some things which I think are very good. It also includes some things I think are harmful and dangerous. For the most part, these good and bad trends are not inherently tied together, and using the same word simply obscures the reality.

Increased trade, travel, cultural contacts, and working together to solve common problems seem like wonderful things to me. Something like the Internet offers many opportunities to improve the lot of humanity. I think, however, that communities should be able to choose to opt out of some or all of these changes. It's a simple matter of the right to self-determination and the right of people to exercise control over their own destinies.

What specifically bothers me? The structure of international institutions such as the World Bank, IMF, WTO, etc., is a big thing. The people who created our (the U.S.) democratic system thought that government should be open and transparent to the governed. They chose to have most of the important offices in government chosen by direct election. They chose to make meetings and actions of the congress and executive agencies available for all to see. Change the channel to C-SPAN or browse the Congressional Record at your local library for an example.

I think that they designed our system this way for very good reasons. Why are the institutions described above structured so differently, so opaquely? Why are the treaties that create these institutions kept from the public until just before they are agreed to? This isn't even how most international meetings work. Witness the huge debate over the text of the U.N. racism conference declaration long before the conference even began. Why wasn't there vigorous debate over something as major as NAFTA? All we got was this farce between Gore and Perot on Larry King.

As to my definition of "globalization," my main point is that I think it is a confusing term and not very useful in the debate. As commonly used, I can't say whether I'm for it or against it. I could propose alternative terms, but it's not likely that people would start using them anyway. Just be aware that it is a term which doesn't always mean the same thing.

You're right. The essential links are democracy and capitalism. What two democratic, capitalist countries have fought a major war against each other?

O.K. The closest I can think of is the U.S. versus Serbia. By the standards of Europe, the Serbia of 1999 seemed to be pretty capitalist to me. Milosevic was also democratically elected, enjoyed a great deal of popular support, and was removed by an election. Granted, he tried to fudge the election, but then the Nixon administration discussed using the military to resist impeachment. Does the fact that Milosevic tried to tamper with an election after the war make Serbia before the war less of a democracy? Probably... One of the wars between India and Pakistan may qualify, but it probably depends on your definitions. Heck, Britain was certainly capitalist in 1812. Was it a democracy? In important ways it certainly was. The U.S. and Britain fought a war 1812-1814. Were the United States of America and the Confederate States of America two seperate countries 1861-1865? In most important ways they were. They were both capitalist democracies, and their war was "major" by any standard.

Anyway, I would offer a counter challenge: What two fascist countries have fought any war against each other?

Look, the argument that democratic, capitalist countries won't fight wars against each other usually goes something like: democracies never attack first since people don't like wars, and they control the government. War is bad for trade, and thus business, so capitalist countries have even less reason to go to war. Basically, the argument is that these countries don't start wars. (Perhaps this is a strawman. Is there a better argument?) The problem with this argument is that such countries routinely attack other countries which have not attacked them first. That is precisely how wars start.

Perhaps the argument is that such countries have such similar beliefs and values that they will not have major disagreements which would lead to war. If common beliefs and values were enough, why are there so many civil wars?

Anyhow, it is very easy to swing sticks at strawmen. Globalization is an especially easy one because the "bad guys" are corporations. What are you proposing as an alternative? Cessation of trade? Outlawing of multinationals? Tobin tax?

Outlawing of multinationals or any such quick-fix would be incredibly counter-productive. The answer is to try to control the worst effects of the current system while trying to preserve what is useful about it. As I understand the Tobin tax, it sounds like a good idea. Any market, such as the current international currency market, where speculative trading vastly exceeds productive trading is dangerous. The speculators cause massive swings in prices, greatly increasing the risk for those who are trading because they actually need more or less of the underling commodity. Just ask the Bank of England about that one. (George Soros made a lot of money at the expense of British taxpayers through a currency trading scheme in the early 1990's.)

Democratic capitalism has solved more problems than it has caused and that is much more than can be said for competing systems. If you want to tweak the system, by all means, let's do so. But if you're going to argue against the whole thing you'll have to demonstrate that there is a deep problem and present an alternative that solves it.

I largely agree with you. I wouldn't presume to throw everything out and start fresh. We don't understand the way societies work well enough to design a better one without a great deal of experimentation. Incremental changes seem like the way to go. As to whether there is a deep problem, I see unnecessary human suffering all around me. I think that our economic system has a great deal to do with that. To present a detailed alternative in this forum would be a waste of time. True democracy and openness in the new international institutions would be a good start.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[Neil Rubin]

If you are so disgusted with the States then why don't you leave the cushy environs of Stanford? I suggest resuming your studies in some country that has not played military or economic power to their advantage. Of course, this means that you would not be resuming your studies, since such a country would have vanished at the hands of other, less foolish, geopolitical players. You may disagree with my opinion on this, and you are certainly free to do so and post it for the world to see (Yet another benefit of "Globalization").

I can understand that everyone's nerves are raw right now. I can barely think straight right now. I think, though, that you are attacking me for things I have not said. My post never even mentioned the U.S., except for some claims about how the U.S. involvement in the Second World War came about. I never even said that I thought "globalization" was bad.

All that I did was attack what I see as some very sloppy reasoning and a lack of historical perspective in the usual debate about these issues.

"This is a common claim, but it demonstrably false." If it were "demonstrably" false then why isn't accepted as such?

Sometimes, the things that everyone believe are wrong. I'm sure that you can come up with a list of examples of this phenomenon as well as I can. I assert that something is false and then proceed to demonstrate it, or try to. It seems to me that if you disagree, you could point out a flaw in my demonstration.

"In fact, one could argue that the second world war in the pacific was largely caused by trade relationships." "Fact" and "one could argue"? FACT: You CAN argue that gravity does not exist. Facts and arguments are logically very different things.

Perhaps my phrasing was confusing. How about: "Large-scale international trade did not stop two world wars. One could even argue that the second world war in the pacific was largely caused by trade relationships."

"What has changed, is the greatly increased importance of multinational corporations." Great! Let me list some of the ways that multinationals are currently benefiting YOU: -The electricity that you depend on for your current state of life was generated using turbines made by a multinational company. -Driven lately? Ride the bus instead? Yep, made by "multinationals." -The computer you are using? Multinationals. -Your fine University? It does business with many countries, and is thus "multinational". -On and on and on ...

I suppose the fact that I lived in England for one year makes me a "multinational," too? Note that I was talking about "multinational corporations." Note too that I didn't even say they were bad. I just said that they are more important now than they were a century ago. This doesn't strike me as a particularly controversial statement. For the record, I think multinational corporations produce some marvelous things. I also think there are other ways to produce these marvelous things.

Am I "disgusted with the States?" I certainly didn't say that I was. I was pretty much just pointing out flaws I see in the common debate over "globalization" and correcting an error about the relative military strengths of some U.S. allies. There are things about my country I love and cherish. There are also things my country has done that "disgust" me. The biggest would be slavery and the slaughter of Native Americans. While the U.S. has become a far more humane and just society since those two atrocities ended, it is still not perfect. In my version of "patriotism," I see it as my duty to point out what I see as the clear flaws in my society so that they can be fixed.

The fact that no one's hands are clean, my own included, does not excuse us from the obligation to try to do better in the future. Do you disagree? How would me leaving Stanford possibly help the situation?

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[q-soe]

Israel invavded lebanon in the early 1970's - eer heard of beirut ?

They invaded the golan heights, the west bank etc all soverign territory of another nation - they started the mess they are in and they are the cause of it.

Shah of Iran - Until the revolution an ally of the US (proves that you are under the age of 25)then Iraq was an ally then and enemy and now Iran are allies (sort of) again.

What does polynesia have to do with east timor ? look at a map - its about 3000km away - and you deserved to be told to butt our if the incident you are talking about is samoa

Yes you went to wat in serbia (if you call it that) 5 years AFTER the serbians started 'ethnic cleansing' moslems, croatians and anyone else they didnt quite like -hardly proactive and coming after everyone is dead is hardly a humanitarian gesture.

You would never leave the middle east alone - you cant survive without the oil.

Try this one on - Kuwait are allies after the war, Saudi are allies of convenience (invade a moslem country and see what happens (hint-why didnt the US invade iraq?) Israel have no other friends so of course they are allies - what can you say about claiming as a friend a country that lobs rockets into schools for the fun of it ?

A few more examples of US freedom and democracy in action for you BTW

Haiti - Nope didnt lift a finger except to refuse refugees landing rights
El Salvador - Behind closed doors support for a guerilla movement that was left to die when the US were caught
Chile - Maintained Diplomatic relations while Alledne was mass murdering dissidents
Argentina - See above RE pinochet
Colombia - Provides a pathetic amount of support for another country and expects them to fight the war on drugs
Somalia - Again went in after most of the fighting was over
Burma - havent made a peep abouot the wide spread human rights abuses and mass murder carried out by an 'allied' govermnet
india/pakistan - an ally and a former ally who practice active genocide against eash others citzens
Afghanistan - You support the Mujahadeen to throw out the Russians and then cut support when they try and bring democracy back by fighting the taliban.

American foreign policy is one of hypocrisy. This country needs to PROVE it is the Bastion of freedom for all from opression - the bright ans shining light of democracy and peace - ACTIONS speak louder than words.

This is a great country and we should be proud of what we have accomplished, but we also need to be aware that our actions or refusal to act cause deaths every day - this week it hit home here.

instead of bombing people this is what we do - support the palestnian resoltion to throw israel out of the Lebanese posessions - give them back the country they had stolen from them with US support - only then will the world begin to believe we are on the side of right.

PS You are obviously in middle school - i dont mean that as an insult - so i suggest a bit of history might be worth reading - if you are not in middle school god help us all - this country has a short memory for the past.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[grumbler]

Well, on the other hand, when christians conquered Lisbon, the stories tell us that there was a river of arab blood making the horses slip.. and im talking about portuguese stories, not arab ones. Or what about that time that king richard lion-heart killed 3 thousand prisoners so they didnt slowed him down?

And dont make me start talking about what the inquisition made here in Portugal and in Spain to the jew community.

Im not a muslim, but from the lessons in history we can easily see who teached religious intolerance to whom

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[Elvis Maximus]

I've lived in the Middle East for four years and I am currently on a short-term assignment in Aqaba, Jordan. About 60% of Jordanians are of Palestinian origin, and from almost any given place in Aqaba, you can see prosperous Eilat across the border at any time of day. There are a lot of people here who have good reason to be upset about Israeli and American policy, which negatively affect their lives every single day.

But what I am hearing is an overwhelming and unanimous expression of disgust and horror at the events of this week. I have not heard or seen any evidence of support for what happened in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania, but I have had many people approach me and offer their very sincere condolences and express their sadness at what has happened. Not a few of them have pointed out that the actions of the perpetrators are entirely contrary to any thinking person's understanding of Islamic principles.

Blind hatred and the blaming of entire nationalities and ethnic groups for the destructive actions of a few is exactly what drove the incidents of this week. Do not succumb to the temptation to respond in kind. If we are truly a nation of justice, now is the most important time to embody those values.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[steffl]

I don't see how is what you write relevant to the point I was trying to make (see also the post I was replying to). The quotes are out of context but not misleading - those are real quotes from koran, they state what they state (yes, the context changes the meaning somewhat)

the point of the quotes (and why I have chosen those): too many people act according these 'out of context' quotes and therefore make them the real substance of islam in the real world.

as far as the position of women: in lot of islamic states it is a law that women have close to no rights and veil (fashion) is not the biggest problem. no I am not confusing culture and religion. the problem is, as you state, that religion is law (I see it as a problem). and yes, you can find positive coutnerexamples (in some of the more liberal islamic countries) but the overall situation is quite bad...

also please note that my response was to a specific historically incorrect comment, I have tried to correct it, not to characterize islam and arabic (ok, islam is not arabic only) culture/people/countries exhaustingly etc.

then again, your comment was probably a good couterbalance to my comment...

erik

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[Poligraf]

No :-(

Read this:

http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp459.htm

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[smallpaul]

I think that we agree on most points. But let's go back to the question that started it all. Is globalization to blame here? Let's define globalization as the increase in power of multinational companies without a corresponding growth in transparency and citizen control of multinational institutions. This is something so new that it can hardly be blamed for the problems of today's world.

The fundamental cause of the tension in the Middle East is here. Some would rather reapportion blame to a vague abstraction that they have a pre-existing problem with. I consider that obfuscatory rather than clarifying.

Those same people tend to present the "problem" without presenting a solution. "Smash global capitalism". "Destroy McDonald's" etc. Those are slogans, not solutions.

I have spent some of my time (not recently alas) fighting particularly abusive multinationals so I would be the last to claim that multinationals and globalization are onalloyed goods. But I fight specific evils in a specific way rather than attacking a meaningless abstraction or the concrete system which has benefited us so much.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[Simon Brooke]

For the record, I am a citizen of Israel, but have been living in the USA for three years. Probably become a citizen soon if I feel like it.

For the record, who do you think lived in what is now Israel, before Zionist terrorists drove them out? The wheel rolls around.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[vinlud]

Yes, it's appropriate that the US government didn't lend legitimacy to it, and European countries should be ashamed of their compliance.

Are you always solving problems by walking away?
European officials used diplomacy to solve the problem and see, the conference ended pretty positively.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[projecto2501]

Opps! The US never gave any support to Noriega.... I fact we funded and trained an army to fight him. Try Somoza. Your point still stands but please don't go slinging names around with out thinking.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[JohnPM]

One thing I read on /. was "physically separate the pilots from the passenger cabin". I think that would make it a lot harder. It could be improved by adding security personnel in plain clothes (preferably Constable Angua von Überwald ;o) israeli-style.

The US already has a plain-clothed anti-terrorism force for aircraft. They sit on flights with concealed weapons and in the documentary I saw some months ago (on Discovery) they took credit for the absence of a foreign terrorist attack on US soil. They concealed their faces during interviews so that they could not be recognised by the public.

Where were they on Tuesday?

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[rtscts]

Most of the world has real problems (AIDS

So why are American companies denying other nations (not only 3rd world) that medical treatment? They can't afford to pay US$ for it, and their own laws don't give patents to essential medicine anyway. US companies are crying up a river about patent infringement while thousands die of AIDS.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[smallpaul]

It is one of the reasons he have explicitly mentioned for his declaration of war against the US.

Please provide a reference. Also, did he really use a word that is equivalent to globalization (i.e. a vague, newish phenomenon that has something to do with international capital flows, lack of transparency and democracy in international organization and the dominance of American brands). Or was he just talking about US economic imperialism which long predates the modern concept "globalization".

Big countries will try to control smaller countries around the world. That is how they project power into the world's various regions. This has nothing to do with globalization and everything to do with wanting to remake the whole world in the big country's image. That's how the world has worked for thousands of years.

Some people want to tie all of the excesses of capitalism and US imperialism together as if there is some common thread. Nike sweatshops, Nigerian dictators, war over oil in Kuwait. But these are specific problems that can be solved. In the absence of international trade there would be other specific problems -- there are dictators even where there is no oil. There are sweatshops even where there is no Nike.

Thanks to globalization we actually have a little influence over those doing the exploiting. We haven't "globalized" into Rwanda so we tragically didn't have enough "interests" there to get involved. I think we should have done something anyhow but had we had interests there we would have been forced to.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[datalith]

Two things -
- Prevent the act... we've been discussing that
- Prevent the terror from spreading:

Terrorism works by instilling fear. The more emotional and primal the reaction the better... keep people from thinking- get them to respond on the emotional level- create the mob mentality.

The true act of terror is done, but now the victims and those who have witnessed the act become the terrorists.

Terrorism is a faceless crime, it is human nature to need to put a face to it. So we paint pictures with broad strokes, not pausing to think- except to think of who fits the profile, the image we've created for the enemy.

Its easy to respond to a group we don't know- don't belong to, don't understand.

Timothy McVeigh claimed to be a Christian, but his actions proved otherwise. No one blamed Christianity for his actions, because they knew that it was not a Christian act.

But because we've already decided that the attackers were Arab, they therefore must be Muslim, and therefore all Muslims are guilty...

These acts were against the true teachings of Islam. To say that all Muslims are guilty or responsible or capable of these acts because of those who were responsible for this act of terrorism, is as foolish as saying that all Christians are responsible or capable of these acts because Timoth McVeigh was (supposedly) a Christian.

What about the Atrocities carried out by Hitler, he was Christian... or so he claimed. I will not accept that he was a true Christian... I cannot- and most people don't. Why? Because they know...

To turn on people now because of their beliefs... because you don't understand... because you are hurt and you need to make someone pay... that is how terrorism works. Those who strike back blindly, now become the terrorists and it only spreads from there.

The weapon against Terrorism is Thought. Think, don't react, don't let them win. THINK. If you don't understand what's happening- talk to people who do. Knowledge and thought are now are greatest weapons in this war.

Save your anger and retribution for those responsible... they will be found, they will be punished- but do not take it out on the innocent. That is the terrorist's work, and if you take over their work, if you become what they want... they've won.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[Kharny]

I agree with most you say, and am very grateful of some of the acts of america in the past, others are offcourse less beautifull. The only correction i'd like to give is that isreal, at least part of it doesn't want peace at all, the settlements are still built in palestinian teritory.

BTW: i am dutch, and do agree that we have to thank america for what we are now, i just wish that america had more likeness in progress that we took the last 50 years.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[plague3106]

I agree. And i don't think we deserved this either. Quite frankly i don't think there's ever a reason to take someone's life, and the attack was (is) horrible. However, just b/c a few fanatics decided to take matter into thieir own hands, does not mean that maybe there's a ligitimate complaint out there. And before everyone starts saying all arabs are responsible, i'd like to remind them that the Nazis said the same thing about the Jews, and IIRC, even said things like jews eat children.

That being said, what really scares me are all the people saying we're at war. We're not, there are no armies invading and smashing our entire nation. If we were at war, i think all of NYC would be in ruins. War and terrorism are not the same.

For everyone calling for war; i don't think you really want that. Most americans don't know what its like, we have not had a war fought on our soil since the civil war. And modern wars have always been 'over there.' I guess i'm saying be careful what you wish for, you just might get it. I for one don't want any more americans dying because of this.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[albanac]

The systemic problem is that after WWII a bunch of Europeans were given land in the Middle East and the people who were there are understandably pissed.

Full marks for intent but the accuracy is a little off.

The Hussein-McMahon letters were exchanged between the Palestinian Arab leader Hussein and the British Foreign Office agent Henry McMahon in 1916, and involved Britain promising Palestinian independence in return for arabic support in the war against Turkey (WWI not II). Simeltaneously the British government had promised national status in Palestine to Zionist groups in return for their support against Turkey (this was the infamous Balfour Declaration). And had also signed an agreement with the French under which Britain got Iran and Palestine, while France got Syria and Iraq. (Hussein, btw, was the man on whom Omar Sharif's character in Lawrence of Arabia was based: T. E. Lawrence was the man on the ground fulfilling the agreement between Hussein and McMahon).

At Versailles, France and Britain did indeed divide up the area according to their agreement. The Foreign Office chose to uphold the Balfour Declaration rather than the promises of the Hussein-McMahon letters, largely because the man appointed Governer to Palestine was an English Jew. However, after the persecution of Jews began in German-controlled Eastern Europe, and migrations into Palestine became significant (around 1935) the British turned their back on this arrangement and began turning away refugee ships. This led to the General Strike of 1936 in which the Zionist guerrilas were attacking the British for reneging on their agreement, and the Palestinian guerrilas were attacking the British for reneging on *theirs*, and the two groups were also fighting each other, largely out of habit.

That's the contribution of the Western European powers to Palestine. You may, however, find it interesting that the same document which established French control of Syria and Iraq versus British control of Palestine and Iran also drew an arbitrary line in the sand which divided the 9th province of Iraq from the rest of the country, and presented said 9th province to the British (for reasons of oil distribution). They called it Kuwait.

~cHris

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[Bob Arctor is dead]

true, true, true.

It should also be mentioned that you're able to find some rather repulsive phrases in the bible too, and you don't even have to look that hard. But perhaps people don't care much about that; "An eye for an eye" is what most Americans seem to consider the way to go anyway, at least today (let alone yesterday).

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[ianxm]

There is one important thing that we have been doing for some time now to stop these sorts of things from happening.

I speak, of course, of our intricately planned system of random flight delays. Without a lot of luck, those four flights wouldn't have all taken off at the same time, and this trajedy would not have played out as it did.

There may have been other flights that were going to be hijacked, but that were delayed, and then never took off because all flights were grounded.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[cfbolz]

We must never forget that bin Laden was trained and sponsored by the USA during the cold war. When the USSR conquered Afghanistan to fight the threat of the extremistic Muslims, the USA trained bin Ladens men and supported him with money to oppose the Russians. So the USA is now facing men which it trained and funded.

Maybe a lesson for the USA to learn from this is that it does NOT pay out to support extremistic and/or terroristic groups to oppose enemies (That happened not only in Afghanistan but in other countries too, eg Chile)

Carl Friedrich

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[Wastl]

I'm sorry, I must've missed the long queues of Christians, Hindus, and Buddhists lining up for their chance to be a suicide bomber.


You probably missed that part of history where the US was in war with Japan, then.

I must've missed the crowds of people cheering in New Delhi and Peking as opposed to the crowds cheering on the West Bank.

When the news of the plane crash arrived in the Middle East, it was already evening there. However, the pictures showing the cheering crowd were taken in full daylight. So, guess what ...

Question: how many peaceful democratic countries with Islam as the dominant religion can you name?


I can at least name several that are not involved in terrorism, and those are also the BIGGEST islamic countries: Indonesia, Turkey, Egypt.

Sebastian

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[MentalPunisher2001]

Precisely...
If this is done TOO quickly, future terrorists will think that they can push the US into changing things by just attacking them.
Imagine that, the US being BULLIED into making foreign policy decisions.
It would make things worse.
This has to be done extremely carefully - you can't just give them what they want, they didn't EARN it by killing americans.
I do NOT envy Bush's position right now.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[beardcz]

Much of the money in the Middle East comes from exporting oil. Much of the oil that is exported from the Middle East goes to the US. The US has a great deal of domestic oil production, but it is not enough to fill demand.

Try to use less gasoline - bike to work, walk to the store, take a bus or train, turn down or off the air conditioning in the car, arrange your life so that you travel by car less.

Use less energy as a whole - turn off lights and computers when not needed, blah blah blah. Become more concious of using energy, you will be surprised how much is wasted. The less energy used, the less imported...

These things will also save you money, and help the greenhouse effect as well.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[damas]

Air traffic security:

1.Add GPS to the planes and track them (remeber the what planes are missing and where are they?)
2.Add Remote Control mode to the same planes (against suicide crashers).

3.Off course, plain clothes armed (no fire arms though...) security guards.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[bidule]

They helped rebuild japan to ensure a military staging point close to the western european front.

Yeah, right. ;o)

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[stripes]

It's incredibly dangerous to have any firearm on a plane, no matter who it belongs to.

Alot of people have been saying it isn't like the movies, so I guess that means the side of the plane doesn't rip right off, but the O2 masks probably drop. That's likely to be modestly better then a normal hijacking, and far far better then not only being killed, but killing 10,000s of others in a collision. In fact even if having a bullet fired magically makes the plane come apart that's still better then flying into a building full of people.

And if you don't give the air marshall a gun, he's just another passenger, who perhaps knows a few self-defense techniques

Current reports are the planes were taken over by 3 to 6 guys with knives and boxcutters. There were 50-100 people on each plane. They were unwatched enough to make phone calls. If there had been an unarmed air marshal they may well have been able to "organize" a rush on the armed men. The maybe 15 people would have died rather then 10,000s. Not a good thing for sure, but far better then what happened.

It will cost a bundle. I know that sounds very callous right now, but think about how much money it would take to keep an air marshall on every flight within the United States at any one time

It was cheep enough to do in the 70s. More over assume for a moment it is funded solely with a ticket surcharge. How much more does it cost to put an undercover passenger on a flight? One less seat they can sell. One more person they have to pay (I assume they will make more then a flight attendant, but likely less then two), a tiny bit of extra fuel, an extra meal. Do you really think that on a large flight the cost will go up by more then $10? That's $500 to $1000 per flight to pay the guy and the costs. Small flights may either have to pay more, or not get coverage on every flight (as I understand it air marshals use to be undercover and random).

You would need literally thousands of air marshalls, perhaps even tens of thousands

So like one for every four flight attendants?

The costs would be tremendous, and would either drive the cost of flying sky high (no pun intended)

It seems doubtful that the cost will go up by even 10% on large flights, and small ones might not be patrolled as much.

People wouldn't like it. It might be well recieved at first, but once shock of this event wear's off, it will be seen by most as just another flying inconvenience. Most people wouldn't like the idea of firearms on board their flight. Also, an air marshall would presumably have the authority or even responsibility to search anyone getting on the plane, which is sure to be ill-recieved.

We had them in the 70s. I don't recall any civil resistance. Oh, and if the air marshall is undercover they won't search anyone. I expect them to be undercover since that will work better, plus that's what we did last time. Besides we already have searches, why blow the marshall's cover to re-do something that's already done? There was eventually some objection to the cost because there were no hijackings after a while. So we stopped using them. Maybe this time we won't.

Your right, there are no perfect solutions here

That's for sure. Air marshals will make this harder to pull off. They will have to get guns rather then knives, or figure out who the undercover guy (or woman!) is and kill them first. It makes it harder, but not impossible. It also doesn't prevent other kinds of attacks (say non-airplane).

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[Planesdragon]

Israel invavded lebanon in the early 1970's - eer heard of beirut ?

They invaded the golan heights, the west bank etc all soverign territory of another nation - they started the mess they are in and they are the cause of it.

Every contry that has ever existed has "invaded the soverign territory of another nation." It's how they get security. If anything, Israel has shown restraint in carving out their ancestral homeland. A hundred years ago, they would have simply killed anyone who didn't leave.

A few more examples of US freedom and democracy in action for you BTW

Seems more like examples of cold war politics, to me.

American foreign policy is one of hypocrisy. This country needs to PROVE it is the Bastion of freedom for all from opression - the bright ans shining light of democracy and peace - ACTIONS speak louder than words.

You're right, we do. No matter how many times we do, someone doubts us and we have to proove it again.

instead of bombing people this is what we do - support the palestnian resoltion to throw israel out of the Lebanese posessions - give them back the country they had stolen from them with US support - only then will the world begin to believe we are on the side of right.

Bull. If we followed that rule, the world would descend into barbarism. Countries die and are re-built all the time. It's the way the world works, and in the special case of the Jewish People, they deserved their original homeland the Romans took from them back.

PS You are obviously in middle school - i dont mean that as an insult - so i suggest a bit of history might be worth reading - if you are not in middle school god help us all - this country has a short memory for the past.
Actually, this country just prefers to let its politicians handle foriegn policy for the most part--its citizens have more important things to do, like raise children and watch grass grow.

I'm also not "obviously in middle school." I'm a married adult, under 25 as you said. I disagree with my gov't on a lot of things... but I let them do the job that they were hired to do. There are factors and things that I am not privy to, and so I don't always understand why.

One more thing--Iraq was our ally right up until their invasion of Kuwait. When they did that, they became our enemy as quickly as Canada would if they invaded our country.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[james(honest)]

So lets be clear about this. America has a constitution, but you believe that the rights written in the constitution only apply to Americans. If it turns out that americans were responsible for the attacks, will you be advocating nuking them and their surrounding villages? Or just having them killed in the night?

Americans dont know how lucky they are to have the constitution. It would be wonderful if it applied to everyone on the planet.

But of course, they dont even apply it to themselves: read the ruby ridge report.

We have concluded that the special Rules of Engagement in force at Ruby Ridge violated the Constitution of the United States

Good job the FBI had Waco to occupy the press while the Department of Justice's report slipped out quietly.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[thenerd]

I also do not think the fact that the word "war" was used indicates a desire for war. If I say "I do not want a war", does that automatically mean I do? By your claim if I say, "I do not want peace?" then in fact peace is what I want, but how can that be?

I think what was meant that by saying 'this is an act of war' everywhere, then the only conclusion would be 'an act of war requires an act of war in retaliation'. Perhaps instead of saying it was an act of war, they should say what it actually IS, which is an act of terrorism.

thenerd

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[GMontag451]

I wasn't saying that capitalism is bad, just that there is no way to objectively tell which is a more successful economic strategy.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[Ken D]

SO what exactly do you suggest?
Isolationism? Doesn't work, every time the US tries that a World War has started.
Declaring war on every non-democratic country in the world? Do you think that will improve our standing?

International politics is about getting along with your neighbors. You don't have to like them, but unless you feel like moving out, or moving them out, you're stuck with them. Which doesn't mean that you have to get along with all of them either.

Perhaps you forget that we have been enemies with the UK, France (and Canada), Spain (and Mexico), Japan and Germany in the past. It is not wrong for us to work at cross purposes with governments.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[drinkypoo]

Yesterday people died horrifically because the US elite acting in their own interests only have done similar but larger scale things all over the world.

People died horribly yesterday because the US is involved in a fight with people who are very desperate. Globalization or not, that can only be avoided by withdrawing from the world stage. That withdrawl would be a license to monsters all over the world to follow in the footsteps of Rwanda and Cambodia. The US needs to be more engaged in the world, not less. But there may be blow-back. It's the price of getting involved.

Well, I disagree. We don't need to get more engaged in the world, we need to help someone else who we can more or less trust become a world superpower once more. Ironically enough, the only logical choice that I can see is Russia, though I don't think that it's possible to help them until they help themselves by ridding themselves of the majority of their corruption. The government is entirely corrupt, and what they don't control is run by the Russian Mafia.

The US, in the form of the C.I.A., meddles in world politics, killing people, helping people kill people, abandoning people we were claiming to help, and letting them get killed. We have the arrogance to think that we know best how to control the global situation, but people are not entirely ignorant of our influence, and we piss people off. In many cases, we have given people training and then had that come back against us. I think we need to do less meddling, not more. However, since we ARE the only remaining superpower (realistically) we have put ourselves in a position where we have a certain responsibility to police the world. We did it to ourselves, and now that we're top dog, people are crashing jets into our buildings.

For every action...

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[r1ckz]

If everyone worked from home, there wouldn't be quite as many people all in one place to be the targets of terrorism like this.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[Adam Jenkins]

>but slowly tension have built up and now it
>exploded in some lunatics mind.

Is that right? You must know something that CNN doesn't, as far as I know those who did it haven't yet been identified.

>There is no justification for killing thousand
>of civilians but ask yourself, how many innocent
>people have the US killed in Israel, Iraq,
>Vietnam, the list goes on...

Yeah innocent people who were trying to drive tanks over women, children and farmers. How dare the US enforce treaties. If the US would just mind its own business and let the rest of the world kill each other then everyone would like the US. Same as if you let your kids take
heroin and crack then at least your kids won't call you a bad Mum or Dad.

>I don't know how much reporting you get about
>this is in the US but the unresponsible way Bush
>and formerly Clinton have been dealing with such
>important issuses as the UN, ABM, UN conference
>about racism I don't understand how you can
>possible imagine that pepole WON'T start hating
>the US??

News flash for you, I am not in the US. I am in Australia, and I have a lot of admiration and respect for America. That is not to say they are perfect, I don't believe any country is, and the richer and larger a country is, the more difficult it is for them not to upset some people with their decisions. Clinton did a LOT for world peace actually.

>The US have been protecting its own interests
>like oil supply and earning more money and
>totally forgot about enviromentalism and the
>goverments of other states.

The US is not on trial here. They are the victims. There are non violent avenues to address
concerns like their stance on the environment and
foreign policy.

>So the US can stop this! It is not by using
>organizations like NSA, Secret Service, FBI and
>CIA. Grow up. Get responsible and realize that
>the US has to stop running over other states
>whenever it desires

You are the one who needs to grow up. How does doing any of that stop a pack of lunatics who believe that America is the Great Satan who are stopping their religion from spreading all over the world, and who must be all killed?
And try posting with your real name you gutless worm.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[zama]

You are absolutely right! That's why I prefaced it with the comment that I hadn't a chance to look up everything I was about to say - I knew I'd screw up at least one factoid. Thanks!

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[zama]

Hey, evil and self-interest are two entirely different things. One is Hilter/Nazi-ism and one is Kissinger/realpolitik. But you have to be incredibly unread to believe that a large part of American foreign policy is purely benevolent. Start your reading with the Phillipine-American War and work your way up to the present.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[jiheison]

Thanks to globalization we actually have a little influence over those doing the exploiting.

We are the ones doing the exploiting. We already have the power to end it, but not the will. We would rather pretend that if people didn't have the crumbs that we toss them, they would have nothing. The fact is that these people were fine until we stepped in and sold the idea of urbaniztion and industry to agrarian populations. In our arrogance, we assume that anyone who does not have a TV and a car, or a shopping mall to visit is in desperate need of modernization. Thus, previously subsisting people were kicked off their land and hearded into slums to make way for cash crops and factories.

Most of the world will never be able to support the standard of living that people in the US enjoy. The only reason that we can enjoy our luxuries, is because they are built on the misery and deprivation of millions in the third world.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[JohnG]

This isn't even worth replying to, but the public gets it's money from it's JOBS. John Q. Public doesn't print money in his basement, he earns it by working for a corporation.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[smallpaul]

We are the ones doing the exploiting.

And here I thought that the dicators in places like the Congo and Iraq took some of the blame. It turns out that really it is McSociety. Self-flaggelation is an admirable American trait but self-aggrandizment is a little bit less appealing. If the US dropped off the face of the earth, it would continue to be a fucked-up planet because we are working out thousands of years of aggression, Imperialism and various forms of totalitarianism. That stuff doesn't work itself out overnight.

We already have the power to end it, but not the will. We would rather pretend that if people didn't have the crumbs that we toss them, they would have nothing. The fact is that these people were fine until we stepped in and sold the idea of urbaniztion and industry to agrarian populations.

What are you talking about? When was the last time that the Congo, for example, was "fine". When was Iraq a thriving agrarian population. I'm not claiming that Western society had nothing to do with the problems of those countries today. I'm claiming that nothing relating to the modern phenomenon called globalization can take the blame.

In our arrogance, we assume that anyone who does not have a TV and a car, or a shopping mall to visit is in desperate need of modernization. Thus, previously subsisting people were kicked off their land and hearded into slums to make way for cash crops and factories.

People move to cities because that is where the jobs are. It is a fundamental result of population growth. I would argue it is a law of sociology and economics. Who pushed us into our urbanized way of life? Aliens? No. It just happened. Population booms, farm technology improves and there just isn't enough work down home on the farm. This has nothing to do with globalization.

China is urbanizing. Do you think they looked across the ocean to us and said: "We'd rather be like them?" Hell no. Urbanization is a stage in the evolution of a society.

Most of the world will never be able to support the standard of living that people in the US enjoy.

That is merely a statement of pessimistic faith. We can, should and must help everyone in the world to achieve our levels of longevity and literacy. That is only possible by exporting our technology. It is incredibly cynical and defeatist to argue that we shouldn't even try to bring them up to our standards of living.

The only reason that we can enjoy our luxuries, is because they are built on the misery and deprivation of millions in the third world.

Absolutely not. Our luxury is primarily a result of our social systems which have evolved over hundreds of years and our technology which has evolved over thousands of years. Other parts of the world will get there also but it may not be quick because the West didn't become properous overnight and it may not be possible elsewhere either.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[crush]

I believe that this is wrong. I believe that capitalism is a gross, horrific abomination that produces this sort of terror. If you believe otherwise then I hold you accountable."
You'd be well to remember that it was a capitalist country that gave us AC Power, Airplanes, Helicopters, Nuclear Power, Computers, Radio, Television, a large bulk of Space Travel and the resultant satellite communications networks and pretty much every other modern convienance.
I'm shocked. I guess I shouldn't be. You're saying that the deaths of the people in NYC are worth it just so that you can have every [...] modern convenience.
You disgust me.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[JohnG]

No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that capitalism works. Blaming what happened in NYC on capitalism is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. I've got news for you idiots, the USA isn't the only capitalist country. Why weren't any of the others attacked? Because it's about our foreign policy, not about capitalism. Furthermore even if we were all driving around in horse and buggies and raising barns all day, this would have still happened. Terrorists aren't exactly rational people. We need to quit thinking of them as such.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[crush]

I believe that this is wrong. I believe that capitalism is a gross, horrific abomination that produces this sort of terror. If you believe otherwise then I hold you accountable."
You'd be well to remember that it was a capitalist country that gave us AC Power, Airplanes, Helicopters, Nuclear Power, Computers, Radio, Television, a large bulk of Space Travel and the resultant satellite communications networks and pretty much every other modern convienance.
I'm shocked. I guess I shouldn't be. You're saying that the deaths of the people in NYC are worth it just so that you can have every [...] modern convenience.
You disgust me.
At least it's obvious what you stand for, unambiguously. I've had arguments about whether or not people like you exist. Now I'm convinced and saddened.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[JohnG]

I'm equally disgusted that someone like you could blame the "Evil Capitalist United States" for something like this, when even our must hated enemies of the past are standing by our side.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[Jethro]

Before Israel was declared by the UN as the New Jewish Homeland, it was part of the British empire. Therefore I assume you are refering to The British.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[jiheison]

And here I thought that the dicators in places like the Congo and Iraq took some of the blame.

Who built Iraq into a regional superpower? Before we went to war with them we helped build them into the fourth largest military power in the world.

Of course the world has always been a fucked-up place. But America is most definiately a large part of the problem at this point in history. You (rightfully) condemn self-aggrandizement, and then you bend over backwards to defend the economic and ideological self-aggrandizement of the US.

Your assumption that Globalism is too young a phenomenon to be responsible for current problems is lamentably naive. What substantive difference is there between Globalism and Imperialism. Globalism is just a more ambitious offshoot, characterised by a pernicious detatchemnt from its affects on humanity. At least the Imerialists of past centuries got into boats and did the dirty work of enslaving thier victims in person.

People move to cities because that is where the jobs are.

How do you think the jobs got there? Cities are a symptom of the concentration of wealth. A few among the wealthy figure out that they can make short term profits by selling off their countries resources on the global market. They consolidate land for growing products that are only useful for export, and build factories that produce goods for sale on the global market. Thus people who once supported their families by farming, hearding, local commerce etc., have no other choice but to move to cities.

Who pushed us into our urbanized life. Rich merchants who wanted to process local resources into exportable goods! And factory workers in the established industrialized world lived under horrible conditions until exported them to the developing world.

China is urbanizing. Do you think they looked across the ocean to us and said: "We'd rather be like them?" Hell no.

Sorry, but Hell yes. You have some other explanation why their urbanization is accompanied by an increasing embracement of Western culture and market capitalism. China wants to remain a super-power, and that means emulating the US. Moreover, who is hearding their peasants into factories faster than China?

We can, should and must help everyone in the world to achieve our levels of longevity and literacy.

And once all of Africa and Asia reaches our standard of living, who is gonig to manufacture their goods for pennies an hour? These Aliens you are talking about? Maybe they can figure out how to build robots to do their grunt work, since we can't be bothered to. As long as they are forced to work hand to mouth to keep our malls stocked with shiny trinkets they will never have the time to get an education or develop good health. Yes, we should be working to improve health and education in the developing world. Stripping them of resources and lining the pockets of local despots who adopt corporation friendly laws does nothing to accomplish these goals. The idea that technology and industrialization can solve the worlds problems is the true artucle of faith here.

Our luxury is primarily a result of our social systems which have evolved over hundreds of years and our technology which has evolved over thousands of years.

And these social systems have always depended on exploitation. First of Native Americans, then African-Americans, then immigrants, and now the Third world. Much the same with technology. Factories made the wholesale exploitation of the working class possible. Later, automation made it possible to toss people out of the factories to starve. Transportation and communication now make it possible to enslave people on the other side of the world to satisfy our appetites.

Other parts of the world will get there also but it may not be quick because the West didn't become properous overnight and it may not be possible elsewhere either.

You are quite right, the West didn't become prosperous overnight. Actually, in your grand view of wealth, learning and longevity, we still haven't. There are many within our borders, and the developed world in general, who are deprived of opportunity, education and health. Shouldn't we prove that our system works here before forcing it down someone elses throat?

If you are so concerned about the developing world, the least you could do is acknowlede the sacrifices they have made and the pain they have suffered so that you can enjoy your standard of living.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[smallpaul]

Who built Iraq into a regional superpower? Before we went to war with them we helped build them into the fourth largest military power in the world.

That has nothing to do with globalization. It has to do with geopolitics. Even if there were no Coca Cola or McDonald's, the world's greatest superpower would want allies and puppets around the world to help it promote its values. Today, as the US tries to figure out the logistics of retribution against Afghanistan it will be clear that friends in that part of the world are extremely helpful. Whether you agree with the retribution or not, the real reason the US has allies and puppets is for fighting wars, not for selling products. Globalization is not the enemy. I won't let anti-globalizers, er, hijack this tragedy to advance their anti-capitalist goals.

Of course the world has always been a fucked-up place. But America is most definiately a large part of the problem at this point in history.

I'm not naive enough to think it hasn't caused problems. But it is at least as large a part of the solution as part of the problem. It has been exporting freedom for centuries. I'm not even an American and I can appreciate that.

...

Your assumption that Globalism is too young a phenomenon to be responsible for current problems is lamentably naive. What substantive difference is there between Globalism and Imperialism.

Lemme see. In one you come in with guns and enslave the population. In the other you offer them products and offer them money in exchange for products and/or money in exchange for ownership of land and corporations. The difference is choice. If you were living in today's Congo you would wish you had the choice of buying and selling things internationally. My great grandparents were slaves in the Carribean. My cousins who are still there are impoverished consumers. There is a world of difference and really the comparison is offensive.

Globalism is just a more ambitious offshoot, characterised by a pernicious detatchemnt from its affects on humanity. At least the Imerialists of past centuries got into boats and did the dirty work of enslaving thier victims in person.

If you are so blind in your hatred of capitalism that you cannot distinguish between a) invading countries and killing those who oppose you and b) offering them the option of buying and selling things then we don't really have much common ground for discussion.

And once all of Africa and Asia reaches our standard of living, who is gonig to manufacture their goods for pennies an hour?

This is Slashdot. You should know the answer to that question. Corporations only delay automation while human labour is cheaper. As labour goes up in price, so does automation. You could make Nike shoes without either human interaction or particularly sophisticated robots.

And these social systems have always depended on exploitation. First of Native Americans, then African-Americans, then immigrants, and now the Third world.

That's bullshit. I'm looking around my desk. I have a a high-tech Cisco IP phone. That may have been made in the third world but certainly not in a sweatshop. I've got an IBM laptop. Not third-world stuff. I have a bunch of books. The paper for that stuff comes from here in Canada. The binding is done in the US. The value of the book is really in the knowledge which happens in this case to be from the US. There is some food. Except for exotic stuff, the food I eat is from North America. Except for exotic stuff I'm told that we are agriculturally self-sufficient.

There is a stuffed animal. That is probably from the third world. My clothes are likely from the third world. My shoes are from China.

Now I'm trying to understand what you would advocate. Next time I go to buy shoes, should I say to myself "hmmm. I'd better not send my money to those Chinese people. They'd be better off with it." Should I keep my money in North America to somehow help those elsewhere?

Much the same with technology. Factories made the wholesale exploitation of the working class possible. Later, automation made it possible to toss people out of the factories to starve.

So you admit that automation is an alterntative to cheap labour. There's the answer to your question about a rich-Asia/rich-Africa future. Also, what is this bullshit about people getting thrown out of the factory to starve? The US unemployement rate is extremely low by internationals standards. Can you demonstrate that it was even lower before there were automated factories? The way the economy works is that employment opportunities change. They don't go away.

Transportation and communication now make it possible to enslave people on the other side of the world to satisfy our appetites.

Offering people money for services is not enslavement. They started out poor. We all started out poor. The natural state of humanity is poverty. Look at how life spans have changed in the last few centuries. Look at how literacy has improved in the last few centuries. Look at how protection from the elements has improved.

Our methodology for achieving those improvements is well-known and well-documented. Now you would deny those in the third-world the same opportunity. And then you would claim you are doing them a favour.

You are quite right, the West didn't become prosperous overnight. Actually, in your grand view of wealth, learning and longevity, we still haven't. There are many within our borders, and the developed world in general, who are deprived of opportunity, education and health. Shouldn't we prove that our system works here before forcing it down someone elses throat?

The system works. The system is nowhere close to perfect. It leaves people behind. That is tragic and we should do whatever we can to fix that. I am a left-liberal: free education, free health-care, etc. But the basic system is better than the alternatives. I'd like to hear your alternative. North Korea? Maoist China? Pre-glastnost USSR? You show me an alternative and we can evaluate it.

If you are so concerned about the developing world, the least you could do is acknowlede the sacrifices they have made and the pain they have suffered so that you can enjoy your standard of living.

Suffering (in the sense of short life-span, and limited opportunities) is the natural state of human beings. When I offer my money to those in the third world I am offering them two things:

• Resouces that they can use to improve their situation
• A hook into the system that I benefit from myself.

I have no reason to feel guilty for that. Most of my relatives live in the developing world and our family history is about climbing the economic ladder thanks to commerce. It is extremely frustrating that there is a fuzzy-headed extremist faction of the liberal movement that would work against the goals of that movement in this manner.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[crush]

what I'm saying is that capitalism works
Yes, and what I'm saying is that the results of its workings are to produce a large number of people with a genuine grudge against those that do well out of the system.
Face it, capitalism has had a free run of a large part of the earth in recent history. We are seeing the results of that. Your ideological masters are running the world. The problems of the world are now squarely attributable to your preferred system. You can't dodge it.
Blaming what happened in NYC on capitalism is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. I've got news for you idiots
Insults indicate that you have no rational response to make. If you can't frame a coherent, reasoned response then you should sit back and take a break for an hour or ten and get some thoughts
The USA isn't the only capitalist country.
True. But it is the most powerful country in the world. It is the one that directly intervenes around the world. Take a guess how many nations have been invaded by the U.S. since 1950?
Why weren't any of the others attacked?
Because it's about our foreign policy, not about capitalism.
Foreign policy is FOR capitalism! Your masters need a flow of cheap resources to increase their profits. The only way that you can get raw materials (and now labor) cheaply enough is to force people to work in conditions that are barbaric. The easiest way to do this is to find a local military dictator. You finance him and give him moral support and he turns his country into a slave-labor camp. He allows his capitalists to export the goods cheaply to the US, he gets a generous cut as do his capitalists and the goods still cost so much less than they would if the cost of decent living was included in them. (Concrete example you might want to look at - Nicaragua: see what happened in the 1930s with Sandino? The United Fruit Company paid for a detachment of Marines to go down and kick some ass. Don't say I didn't give you a nice example, go check it out before you dismiss it).
Again, as I indicated in an earlier post these terrorists are reacting to the direct stimulus, the immediate proximate cause (for Bin Laden its probably US involvement in the Middle East, for McVeigh its government interference in his liberty, for Iraq its control of the oilfields etc, etc.). There are many different proximate causes.
What is important is to find the ultimate cause. Why are there conflicts over these resources? Because we have a world-system, Capitalism that stimulates destructive amoral competition. Until that is removed and replaced with something better there will always be these horrors and atrocities and you are defending them.
even if we were all driving around in horse and buggies and raising barns all day, this would have still happened.
This assumes that you are correct about technological development being tied to Capitalism. I don't think it is. It also begs the obvious question - "if technological development were such that there were only horses, buggies, barns, would there then be skyscrapers or airliners?" I really don't see this sentence as meaningful.
Terrorists aren't exactly rational people. We need to quit thinking of them as such.
I don't know about their rationality, but suppose that I grant you that they are irrational. Let's say they're as irrational as a .... well, a really angry person that says "get out of my house and stop bombing my neighbour and stop giving guns to the other neighbour". You might ask yourself " Am I really justified in being in his house. Do I want to be here even if I am? Suppose this whacko decides to really do as he threatened and sneak into my yard and burn my baby daughter? Do I really want that?"
It strikes me that you and many of the gung-ho types are talking a big-game about war and terrorism and the nobility of capitalism because you don't believe that its YOUR little daughter. Even worse, you can't make the human leap to empathise with the fact that there are little girls and boys dying all over the world so that you can have modern conveniences.
In short, I'm unconvinced that Capitalism is the only thing that can provide technology and I'm not prepared to pay the price of murdering innocents in order to make the experiment. Some other way must be found to provide for people of this world.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[crush]

I'm equally disgusted
I don't believe you. You can't be on the basis of what you have admitted. You've said that the lives of millions of innocents are worth it so that you can have air-conditioning.
that someone like you could blame the "Evil Capitalist United States"
Please don't forget that I also blame all the European client states and their "social democratic" parties that play along with NATO
when even our must hated enemies of the past are standing by our side.
Such as the human rights abusing Russia, China etc etc......doesn't it make you wonder about a couple of little details of morality called "sincerity" and "honesty" when you write this sentence? Your tears are crocodile tears and they dishonour the dead of all nations from all atrocities.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[Wavicle]

Damn straight it wouldn't have happened with Clinton. Look at how Bin Laden associates didn't simultaneously bomb two U.S. Embassies while Clinton was in office.

Clearly terrorists had a better repoire with the previous administration as there were no attempts to disrupt the millennial new year. I keep forgetting that Bin Laden didn't decide that America was the enemy and issue his fatwah until Clinton left office.

If we genocide the Arabs

You know, pundits like you just *love* that genocide word. Every military action is genocide. I wonder how it is that we had a second world war if we genocided all the German people in the first. Has it occurred to you that our target is not every Arab out there? I think the intention is to "genocide" every terrorist out there and "really hurt" any government that harbored them. It's quite tragic that you don't realize that the vast majority of Arab people don't want any part of terrorism, and have no interest in making suicide plane runs into large buildings.

It's a never-ending escalation, until the world is destroyed.

No, it's a never-ending escalation until the world is destroyed, or one side is wiped out, or one side is sufficiently damaged that they choose not to continue. It's simply amazing that you have determined that terrorism represents the force of a super power. Simply amazing.

Myself, I am positive that the media isn't honest with us.

Is that a fancy way of saying "my mind is closed"? You will not accept that the media isn't as dishonest as you say no matter how much evidence you see. Personally, I believe that both world trade centers were rammed with large aircraft. I haven't been to New York to see it myself. I don't know anybody in New York who has seen it. But I'm giving the dishonest media the benefit of the doubt on this one.

But we never see footage of the atrocities we commit in little foreign oil countries, do we? Convenient.

Why don't you go over there and film some of these atrocities? We have free press in this country, it's pretty difficult to believe that such shocking information would find no audience. In this country you can lie about what the government is doing and they don't really have any recourse to stop you. How do I know this? Well, the "moon landings were faked" web sites are rather plentiful, the evil gub'mint has shut them down now have they?

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[Zero Sum]

Not when you tell people to 'vote' it isn't.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[Moofie]

Non capitalist countries, by definition, couldn't be ina sociopolitical position to take advantage (or capitalize) on the industrial revolution because the industrial revolution was a capitalist phenomenon. That's like saying "Cite examples of square wheeled cars that failed for reasons other than their square wheels."

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[JohnG]

First and foremost, I have family in NYC, family that stood beside me and supported me 6 months ago when my mother died, so don't you DARE tell me that I'm crying crocodile tears, you have no damn right to make such a statement!
Secondly what you are saying reads just like the propoganda you seem to hate so greatly. I make no claims that capitalism is the be all end all ecomonic policy, and considering I have family over there, there is now way in HELL that I am ignoring what happened for "modern conveniences". The facts of the matter are that there are two sides to every coin. The US has lost (yes lost) billions of dollars helping other countries in need, for as long as any of us have been alive to remember. When there were natural disasters we were the first to go the the countries aid, hell, we even help rebuild countries after we beat them up! The USA has gotten very litte if any of those Billions of dollars back, those dollars are gone, lost, never to be regained, and what's more we didn't ask for it back.
You talk about how the Evil Capitalists are commiting atrocities in Israel, ignoring the fact that countries over there have been at war for centuries, and both sides have done horrible things to one another, at least we continue to try the peace conferences. You blindly ignore the fact that American soldiers have given their lifes in the name of freedom, battling the likes of Hitler and others.
You claim that it's the Evil Capitalists that are responsible for the deaths of the thousands at the WTC, but fail to mention that the same coporate greed is responsible for medical advancements by drug companies that have saves MILLIONS of lifes, they might have done it in the name of profit, but by god it got done!
You talk about what a horrible country we are, yet, if you are a US citizen you have the right to say any bad thing you want about the government, were in some countries such a simple act would land you in jail. You talk about the evil Americans, while people in the Middle east are fighting over religion. Over here, we might have to deal with bigots like Jerry Falwell, but at least he doesn't kill us when we disagree with him!
You say that capitalism isn't perfect, HELL NO it isn't perfect, but no system is. We tried to stay out of foreign affairs in WWII and look what happened to us! Not only did we get attacked by the Japanese, but are still attacked to this day by people like you because we didn't join the fight sooner! This country is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't.
The plain and simple facts are that no matter what the provokation the actions taken by these terrorists what NOT justified. If you want to argue about how bad capitilism is, that's fine. If you want to insult this country, that's fine. For it is this country's very constitution that gives you that right, but don't try to justify those peoples deaths because America is "Evil". And for God's sake, save your negative comments until after the perpetrators of this horrible act are brought to justice.
Oh, and by the way. If we were in horse drawn buggies and barns this would STILL have happened. People have been slaughtering each other in huge numbers for thousands of years. It's just plane stupid to blame airplanes and skyscrapers for what has happened

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[crush]

People go to war because they either have different beliefs or want each other's land. The Palestinians both have different beliefs than the Israelis and the two want the same land. I don't see what this has to do with globalization
Expand the concept of "land" to natural resources and maybe you'll get the picture. At the moment we're getting a huge flow of natural resources from everywhere else in the world. Depending upon who we "favor" (that is, use to control the others) then other players will be more or less angry with us. Currently it is nice to have cheap gas. So we have a base in the Middle East. They call it Israel, but really it's a missile launch site cum munitions dump. To be sure the individual actors in that tragedy have historical justifications for their exclusive claims. They both cling to extremist Nationalist policies that make compromise difficult. By alternately playing them against one another we can keep them weak but viciously engaged.

Israel and Palestine could both drop off the face of the earth without affecting the United States' GDP.

Sure, sure

If the US was really interested in the money it would do well to side with the Arabs (with the oil) rather than the Israelis with their relatively worthless bit of desert.
Unfortunately the Arabs had ideas of their own for a while (remember OPEC and oil shortages?) and it's handy to have base for your missiles to keep down rival capitalists.

Oh sure, the western world caused AIDs

Oh sure, the western world isn't causing the AIDS EPIDEMIC. It's not witholding the right to make medicines that help treat the AIDS EPIDEMIC. It's not collecting billions in debt repayment from countries too poor to afford fscking disposable rubber gloves let alone a safe blood transfusion service. Too poor to eat!. Yeah! Oh sure!

and globalization is the root of the constant infighting in Africa. It has nothing to do with the results of pre-globalization imperialism. It has nothing to do with the aftermath of the cold war. It has nothing to do with the arbitrary borders drawn by notorious "globalizers" like 1950s Belgium and Holland.

Imagine a fire. It's dark. The wolves are howling around outside the circle of light and a chill wind is blowing. Draw closer to the fire, warm yourself. Enjoy it. Feel the comfort. But....what the...!!! You can see that the fire is made of the writhing, tortured, blackened limbs of millions of people. Some of them you've never seen, some of them you've passed by in your SUV, some of them you've walked past not many yards from where they beg. That fire my friend is CAPITALISM. It brings some pathetic comfort to the few at the expense of the many. Now, take your can of barbecue lighter fuel and splash it on, the flames blaze higher, the people scream louder and you are warmer.....hmmm....that bit of flesh doesn't look too burnt. Globalization is the lighter fuel. You are the cannibal. But beware, the flames have started to spread. You may get burnt.

People have constructed excuses to kill each other for thousands of years. The killing reached its height years before globalization was a term or an idea.

I look forward to two things: first, your date for when globalization began; second, statistics that prove your assertion that "the killing" reached its height at some date in the past. Note that I would like you to get me some figures for not only those slaughtered directly to bring them the benefits of global trade, but also those whose lives are cut short through lack of medicines, lack of food, labor in dangerous environments etc.

People died horribly yesterday because the US is involved in a fight with people who are very desperate.

And the obvious question is why are they desperate, and the even more obvious answer is because they are being attacked. So then one asks, do we really need to attack them? And one answers, only if we want to continue to get their "land" cheap. Personally speaking, I don't. I don't think that death and torture are an acceptable price to pay. Obviously you do though.

Globalization or not, that can only be avoided by withdrawing from the world stage.

On the contrary, it means that the West has to start acting in a humane manner. We have to send medicines, workers, educators. We have to stop bleeding them dry. We have to pay a fair price for their goods. We have to oppose dictatorial regimes whether or not they are prepared to prostitute their peoples to us. We have to be MORAL. Otherwise we create viciousness.

That withdrawl would be a license to monsters all over the world to follow in the footsteps of Rwanda and Cambodia.

Do you have any idea of how culpable the US was for Cambodia? Have you ever bothered to get off your arse and read John Pilger? Have you sincerely tried to find out WHY this and Vietnam and Laos happened? Are you an educated CITIZEN or are you a slave parroting his master's platitudes?

The US needs to be more engaged in the world, not less. But there may be blow-back. It's the price of getting involved.

See above.

Go ahead. Even today, I would much rather live in New York city than in a city in any of the countries practicing alternatives to democratic capitalism: Havana, Beijing, Pyongyang.

I'd rather not live in any of those horrible places either. Because if I did then I would be working for a lot less so that YOU could have a lot more. No thanks.

Do you have a proposed alternative or are you just "fighting the machine", "getting back at the man" and all that other stuff that is appropriate to rebellious youth?

Yes, I propose that we try communism again. Not the State Socialism of the USSR under the Marxist-Leninists. Rather, the communism that existed for a brief period in the direct democracy of the workers Soviets in Petrograd before they came under the control of the Bolsheviks. The communism of Gramsci's Factory Councils, the communism of the Friends of Durutti in Spain in 1936 and of the militias, the communism of Ida Mett, Piotr Arshinov, Nestor Makhno and the Platform of Libertarian Communists. Something like that. It sounds a lot better than the disgusting amoral, heartless, murderous, pointless Capitalism that you advocate.

Would you rather live in mainland China or Hong Kong/Taiwan? East Germany or West? South Korea or North?

And have you stopped beating your wife yet? Yes!, NO!, I mean yes!. I'd rather live in a direct-democracy with immediately recallable delegates, communal property and production. You can stuff your miserable Capitalism.

You know what they need in Africa, and Afghanistan and every place in the world where people are oppressed? They need democractic capitalism.

What they need is to not have to pay crippling interest on loans negotiated at the point of a gun. What they need is for you to show some moral responsibility and a little human empathy. What they need is for you to stop licking your master's hand and to stop kicking their heads.

We've done the experiment over and over again and we know the results.

We sure do. Mass starvation in the midst of over-production. Millions of tons of bombs dropped on the innocent. Hundreds of thousands of innocents killed by competing capitalist factions.

You are just cruel if you want to subject some poor people to yet another alternate system.

Whilst you offer them mass hunger and free bombings when they object. Oh generous one.

I'm a left leaning liberal

What, one of your legs is shorter than the other? Or do you mean that you lean over to the left while you take it from the boss? Or do you mean that when you look out upon the world you lean to one side so as not to see the misery so that you can congratulate yourself.

but I'm not naive enough to still believe we should be pursuing some alternate system.

You're not naive. You're degenerate. You're cynical. You're ignorant. You're un-informed. You're amoral. But you're not naive.

Maybe once we've wiped out poverty and AIDs we'll have the bandwidth to experiment with alternate systems but right now we need to get those people good jobs, good homes and enough purchasing power that they can buy some influence over their own governments.

I take it back. You ARE naive.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[Arandir]

Anyone can twist anything into an excuse for evil. Remember Charley Manson? His excuse was to twist some words from Beatle songs.

We are civilized and educated people. So why don't we act like it?!?! It doesn't take a brain surgeon to understand that the acts of a few do not define the attitude of the whole.

The fact that it has happened with more than one religion (to name two: Islam and Christianity) indicates that it is not a problem confined to one religion.

Yes, and that includes all religions, even the exremely peaceful ones. Despite the peacefulness of Shintoism, Bhuddism, Hinduism and Taoism, the nations of Japan, China and India cannot claim to be free of twisted and evil men, or to have never initiated war.

And don't forget the atheists. The nation states founded on atheism have been anything but enlightened, to witness the USSR, PRC, Cambodia, North Korea, etc.

There are folks out there trying to justify the forcible deportation of all Arabs and Muslims based on the actions of a handful of madmen. Why stop there? Let's deport everyone. If they don't go to your church, deport them! If they don't look like you, club them with a baseball bat! And if they didn't vote exactly like you did, time to pull out the rope and find a tree!

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[galego]

True! but consider this..
Those people in the World Trade Center, on the planes and at the Pentagon aren't necessarily responsible for any of the unfair-ities that 'provoked' this attack.

Your'e right...and I'll even admit that self-interest leads down the road to 'evil' at a certain point.

But! Would you say that all of the US' non-benevolent charity acts warranted such an outright evil attack on innocent citizens? (Unless everyone the now-dead and survivors can be implicated somehow in these heinous non-benevolent acts.) If so...then let's just go ahead and get out the nukes and be done with it!

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[crush]

I don't believe you are sincere. Your post has further convinced me that you are trying to use (justified) emotions to justify an appalling system. I will continue to believe that you are a hypocrite until you face up to and admit that ALL acts of terror must be stopped. Most importantly, until you admit that the current world system - Capitalism (which is for the most part dominated by the US) - has brutal and appalling consequences then I believe that you are a hypocrite.
Your further defence of this sickening system confirms me in this.
To take your points in brief order:
1. The US has lost billions. Untrue. The US has invested billions in (eg the Marshall Plan) in order to stop the spread of communism. This has been amply repaid by the control they have over the slave-labor countries of the third world. Please note also that the US foreign aid interest repayments greatly exceed any original investment and keep the countries that received it in a position where they cannot develop infra-structure.
2. I ignore US deaths (btw America refers to the whole continent, not just the US) in WW2 in defence of freedom.
No I don't ignore them. Those soldiers, ordinary people like me, had to die because there was no MORAL US intervention by the US and the rest of Europe against the fascists. Our elites were too busy worrying about the spread of communism. So they allowed the Jews to be exterminated. In many cases they even helped. It was only when the Reich looked like it was going to be a threat that they intervened. See a similar story with that bastard Hussein? As long as he was killing Kurds quietly and not being a direct threat to /our/ power he was allowed.
3. There are two sides to every coin.
Yes and there are six sides to a die, and many faces of evil.
corporate greed is responsible for saving the lives of millions
How can you write this in the same post in which you emote over the death of your mother and the threat to your family in NYC? Do you genuinely not understand or are you so deeply cynical?
The average life-span in the developed countries has been extended by 3 years since the turn of the century. That is the advantage that modern medicine has given us (ref: Richard Lewontin, "Massey Lectures" c.1995). The increase in life-span since the mid C.19th is due to basic public sanitation.
The wonderful capitalist that are producing viagra and hay-fever medicines and 600 brands of dyspepsia tablets are stripping the majority of countries in the world of the ability to implement BASIC PUBILC SANITATION. Have you ever been in a 3rd world country? Ever seen the shit in the streets?
4.In the US you can say what you wantEver hear of the House Committee for Un-American Activities? Ever been on a peaceful demonstration attacked by the police?
5. Capitalism isn't perfect
No, it's deeply flawed and based upon a disgusting model of human interaction that can only result in tragedy.
6.The US tries to stay out of foreign affairs
Look at US involvement prior to WW2. Do you think that the Nicaraguans felt that the US was staying out of their business? How about the Mexicans? How about how the Soviets must have felt when the expeditionary force landed at archangel (mostly brits there but US backed).
How about the US had intervened MORALLY prior to the war protesting what was happening in Germany? But no, our famous capitalists were busy meeting with Herr Hitler and exchanging mutual admiration notes. Your claim would be laughable if it were not so disgusting.
no matter what the provokation (sic) the terrorist action was NOT justified
Agreed. I have never for one minute argued to the contrary
don't try to justify peoples (sic) deaths because America is evil
Again I have never done this. Show me one example. On the contrary I completely condemn this act, as I condemn ALL acts of terror. Unlike you I am not trying to justify these home deaths and the foreign deaths as an "imperfect" but best possible system.
7.save negative comments until after the perpetrators are brought to justice
Why? It has happened now. I am outraged and saddened. I consider that part of the blame lies with US foreign policy and with capitalism in general. I want them brought to justice. I don't feel like remaining quiet and pretending that killing the swine that did this will solve anything.
Unlike you I don't want this to happen again and I want the similar things that are happening now to stop. We can do that. We have a moral responsibility to do it. Otherwise we're dancing on graves.
8.its just plane (sic) stupid to blame skyscrapers and airplanes for what happened
You said it.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[zama]

Hey, galego - in no way am I defending or justifying terrorism. In no way do I think that the invididuals at the WTC were anything but innocent victims. My only point was that things happen for a reason. And it's those ultimate reasons, not proximate causes, that need to be addressed for true peace and security.

rock on.
-zama

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[jiheison]

the real reason the US has allies and puppets is for fighting wars, not for selling products.

Not to sell products, no. But more often than not to protect markets and economic resources. Take the Gulf War as an example. Follow the money, you will be unpleasantly surprised.

It has been exporting freedom for centuries.

This freedom has always been a trojan horse, masking our self serving desire to aquire new markets and spheres of influence. In short, it is veiled Imperialism. We exported our "freeodom" to Japan (at gunpoint) in the late 19th century and it took less than fifty years for it to evolve into ruthless Imperialism. Co-incidence? Was that part of the solution for the rest of Asia? The fact is that we have a long record of turning a blind eye to anyone that does not contribute to our bottom line. Lets not forget the totalitarian regimes that we prop up whenever it makes economic sense. The fact is that freedom takes a back seat to economic expediency.

In one you come in with guns and enslave the population. In the other you offer them products and offer them money in exchange for products and/or money in exchange for ownership of land and corporations. The difference is choice.

This misconception is at the root of much of your argument. Third world citizens are are given no choice when it comes to globalization. They are sold out by their self-serving ruling classes. They receive none of the benefits of Global trade. Their politicians and bosses trade their labor for cash which they use to line their own pockets. Globalism does nothing for these people other than encourage their further exploitation. It turns their very lives into a commodity on a market over which they have no control. Corporations are not moving in to the Third World out of a desire to bring employment to desperate people. They are there to cash in on desperation.

If you are so blind in your hatred of capitalism that you cannot distinguish between a) invading countries and killing those who oppose you and b) offering them the option of buying and selling things then we don't really have much common ground for discussion.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how invading a nation and killing or subjugating its people for ecomic gain is any different than aiding an abetting this behavior by local allies. That is, other than the fact that the latter offers the opportunity to make repugnant denials of responsibility.

Corporations only delay automation while human labour is cheaper.

Tranlasion: Corporations will exploit people as long as possible. There is a clear incentive here to impede the development of the third world into anything other than a cheap labor pool. If nothing else, it will spare the shareholders the expense of the R&D of alternatives (and god forbid they should be deprived of a single dime made off of someone elses back). You are right, this is Slashdot. This is a place where people seem to understand that the unbridled expansion of corporate hegemony is harmful to competition, inovation, and ultimately consumers. I would think that people who have a problem with Microsoft would be at least suspicious of Nike and its ilk. I sincerely hope that all Slashdot readers are not so myopic in their understanding of the world around them.

I'm looking around my desk. I have a a high-tech Cisco IP phone. That may have been made in the third world but certainly not in a sweatshop. I've got an IBM laptop. Not third-world stuff.

I am so glad that you brought up your high tech gadgets, manufactured in the sweatshops of the new economy. Thanks to the obfuscation of companies like IBM, we are only now discovering the effects of long term exposure to the toxics that went into the construction of that laptop. The cancers and other diseases caused by direct and repeated exposure to dangerous solvents and heavy metals has been hidden for years by high tech manufacturers in the name of saving a dime at the expense of employee health. Of course, these toxics were dumped into the local environment, further magnifying their harful effects. By the way, I am talking about factories here in America, in the middle of Silicon Valley. If corporations can do this in the face of relatively strict employee health and environmental regulations, imagine the damage that they can get away with in nations that are too weak to regulate them at all. Japanese high tech manufaturers are wreaking environmental havoc in the Philipines and other asian countries, exporting toxic industrial processes so they can keep their own environment as prestine as possible.

I'm glad you enjoy books. No-ones life was shortened by having to handle toxic inks, glues, acids or bleaches, right? Of course not. In the free world no-one would be subjeted to harm in the name of economic expediancy.

Now I'm trying to understand what you would advocate. Next time I go to buy shoes, should I say to myself "hmmm. I'd better not send my money to those Chinese people. They'd be better off with it." Should I keep my money in North America to somehow help those elsewhere?

First, realize that you are not sending money to the Chinese people. The vast majority of it is staying in North America. You are sending it it to a North American corporation, who sends the tiniest portion to their Third World partners, who in a sick tribute to Marx pay their workers just enough so that they may survive to work one more day. Second, you should at least try to find companies that do not rely on explotative labor practices. Can't find one? Admit that this is problem and start asking why. Costs of living in the Third World are so low it is all the more a crime that they are not paid a living wage. If shoes cost $2 to make and retail for $100, at least wonder where the rest of the money goes. But don't perpetuate the capitalist, free market dogma that supply and demand sort these things out fairly and that global prosperity is not the manifest destiny of corporate expansion. Corporate ideology has no allegiance to the furtherance of human rights

The US unemployement rate is extremely low by internationals standards. Can you demonstrate that it was even lower before there were automated factories?

Can you demostrate that it was higher? People lose their jobs all the time when they are replaced by advances in technology. I don't assume that they will always be absobed by some new venture. The worlds population is skyrocketing while the demand for labor is diminishing. You connect the dots.

Offering people money for services is not enslavement.

This oversimplified definition is not slavery. Nor is it reality. The process by which people are herded off of their land and into factories to work for pennies an hour for lack of any alternate means of survival is slavery. What is the difference between these people and African slaves brought to the new world? The fact that the pitance they receive for their labor is paid in cash? Face it, we are no different than the societies that promoted slavery in past centuries. We depend on forced labor and rationalize that these savages would be worse off without us.

They started out poor. We all started out poor. The natural state of humanity is poverty. Look at how life spans have changed in the last few centuries. Look at how literacy has improved in the last few centuries. Look at how protection from the elements has improved.

If the natural state of humnity is poverty, why do you assume that global prosperity is a fait accompli? Exporting our industrial toxins to the Third World will not improve their life spans. Sending children to work in factories does nothing to further their education. And where do you think that these people live? Antarctica? People in South-East Asia do not need our help to survive the elements.

At last we agree. I make no assertion that there is a better system. I simply submit that ours is fraught with inequity, and does real harm to many people. I simply suggest that we recognize its failings, and fix them wherever possible.

Your pollyannish assumption that the system will figure itself out for the better of all mankind is part of the problem. It excuses you from feeling any guilt towards the people who suffer in the shackles of the global trade. It allows you to sit back and do nothing, safe in the assumption that Politicians, CEO's and stock holders will make sure that everyone gets a fair shake.

If you haven't, take a look at the writings of Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn or David Korten. At least hear both sides of the argument beefore you take the free-market capitalist dogma on faith.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[smallpaul]

Not to sell products, no. But more often than not to protect markets and economic resources. Take the Gulf War as an example. Follow the money, you will be unpleasantly surprised.

The Gulf War is an abberation. Vietnam was not about protecting markets. Cambodia was not about markets. WWII was not about markets. WWI was not about markets. They were all about halting the spread of tolatarianism. The Gulf War was also conveniently a fight against a totalitarian dictator and was justified on those grounds no matter what the economic benefits were. My only concern is that US is not more consistent in applying this policy to, let's say, Africa. If commerce sometimes gets the US to do the right thing then that is better than nothing.

This freedom has always been a trojan horse, masking our self serving desire to aquire new markets and spheres of influence. In short, it is veiled Imperialism. We exported our "freeodom" to Japan (at gunpoint) in the late 19th century and it took less than fifty years for it to evolve into ruthless Imperialism.

For every pre-war Japan there is a post-war Japan. For every Columbia there is all of Western Europe. The world is moving towards democracy in fits and starts and capitalism helps rather than harms that move.

Co-incidence? Was that part of the solution for the rest of Asia? The fact is that we have a long record of turning a blind eye to anyone that does not contribute to our bottom line. Lets not forget the totalitarian regimes that we prop up whenever it makes economic sense. The fact is that freedom takes a back seat to economic expediency.

I agree that commerce usually takes precedence over democracy because we have direct control over commerce. We just agree to do it or not to do it. How can you enforce democracy from afar?

Third world citizens are are given no choice when it comes to globalization. They are sold out by their self-serving ruling classes.

This can only happen in countries where the citizens are literally slaves. If, as in India, Taiwan, South Korea, etc., they get to choose their jobs then they always have the right to choose otherwise. It is sad that they have to choose between working and starving but so do Americans. They would not choose to work in the sweatshops if they had some better option.

They receive none of the benefits of Global trade. Their politicians and bosses trade their labor for cash which they use to line their own pockets.

So does my boss. That's the system.

Globalism does nothing for these people other than encourage their further exploitation.

There are so many counter-examples. There are many third world countries with robust growth that have climbed up the value add ladder. Japan is a prime example. Taiwan is another. Poland's growth has been tremendous. Ireland. Really, all of post-war Europe. The United States had a thriving sweatshop economy for a long while. Are you familiar with the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire?

Africans are probably hoping that the other Asians make that climb sooner rather than later so they will have a shot at least at the sweatshop jobs.

Look: if we can reduce sweatshops through laws and careful buying then that's fine. But that isn't an argument against globalization. Sending money to those people in the form of wages is better than not sending them money and the only sustainable way of sending them money is through international commerce. If you want to fight sweatshops, fight sweatshops. Don't fight "multinationals" (as if they are all identical) or "globalization" (which is vaguely defined). And for God's sake, don't wage your vaguely defined campaign on the backs of those who died in New York City. It is offensive.

It turns their very lives into a commodity on a market over which they have no control. Corporations are not moving in to the Third World out of a desire to bring employment to desperate people. They are there to cash in on desperation.

Did I say otherwise? My boss cashes in on my (relatively less urgent) desperation also. I'll repeat that that's how the system works. Can we improve parts of the system? Without doubt. Should we abolish the system? No way!

Does this system have anything to do with the acts of these deranged fundamentalists? Not really. Afghanistan is not really very "globalized" and Saudia Arabia does not really have a sweatshop labour problem.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how invading a nation and killing or subjugating its people for ecomic gain is any different than aiding an abetting this behavior by local allies.

So let me get this straight. You figure that living conditions and range of options in China, Mexico, South Korea and similar countries today are similar to those of the slaves in the old South. Okay fine. I give up. We have too little viewpoint in common for a useful conversation. Most people in the third world are NOT subjugated. They are poor. There is a tremendous difference.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[jiheison]

The Gulf War is an abberation. Vietnam was not about protecting markets. Cambodia was not about markets. WWII was not about markets. WWI was not about markets. They were all about halting the spread of tolatarianism.

If anything, the World Wars were the abberations. They were two rare instances when our country or its property was attacked. We didn't give a damn about totalitarianism when it was only affecting someone else. It is the same today. China is one of our largest trading partners and they are known to use forced labor to produce goods for export. As for SE Asia, those wars were about halting the spread of communism. Please consider that the antithesis of communism is not democracy, it is capitalism. There are many democratic countries that emply communist and/or socialist principles to the great benefit of their people. (Meanwhile, people in the US actually beleive that socailized medecine is a threat to democracy.) I am not suggesting that most communist regimes are not totalitarian. They are. However, I think that our stance towards totalitarian China now that they have warmed up to capitalism belies our true motives.

Allow me to reiterate that I do not suggest the abolition of corporations or globalism (hence my original suggestion to reign them in), or even more directly Imperialistic endeavors in troubled parts of the world. I simply suggest that their powers need to be tempered. I simply beleive that they need to be bound to humanitarian principles that are not currently inherent to their ideology. As long as we agree that these systems have problems that need fixing, we need not argue.

Allow me also to point out that I presume to be no expert on the conditions of sweatshop labor in the Third World. However, there are sweat shops in the United States where people are held against their will, forced to work without pay, and physically and sexually victimized. I think it is a resonable assumption that conditions are at least as bad in countries with weaker laws and human rights protections.

Finally, bin Laden considers us an enemy because of our military presence in the Holy Lands of Islam and our support of a regime considered corrupt becuase of their allowance of this affront. We are in Saudi Ariabia to protect international trade and in furtherance short sided energy policies that are paid for by multinationals. To ignore this is to invite further retribution, and I consider that to be an offense to the memory of those who have died in NY because of our arrogance and greed.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[JohnG]

"This has been amply repaid by the control they have over the slave-labor countries of the third world"

Do you put no blame on the governments of those countries for their financial troubles?

"Those soldiers, ordinary people like me, had to die because there was no MORAL US intervention by the US and the rest of Europe against the fascists. Our elites were too busy worrying about the spread of communism."

We actually tried to help the jews as early as 1938, but the various countries could not agree on a course of action. It's true that we ignored the suffering for a while, we were at the time trying to stay out of world affairs as much as possible. Something everyone says we should do now, it's seems we can't win either way. Of course we would get involved when it began to affect us, wouldn't you try to fight something that could potentially hurt you?

As far as your rant about lifespan you seem to completely ignore things such as vaccinations to deadly illnesses, transplants of vital organs, bypass surgeries. To pretend that many people would not be dead if not for those things is disengenious at best.

The basic flaw in your position is that you assume a very primitive human flaw, greed, would suddenly go away if we were to switch to socialism, or some other economic model.
You need to realize that maybe if the socialist countries you hold so dear had the resources of the US, that they might just be as imperialistic and "evil". After all, I hate to tell you, but domineering government has existed LONG before democracy or capitalism, and greed probably even before government.

And since you are calling me hypocritical, what about you? On one end you are saying that we have no business in Israel, and on the other you are suggesting that I enlist? Do you think that the big bad evil American government is going to use a growing military to back out of a war against a people that very likely just killed thousands of Americans? I didn't think so.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[crush]

Do you put no blame on the governments of those countries for their financial troubles?

Yes I do. Most of them consist of corrupt elites who are supported by our "democracy". But why are they there? Mostly because we keep them in power so we can strip their raw resources.

We actually tried to help the jews as early as 1938,

Cite me some article or book that I can check this assertion in.

It's true that we ignored the suffering for a while, we were at the time trying to stay out of world affairs as much as possible.

Again, exactly how does your assertion of "staying out of world affairs" square with the actual historical facts of massive US intervention in Spanish America? China? Russia? to name but a few?

Something everyone says we should do now, it's seems we can't win either way. Of course we would get involved when it began to affect us, wouldn't you try to fight something that could potentially hurt you?

Your can't win either way complaint is bogus. We have never been "not intervening". Yes, I certainly would try to fight something that might hurt me. I would fight the urge to steal and bully, I would fight (with words) the elites of my country who advocate the policies that cause ME to be threatened for THEIR gain.

As far as your rant about lifespan you seem to completely ignore things such as vaccinations to deadly illnesses, transplants of vital organs, bypass surgeries. To pretend that many people would not be dead if not for those things is disengenious (sic) at best.

No, I don't ignore them. I discount them as being a significant factor in the elongation of human life-span. Read the reference I gave you. I don't pretend that many people would not be dead for those things. I DO assert that the fabulous capital driven bio-medical research produces mainly trivial products. It does this with capital stripped from 3rd world countries and hence kills more people than it cures. I want less choice of cough-medicine and more money going to democratic 3rd world countries basic sanitation infrastructure (christ how many times do you have to be told things?).

The basic flaw in your position is that you assume a very primitive human flaw, greed, would suddenly go away if we were to switch to socialism, or some other economic model.

No. I believe that some greed is innate but that a lot of it is due to socialization and the moral climate you live in. If you live in a society where greed is thought to actually be a good thing (capitalism) then it gets hyper-developed. Communism recognises that this is part of the human organism and attempts to control it to the benefit of all.

You need to realize that maybe if the socialist countries you hold so dear had the resources of the US, that they might just be as imperialistic and "evil".

When have I said that I hold socialist countries dear? Again you attempt to put words in my mouth. I don't like any of the so-called socialist or communist states that exist or existed. I consider them to be flawed authoritarian, non-democratic implementations of socialism. I think those that exist and have existed are definitely imperialist and evil. That's because they were morally bankrupt. They didn't believe in democracy any more than you do.

After all, I hate to tell you, but domineering government has existed LONG before democracy or capitalism, and greed probably even before government.

I agree that domineering government existed long before either the political system democracy or the economic system capitalism or the facet of human nature greed. So what?

And since you are calling me hypocritical, what about you? On one end you are saying that we have no business in Israel, and on the other you are suggesting that I enlist?

I feel that if you are advocating WAR then YOU should be the one to put your life on the line rather than me or my family or my friends or anyone else. I'd rather you came home in a body bag than someone that is a humane, rational, educated being.

Do you think that the big bad evil American government is going to use a growing military to back out of a war against a people that very likely just killed thousands of Americans? I didn't think so.

I don't think so either. But I am again appalled at your ignorance, jingoism and stereotyping. What do you mean by "a people that very likely just killed thousands?". Are you seriously talking about going to war with a whole nation or ethnic group or religion because some of them are murderers?
You are definitely a hypocrite. You are also a volitional murderer. You are more fitted to live with the terrorists than in a nation that aspires to democracy.
Finally you might try reading the following (Turning the Tide:Noam Chomsky, The Dark Side of Europe:Geoffrey Harris) to see the lovely things the US did against fascism in Europe (actually I know you're too lazy to read so here's the skinny: they kept large networks of Nazi and Fascist military intelligence and special police in place so that they could attack the communists. They rewarded the capitalists who had been members of the Nazi party by not hanging them. Instead they made them rich with our tax-dollars. (A movie you might see is "The Nasty Girl" dir. Paul Verhoeven (Total Recall)).

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[JohnG]

Look, it's obvious this argument is getting nowhere accept you putting words into my mouth. I do not condone attacking people because of their race, I condone attacking the people responsible for the terrorist attack, and those countries which may seek to protect the terrorists. In fact I openly gave my email address on the Yahoo boards for Muslims who might feel the need to talk to someone about the hate they are unfairly forced to face right now.

I'm certainly not condoning any actions by the United States government that might hurt other people. The time however to address these issues isn't right now. To use a rather harsh analagy from Yahoo, Imagine if your child were hit by a car and killed. Would you want the neighbor running right out and saying "Well you shouldn't let them play in the street"? Certainly you would look to be more careful with your other children, but people should allow you a suitable greive period before blasting attacks.
Thirdly I still don't have any conclusive proof from you that it is capitalism that is the root of all the violent evil things which the United States has brought to other people. One doesn't have to be a capitalist to act in their best interest. And if no country has made socialism work, as you say, how can we blame Capitalism for the US's indiscrections and not blame Communism for Russia's or any other system for the sins of it's users?

And those articles you wanted? Here is a link
As for my comments on isolationism, you need to read up on your history a bit more. What I was referring to was our decision, initially, to stay out of the conflict between the British and the Germans. A good link to the whole thing is: here

Furthermore, by assuming that I am not willing to put my life on the line, you assume to much. A friend just came down from trade school in Maryland and mentioned that he thought a draft might be initiated. My response was that I already had sent an email out to an air national guard recruiter. One of my goals in life has always been to be a pilot. Since you have to be an officer to be a pilot, I wanted to train to work on the f-16's stationed at the air guard base in Richmond.
My friend mentioned that he too had though of enlisting in the reserves, but preferred the navy because he wanted to work on his favorite jet, the F/A-18 hornet.
Right now I am seriously considering my options, both in reserve branches, national gaurd branches, and full-time branches of the military. Because unlike you, I think this is a time to stand by my country. The time to attack our foreign policy can come after I know that my soon to be born nephew can lay in his crib without his mother, father, and I worrying about bomb raids on one of the many strategic military installations in the area taking his life.
And just to re-iterate, I do NOT want to just go blindly blowing up Arabic people. I don't think Bush plans on bombing the Taliban or anyone else just for the hell of it. The bottom line is, our Military Headquarters was bombed. Regardless what the French and Germans say, that IS an act of war.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[smallpaul]

There are many democratic countries that emply communist and/or socialist principles to the great benefit of their people.

I'd appreciate an example of a communist country that has produced great benefit for its people.

(Meanwhile, people in the US actually believe that socailized medicine is a threat to democracy.)

I think the vast majority believe it is just not effective. The jury is still out on that question. I wouldn't call health care provision in any part of the world clearly "effective." There are trade-offs to be made.

I am not suggesting that most communist regimes are not totalitarian. They are. However, I think that our stance towards totalitarian China now that they have warmed up to capitalism belies our true motives.

There is a theory -- only a theory, but a credible one -- that says that encouraging a capitalist market place also encourages accountability, transparency and power sharing. There are a few counter-examples like Singapore but the vast majority of countries with a long capitalist tradition do seem to be fairly democratic and vice versa.

Look around you. The world is getting to be a better place (last week excluded). The Chinese are getting richer. They are not as prone to random famines. They have more freedom. Money is flowing into India. Dictators like Marcos', Suhartos, Abacha and Pinochet are dieing off and being replaced by democractic leaders. Apartheid is dead. Just as the capitalists predicted, open markets and open societies are springing up around the globe.

It is no coincidence that the Middle East is one of the least globalized, most nationalistic parts of the world and at the same time is desperately poor and constantly in turmoil. The US could withdraw from the region but who would that really help? Who would it help when Syria and Lebanon invade Israel? When Saddam invades Saudia Arabia and then turns his eyes towards Iran?

I simply believe that they need to be bound to humanitarian principles that are not currently inherent to their ideology. As long as we agree that these systems have problems that need fixing, we need not argue.

Fair enough.

Allow me also to point out that I presume to be no expert on the conditions of sweatshop labor in the Third World. However, there are sweat shops in the United States where people are held against their will, forced to work without pay, and physically and sexually victimized. I think it is a resonable assumption that conditions are at least as bad in countries with weaker laws and human rights protections.

Fine. But there is a huge gap between saying "there are slaves in China" and saying "most Chinese people are slaves." The reports I get from the Chinese people I see here are that most Chinese people are not slaves. Nor most Mexicans or South Koreans or Cambodians or ... we cannot by ourselves, prevent slavery throughout the world. But before Chinese globalization/capitalism most Chinese people were slaves in the sense that they were told what they must work on and had no option of doing otherwise.

Finally, bin Laden considers us an enemy because of our military presence in the Holy Lands of Islam and our support of a regime considered corrupt becuase of their allowance of this affront. We are in Saudi Ariabia to protect international trade and in furtherance short sided energy policies that are paid for by multinationals.

No, I think that we are in Saudia Arabia because the Middle East is an important and volatile part of the world for a variety of reasons. One of them is energy policies which (short-sighted or not) are much more demanded by the average joe on the street than by multinationals. When the price of oil goes up average Americans start to talk impeachment. A medium-length lack of oil could cause a worldwide recession that would hurt poor people much more than rich. In the long term maybe we would learn how to get by with less oil and everyone would win but that is just a hope, not a guaranteed outcome.

I think most people agree that the major sticking point of American-Arab relations is Israel, not Saudia Arabia. Bin Laden might be able to whip himself into a suicidal frenzy about US bases soiling holy land but his followers are surely much more concerned about the Palenstinian situation.

To ignore this is to invite further retribution, and I consider that to be an offense to the memory of those who have died in NY because of our arrogance and greed.

America has done many things wrong in its day. If a Vietnamese blew up an American plane in the seventies you could kind of understand. But defending Saudia Arabia from Saddam Hussein -- no matter what the motive -- is a righteous act. They have asked US troops to be there and America's goverment wants them to be there. They are within their rights.

The Israeli government has asked for help in avoiding the annilation that has been promised them over and over again by their neighbours and the US has agreed to defend them. The US is within its rights.

It is probably not hyperbole to compare Osama Bin Laden to Hitler because they both have messiah complexes, hatred of Jews and a fascist ideology. The fact that he hates the United States should be considered a badge of honour. It means America is doing the right things. America has brought this upon themselves in the same sense as a policeman who intervenes in a gun battle between two rival gangs.

If Americans start second-guessing the policies that protect Israel, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia from its neighbours, then OSAMA BIN LADEN HAS WON. He will have cowed the most powerful nation on earth into retreating from correct positions.

Since the end of the cold war, America has not attacked any country that was not abusing its own citizens or those of another country. The US has had no border wars in roughly 200 years. It is in these senses a model (not perfect) world citizen. The Taliban is not. Iraq is not. Just this once, the lines of good and evil are as clearly drawn as they could be. Claiming otherwise is just sophistry.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[crush]

1. Your first link proves that the US did nothing to help the Jews fleeing fascist persecution. The infamous Evian conference as your own cited source actually states

Roosevelt noted that none of the participating countries should be expected to modify its refugee admission policy.

and says in an earlier part of the same document that

The restrictive immigration practices of the major overseas countries vis-à-vis Jewish refugees reflected a global climate of economic protectionism tinged with xenophobia and outright anti-Semitism. An international conference on refugees at Evian (France) in July 1938, initiated by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, proved to be a complete fiasco. Except for the Dominican Republic, none of the representatives of the 32 countries invited offered prospective Jewish refugees from Germany and Austria any hope whatsoever.

So....what do we have. We have the US refusing to help Jews out of economic interest. Nice example.
2. Your second link is to a contextless, un-analytical but accurate piece on US entry into WW2. It shows that the US tried to stay out of this conflict because of anti-Semitism, but then entered because it was afraid of the growing German threat? So what? I'm arguing that the US intervenes out of economic interest and had done so well before WW1 and WW2. Ask the Filipinos. Ask the Mexicans.
And then the US enters because it is afraid of a growing threat. You consider this moral in some way? W.r.t you putting your life on the line, I'm not surprised that you'd rather be in a plane dropping bombs on ground troops than actually fighting. On the other hand maybe the Taliban will use some of the US-made and paid for Stinger missiles (transported by the Pakistani ISI special intelligence services) to shoot you down? You'll be dead, but Lockheed share-holders will have a profit boost to look forward to. So in summary, well done. A moral and carefully thought out response.
Your analogy is flawed. Here is a better one:

You and your wealthy neighbours frequently knock down the children in the poor barrio on your way to your well paying jobs. Sometimes they protest and elect city officials to erect speed bumps and make you and your neighbors slow down. Then the cops shoot the city official and install their own corrupt politicians. Finally a group of nuts from the barrio hijack a car and run down your neighbor's kid. He starts firing mortar shells at them. You help pump up emotion in support of him. Where's the good guy?
I'm glad you don't want to blow up Arabs "blindly". I hope you also don't want to do it with your eyes open and your mouth lying.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[JohnG]

Let me try to end this one quickly with a couple of questions. Firstly, would you rather have lived in East Germany or West Germany?
Secondly why do you keep using the United States as an example? Last I checked there were plenty of other capitalist countries, have all of them commited horrible atrocities? Along those sames lines would you say that non-capitalists countries, like say, oh I don't know NAZI Germany, or China, have exactly been the picture of humanity?
Your argument that Capitalism is worse than all other economic models is flawed because you are looking only at the flaws in Capitalism and not the flaws in other systems. At the same time you are ignoring any successes in Capitalism and looking only at the successes of other forms.

Re:What can be done about terrorism?

[crush]

Well, you're certainly ending as you started. Ignorantly and ignoring the answers that have already been supplied to you. I'm not going to bother posting after this because I believe that you need to go and do your own research. You might try reading for starters Chomsky (any of the Barsimian interviews), Zinn's "People's History of the United States", Norman Solomon "Habits of Highly Deceptive Media", any of "Z Magazine" (www.zmag.org), any of The Nation (www.thenation.com).
Now down to your specific questions:

Firstly, would you rather have lived in East Germany or West Germany?

Yet again you ask me a "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" question. I would rather live in a Libertarian Communist society. Neither Capitalist/Fascist or Communist/Fascist are models that satisfy me. See, here's where you may be confused: Capitalism is designed to produce misery. It can't do anything else. Communism may produce something good, but it's not guaranteed. The only way to have a good chance of avoiding material poverty and tyranny is to implement a democratic structure on top of a commitment to distribute material goods according to need.
Compare this with Capitalism - it's central tenet is that one accumulates material goods according to power, good-luck and accident and that a minority will have most of the pie whilst a majority has least. Capitalism enshrines and ensures that there will be starving people.

why do you keep using the United States as an example?

Because the United States is the controlling superpower of Capitalism and the one that extols the un-alloyed virtues of Capitalism more clearly than any other.

other capitalist countries,have all of them committed horrible atrocities?

Yes, there is a long history of the colonial stage of Capitalism creating immeasurable suffering in the world. Think Britain, France, Holland, Italy, Belgium, Spain, Germany (although here to a lesser extent due to a perception of colonies as being "a millstone around the neck" on Bismarck's part especially. However they did also have colonies), just about any country of which you care to think.

would you say that non-capitalists countries,like say,oh I don't know NAZI Germany, or China, have exactly been the picture of humanity?

Nazi Germany despite being controlled by a party known as the National Socialist Workers Party had an essentially capitalist economy. Large businesses were given assistance, aid and government contracts and profitted from this government. There were extensive links with US and other European companies and investors who were very happy to have their capitalist friends in power. Have you never heard the phrase "fascists are the shock-troops of capital?". This refers to the fact that whenever there is a threat that the workers may take over the country the right-wing fuckers come out and attack them. If you read some of the references that I gave you, you may notice reference to the many congratulations that Hitler received from people like the then Home Secretary of Britain - Winston Churchill - for defeating Communism. You may see the extensive network of Capitalist investment stretching to the US (among others) that helped to build the war machine that was unleashed against the other capitalist powers. So I would argue that Nazi Germany is a capitalist country, was supported and financed by other capitalist and that the outcome (as in Spain (Franco vs. democracy/communism, Italy (Mussolini vs. democracy/communism) etc) is typical of what one gets from Capitalism.
As regards China - it's economy is a State Capitalist one , NOT communist. In a very similar manner to Marxist-Leninist USSR this country was subject to a take-over of popular workers revolution by authoritarian, non-democratic "socialists". They consciously decided that they could not implement communism "just yet" and introduced the "mixed economy" that allowed some limited markets for entrepeneurs and many more State Controlled Businesses.
So, not Communist.
The only times communism has existed has been in subsitence communities, religious communities (for a long time people took Christ's words seriously and did their best to live up to it) and very briefly in the Workers Soviets in the USSR prior to Bolshevik take-over and in Spain (esp. Catalonia) c.1936 and the Spanish revolution. Note that this last example was explicity subject to attack by the USSR and Britain (Stalin who had a pact with Germany) and the old colonial capitalists sure didn't want a truly communist spain.
W.r.t. their human rights records - what do you think I feel about them based upon what I've told you before? About your beliefs I'm not so sure though - your Capitalist friends in this country have extended Most Favored Nation trading status on the Chinese. Pretty sick.

you are only looking at the flaws in Capitalism and not the flaws in other systems

If the flaw of Capitalism is that it produces and has only ever produced and can only ever produce inequality, poverty, misery and despair then I consider that it is a system that has to be dumped.
I am very aware of the flaws of what I advocate Libertarian Communism/ Socialist Anarchism. It will be very hard to defend this open, democratic system from the determined attacks of its enemies. It requires a high level of education and awareness in order to work. It requires that its participants are willing to believe that the other participants are potentially fair, rational people who whilst they have their own interests at heart recognize that they have no right to inflict misery on others. It requires a serious dedication on our part to guarding the interests of our fellows as jealously as we are encouraged to guard our own in this society. Its very mode of operation runs counter to all the conditioning, propaganda and lies that we are subjected to in this system. I am not SURE that this will work. I think that it might. I believe from the few examples that I have cited that it has a chance. I am willing to take that chance because the present is so awful that it is immoral not to.

ignoring any successes in Capitalism

It's hard to be happy about cheap computers and cheap meat if it is obtained at the expense of a couple of thousand people being tortured, starved and dying. Perhaps I do ignore some things. But frankly it sounds like some of the discussion one hears about Nazi Germany (the economy boomed) or Fascist Italy (Mussolini made the trains run on time, drained the Pontine marshes).
Anyway, I'm not posting any more. I'm sorry I was rude in this thread. I was mad. But that's not an excuse. Good luck.

Amazon Donation Page

[jeff67]

It's worth mentioning that Amazon isn't charging their usual cut for the service, all money is going to Red Cross. And (this is a bit odd) it's refundable for 30 days.

Re:Amazon Donation Page

[kryptkpr]

They're up to over 1 million in donations now.. with about 37,000 donations...so the average person donated $27, and that's quite impressive.

Re:Amazon Donation Page

[redoz]

I just tried to donate to the Red Cross via Amazon but too my disapointment I can't get it to accept my information.

"Your ZIP code doesn't look right for your address. Please check it and enter it again."
I live in Sweden and if anyone know the proper format to submit Swedish Zip/States please reply to this message.

Re:Amazon Donation Page

[acroyear]

The "refundable" is the standard "you're paying by credit card" disclaimer. It means that you can recall the money if it really wasn't you using your credit card number to make the payment. They probably won't mail IRS-acceptable receipts until after that 30 days so you can't just print out the "sale confirmed" receipt to give to the IRS and then ask for the money back later...otherwise, its kinda ripe for tax-return abuse...

Re:Amazon Donation Page

[tuiterwyk]

PayPal also has a donation site set up here

Re:Amazon Donation Page

[joedavis123]

Too bad they dont let you donate more than $50. I tried to donate $100 but it said I couldnt donate that much. That still did not stop me from donating the $50 which I hope can help in dealing with this tragic event.

JD

Re:Amazon Donation Page

[iJosh]

Amazon and PayPal both are collecting the money in a fund that will be sent to the Red Cross. This will also generate quite a tax break for both of them when they do submit their collections. If our country goes to war our government will need a return of funds, not two parties dodging out on taxes, the donator for their contribution, and -insert corp taking collection here-...

Please I urge people to donate directly to the red cross... Their servers may be getting hit pretty hard and it may take some time... like the lines for dontating blood right now. But give the medicine (money) to the horse that needs it directly.

Red Cross Donations Page: (instructions on how to make any form of dontation)
http://www.redcross.org/donate/donate.html

Red Cross Secure Online Dontation Form:
https://www.redcross.org/donate/donation-form.asp

---------
remove all .sig for great justice...

Re:Amazon Donation Page

[Mullen]

I would enter without a ZIP code, since Amazon.com US is geered to America addresses, your Swedish ZIP won't work.

Re:Amazon Donation Page

[p3d0]

You're too cynical. I'm no accountant, but it seems these companies will be "dodging taxes" on money they ordinarily would not have collected, so it makes no difference to the government.

Besides, what are the tax breaks for, if not to encourage this kind of thing?

Re:Amazon Donation Page

[redoz]

That didn't work.

I decided to donate directly to the redcross from this url instead:

https://www.redcross.org/donate/donation-form.as p

Thanks to iJosh for posting it.

Re:Amazon Donation Page

[rossjudson]

That's a pretty crappy thing to say. Where's your donation, fuckhead? I'd be surprised and shocked if they were doing anything other than sending the exact amount directly to the red cross. Go shove your head up your ass, and leave it there.

Re:Amazon Donation Page

[fetta]

Too bad they dont let you donate more than $50. I tried to donate $100 but it said I couldnt donate that much. That still did not stop me from donating the $50 which I hope can help in dealing with this tragic event.

Hmm. I made a $100 donation without any trouble. Maybe there was a restriction earlier in the day that has since been removed?

Re:Amazon Donation Page

[Polo]

I heard on the news that Bank One was matching donations, but on looking at their website, it looks like it might be employee donations.

Does anyone know of any matching donations programs?

I think people should check to see if their employees match funds.

Re:Amazon Donation Page

[Rayooz]

I also donated $100 with no problem about an hour ago...

Re:Amazon Donation Page

[Libertius]

i had the same problem... but i first registered as a usual user via some link from the frontpage, i worked just fine.

Re:Amazon Donation Page

[rebug]

why not just do $50 twice? the red cross donation page was working yesterday. no limit.

Re:Amazon Donation Page

[cje]

The front page of the donation site specified that the maximum was $50, but when I went to the actual page where you entered the dollar amount, it specified that the maximum was $100. (I was able to give $100 with no problems.) Maybe there was an earlier limit of $50 that was later increased to $100, and the first page hasn't been updated yet.

Re:Amazon Donation Page

[rw2]

Look, the US is a fine country and all, but WRT to the claim that "No where else on Earth could you find support like this." let me remind you that the Red Cross was founded in Switzerland along with many other great charities.

This is a fine country, but let's not puff our chests too much over this.

(See Poliglut for more late breaking WTC stuff including the just happening further collapse)

Re:Amazon Donation Page

[swoopx]

uh, let them try and find something to ease the pain at the end of the day. Theres no need to bash them for that.

Re:Amazon Donation Page

[Fesh]

It wouldn't let me donate more than a single dollar, so I did the PayPal thing instead...

Re:Amazon Donation Page

[Nightpaw]

It's okay; you don't need to coddle us. Don't let us get away with a little false pride or egotism even at our lowest. We're taking this with nothing but a tough cowboy grimace and then we're getting right back in the saddle.

Re:Amazon Donation Page

[-tji]

The limit appears to be $100 now, as my $100 donation went through very quickly with my existing Amazon account info. 3 clicks & it was done.

I wonder why they limit it to $100?

Re:Amazon Donation Page

[M. Silver]

As far as I know, and maybe there *are* dodges for this, if the companies take the deduction on the donations, they also have to take the income. It's a wash, in that case.

What it *could* do, I suppose, is inflate the income amount for annual-statement purposes. But that's getting into some *really* heavy accounting voodoo I don't do.

Re:Amazon Donation Page

[jeff67]

Actually, it's not the "credit card" issue:

Is my payment refundable?
Yes, because of the voluntary nature of Honor System payments, you may use Amazon.com's Unpay function to cancel a payment or get a refund up to 30 days after you make a payment--with no questions asked. To use the Unpay feature, go to your Amazon.com retail account and locate the Your Orders and Transactions section. If you are not signed in, you will be asked to do so. Click the appropriate status link, then click the "Transaction #" link of the payment you want refunded. Click the Unpay button for final directions and we'll send you an e-mail confirmation that your payment has been refunded. Because Honor System payments are voluntary, the person or organization you paid may not contest your refund request. If you previously requested that we notify the organization of your donation, we will notify them of your request for a refund.

Even goatse.cx is mourning

[Spy Hunter]

I'm not kidding. Go to goatse.cx, and instead of the horrible sight you think you'll see, you'll find something different.

Re:Even goatse.cx is mourning

[Rupert]

Just don't click on any of the links there. The goatse.cx guy is still there, just not on the front page.

Yes, I checked. I figured lunch was long enough ago it wasn't coming back.

Re:Even goatse.cx is mourning

[quantum bit]

Wow, I think this is the first time a goatse.cx link has ever been modded *UP*

This is a sure sign of the apocalypse...

Check Out Amazon

[digitac]

This may not be exactly on topic with the story above but relevent.

I've been watching Amazon.com's RedCross donation page today. It was mentioned here earlier. It has just passed $1 million collected with over 36,000 people contributing. Truely amazing.

I hope everyone will consider donating at least a little bit to help the victims.

Jonathan

Re:Check Out Amazon

[digitac]

Yes, I just finished reading the post. When I initially scanned over it I missed the Amazon bit. Sorry. I was so excited to see the outpouring of support on amazon I jumped to post it.

-Jonathan

Re:Check Out Amazon

[andy@petdance.com]

It has just passed $1 million collected with over 36,000 people contributing. Truely amazing.

God bless the one in 7,000 people who contributed. This is the equivalent of every man, woman and child in America donating four tenths of a penny. Truly, we have opened our hearts and pocketbooks.

Re:Check Out Amazon

[andy@petdance.com]

Mea culpa. I misunderstood. I thought that the $1,000,000 was all Red Cross donations, not just thru Amazon. Thru that light, that is indeed pretty cool.

Re:Check Out Amazon

[shanek]

Latest figure as of 8:54 EDT: $1,481,875.01

Okay, WHO DONATED THE PENNY??????? ;^)

Network Centers Out of Deisel?

[matth]

Which network centers are we talking abotu that wre going to run out of deisel? TV/Radio? Are they without power right now? That post wasn't terribly clear.

Re:Network Centers Out of Deisel?

[Matador76]

Most of the TV stations were off the air when the second building collapsed. Only WCBS-TV has a backup transmitter (@ Empire State Building.) They've since piggybacked onto other broadcasters outside of Manhattan to get a signal out. NPR FM station is now using another stations call letters and frequency.

Re:Network Centers Out of Deisel?

[rasjani]

There's a lot of isp activity and cross-continent fiber in Long Island and afaik, most of the stuff is diesel powered. There's been some talk also even if the diesel tanks are refuelled there might be really big problem with dust and smoke jamming the generators.

Re:Network Centers Out of Deisel?

[littlematt]

Level3's data center at 100 William St. is definately out.

They attempted to get a truck down there today, but for obvious reasons, no one wanted a truck o' diesel in the land of collapsing buildings.

With the FAA's grounding of aircraft, their helicopter fuel delivery contract is pretty useless too.

Speaking of PVRs...

[Booker]

Ok, perhaps this is flamebait, but I'm asking, because I think it has some relevance.

I read on the 'net that when "The WB" covered Bush's speech yesterday, there was a mic on that shouldn't have been. They claimed that they heard someone feeding lines to Bush during the first part of the speech - i.e. reading lines to Bush, Bush then repeating what he heard.

Anyone else see this? Or is it political FUD? It would explain his strangely halting delivery.

Re:Speaking of PVRs...

[tang]

Well...That would be standard procedure...kinda. Do you really think the president writes his own speeches? Do you think he memorizes them? No, Someone types them, he may read them once before hand, then he reads them off of a teleprompter typically. Due to the short time they had to make this speech, it is quite possible someone had to just read it to him. No big deal here.

Re:Speaking of PVRs...

[henley]

I'm in the UK, and I have no PVR. This is a comment regarding motive & conclusions, not facts.

In that vein, and regardless of my feelings about the gentleman concerned, under the circumstances I am very prepared to cut him some slack. I wouldn't trust myself to get a 4-word sentence out straight if placed in a similar situation. Any assistance the man needed to get the right words out to the world would be very astute and appropriate.

All IMHO, obviously....

Re:Speaking of PVRs...

[MastahBates]

Don't be surprised, all polilicos speeches are written up by someone else. Although the speechwriter is supposed to make the speeches sound like it's actually something the person might say, at times like that, I think most people would be speechless.

Re:Speaking of PVRs...

[Robert Wilde]

Why is this marked off topic? I heard the same thing, though I'm not sure I trust the source. Can anyone here that saw the beginning of the WB broadcast confirm or deny?

Ok, perhaps this is flamebait, but I'm asking, because I think it has some relevance.

I read on the 'net that when "The WB" covered Bush's speech yesterday, there was a mic on that shouldn't have been. They claimed that they heard someone feeding lines to Bush during the first part of the speech - i.e. reading lines to Bush, Bush then repeating what he heard.

Anyone else see this? Or is it political FUD? It would explain his strangely halting delivery.

Re:Speaking of PVRs...

[Rimbo]

Sounds like political FUD to me. We all know Bush is a lousy public speaker, and this is a crappy time to try and stir up partisan trouble like this.

Re:Speaking of PVRs...

[tester13]

nah it happens all the time. I would probably do the same thing. It would be very hard to memorize a speech in the short of time. All it is is a aural telaprompter.

Re:Speaking of PVRs...

[sharkey]

He wasn't the only one. Most of the "official" presenters I heard yesterday were not giving well-rehearsed speeches, and sounded like they were leaning on the prompters pretty heavily. I listened to a spokeslady for, IIRC, the State Dept. on my way home, and her delivery was punctuated by the sounds of large sheets being turned/flipped/moved. I figured they were using flashcards, instead of spending extra time and expense getting teleprompt equipment set up.

Re:Speaking of PVRs...

[toast0]

i don't know if this is true, but if so, it can't be anyworse than him reading off a teleprompter. Perhaps the teleprompter was down.

Re:Speaking of PVRs...

[HamNRye]

Indian Enimies??

My favorite part of the Bush speech was when he mispronounce "enemies" as "indi-no-enemies". Sounded to me (and my wife) like he said Indian Enemies.

As a Miami Indian, I find this just hilarious.

~Hammy

Re:Speaking of PVRs...

[Argnarf]

What, it's Al Gore behind a curtain?

Re:Speaking of PVRs...

[Bamyazi]

I saw the GWB interview, and definately heard someone speaking shortly before he spoke himself. It wasn't really possible to determine what was being said, but it sounded like he was being fed lines

Re:Speaking of PVRs...

[Keith Russell]

FUD. The fact that they said "The WB" is the giveaway. The WB itself has no news department, so they would do what many other networks, broadcast and cable, relied on: The news affiliates of their great media empires. So WB would have simulcast CNN, which, you would agree, is a pretty high profile source. I think between CNN, Headline News, WB, TBS, and TNT, there would be enough evidence of prompting, this would be something more than a rumor on the net.

And his strange, halting delivery is normal. The man is not a good public speaker.

The only odd thing that I noticed was on CBS, where they seemed to cut to the White House too early, treating viewers to ~45 sec. of Dubya staring off into space, collecting his thoughts. Did that happen on any other networks?

Re:Speaking of PVRs...

[Booker]

The only odd thing that I noticed was on CBS, where they seemed to cut to the White House too early, treating viewers to ~45 sec. of Dubya staring off into space,

Same thing, I think. Only the WB supposedly had the audio feed too.

Re:Speaking of PVRs...

[dohcvtec]

Show me a Presidential speech that doesn't involve teleprompters or the like. IMO the speeches given since the attacks have been rushed, even informal in a sense. Bush is just as shocked as everyone else, and I'm sure it would be difficult for anyone to speak perfectly under the circumstances. Anyway, it's what he had to say that counts, not how perfectly he said it.

Re:Speaking of PVRs...

[Rimbo]

"could you see anyone wanting to kill al gore?"

Yes, in fact. As the President of the USA, you're a target, no matter who you are. It's also not the case that the Democrats have a different attitude towards Israel than the Republicans.

And as for "Bush stole the election"... You do realize that just as many people believe that Gore was the one who tried to steal the election from Bush? And both points of view are wrong. So spare us the jingoism and partisan crap. This is a shitty time for it.

Re:Speaking of PVRs...

[ancientcheese]

I heard an odd "pre-echo" at the beginning of the speech, but realized that it was crosstalk between the original real time audio feed and the CNN feed which was double hopped (one trip from Atlanta to the satellite, brought down then sent back up by the WB).
The WB may have had a backup feed of the speech from another another source partially turned up on the mixer.
My best guess anyway...

What happened to safe.millennium.berkeley.edu?

[rokicki]

Anyone know what went wrong here? They've got fat pipes and lots of fast machines, and Berkeley in general is fully reachable.

Re:What happened to safe.millennium.berkeley.edu?

[rokicki]

Just came up. Maybe safe.millennium.berkeley.edu was a new DNS entry and didn't propogate quickly enough? I've not been able to reach it all day, and neither could the aggregator at http://www.elbnet.com/wtc/.

Article 5

[Cephas Keken]

What is article five, or where could I find
full documentation on it?

Re:Article 5

[Ghoser777]

ARTICLE 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all, and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective selfdefence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually, and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

F-bacher

Re:Article 5

[linzeal]

Great an international protracted war against an unknown amount of independent terrorist cells, rogue nations, and dictatorships. Sounds like clinton-era "strikes", vietnam, and panama all rolled into one. Oh joy, motherfucking joy.

Re:article 5

[MikeBabcock]

This is one of the reasons I also regularly read the Jerusalem Post.

Re:article 5

[linzeal]

Just to be fair here is a link to the palestinian equivelent of the jerusalem post.

Arabic Media Internet Network

Re:article 5

[patrick_jones]

the israeli press is not much better. israel has one of the worst records when it comes to press freedom. much better to read a british news paper, or an international journal from one of the countries that is actually under attack at the time.

Re:Article 5

[Hertog]

Check this one.

http://www.fas.org/man/crs/97-717f.htm

Re:article 5

[Salis]

I disagree with you. From the most active and able of the U.S's policy makers (diplomats, generals, and politicians) there has been widespread suggestion that the U.S will most likely form a multilateral group of nations that will squeeze non-democratic nations (non-civilized ones, like Afghanistan) into immediately ceasing their support of terrorism.

What is important is that they realize that just bombing the specific culprits of the attacks won't stop future attacks. The _entire_ civilized planet must work to stop the source of terrorism and prevent the training of new terrorists.

Terrorism acts against the interests of ALL civilized nations (non-democratic as well), including countries whose domestic policies aren't as civilized as Western countries would like (such as the People's Republic of China).

Even China has recognized the need to support the U.S in eliminating terrorism. Now THAT is a sure sign that any U.S counterattack will be fully supported by many nations that do not necessarily share our form of government or our standard of living.

With that, I doubt the U.S will act alone when support will be so freely given.

Howard Salis

Re:Article 5

[Stonehand]

The US has nominally been at war with terrorists for a long, long, time providing training and equipment to militaries and law enforcement groups around the world. Remember that in the age of hijackings and air marshals, it was common practice for hijackers to collect everybody's passports, to locate Americans.

The US Marine Barracks incident in Beirut certainly served as a tip-off that the US has its enemies in the Middle East, largely due to its continued support of Israel but also other regimes (like backing the Shah of Iran didn't win us many friends in the Islamic Revolutionary government. We're STILL the Great Satan to them). Our treatment of Iraq hasn't won us many friends over there, either.

Re:article 5

[Gilanthis]

Hmms...Having never read a news paper of a contry that was corrently on the wrong side of some war that America was some how involved in I don't know this for a fact but it would assume to me that a news paper from a contry like that would be the worst to read. I mean during WW2 the japanese press was blantently lieing...And the people knew it too...When the great victories keep getting closer to home you know somthing is up. Additionaly, what contry that we have been involved in a war with for the last 100 years has had anything even approaching a free press?

Re:article 5

[Zoop]

Hey, educated superiour dude, Afghans aren't Arab.

Afghanistan's government (not its people) will be attacked if and only if it is found that whoever attacked was sheltered by the Taliban in the time preceding the attack.

Also, our press's lack of attention to foreign affairs is not due to government control, but due to the sad state of education and the culture of isolationism that periodically raises its head. The sad state of education may be caused by the government, but through incompetence rather than conspiracy.

You also forgot reason number 4 that we don't attack:

4) There is nothing to be gained.

That's why we don't randomly attack Britain or Canada--they haven't done anything to make us even think about it since the early 19th century. Canada has never done so since independence.

Please go to China or Russia to see what total and partial, respectively, control of the press and propaganda really looks like.

Please: slashdot "anarchists" and those who believe you're repressed and the subject of government plots--do some traveling to truly unfree places and see the difference. Just because the rest of us fail to jump to your cause may mean that we just don't buy what you're selling, not that your fantasies of repression have anything to do with reality.

Re:article 5

[FFFish]

The Jerusalem Post appears to be a nasty bit of tabloid work. I sure as hell hope you're not relying on it for truthful news.

Little wonder that, with media such as this, there's no end to the hatred and tension in the mid-East. These papers are exacerbating the situation... as are, apparently, the politicians.

Truly fucking disgusting.

Re:Article 5

[RickHunter]

Am I the only one reminded of the mutual defense pacts that indirectly caused World War I? I hope nothing of that scale happens here - but then again, there is no enemy with the resources or dedication of Germany at that time. Whoever it is won't be able to keep up a sustained war for long.

Re:article 5

[KerrAvonsen]

Am I wrong, or wasn't it the US who put the Taliban into power in the first place?

Re:article 5

[kabloie]

The "Northern Militia" would love to get a hold of Bin Laden. But they just keep getting trounced. And unfortunately, recently in a suicide attack, their most important leader was killed. It is not a far thing to imagine that the successful attempt was made on his life just before this militia would have been looked at as a potential "enemy of our enemy" by the US and NATO, Bin Laden knowing the plans for the U.S. East Coast.

Here's the link to the article on Jane's

He was a handsome chap at that. Very unfortunate.

How are we going to crush Afghanistan from afar, if the Red Army couldn't do it from next door?

kabloie

Re:article 5

[JAVAC THE GREAT]

Looks to me like the Arabic site is just gloating over the death of jews... that dance hall thing was what, 3-4 months ago?? While the jerusalem post definitely seems to have a bit of a slant it at least falls under the category of "journalism".

Re:article 5

[MillMan]

You've misinterpreted my comments.

Also, our press's lack of attention to foreign affairs is not due to government control, but due to the sad state of education and the culture of isolationism that periodically raises its head. The sad state of education may be caused by the government, but through incompetence rather than conspiracy.

I don't beleive that. However, it's not a conspiracy either. I never said it was. It's part of our culture. The government doesn't control the press. If you're in the journalism business, you find out quickly that you will not be promoted and possibly dismissed if you openly question our economic institutions or government. It's in the best interests of those who run the media, who the culture originates with.

Please go to China or Russia to see what total and partial, respectively, control of the press and propaganda really looks like.

Oh you're basically right. I wouldn't want to live in these countries, I'm certainly glad I'm here. That doesn't mean we don't have propeganda. It's just more sophisticated. We have the freedom to say just about anything, but when you get 99% of the population to behave the same way (ie don't be politically active, just sit there and watch TV), the outcome isn't all that different. That 1% of the population isn't enough to make a difference, unless they get public sympathy, which rarely happens.

Please: slashdot "anarchists" and those who believe you're repressed and the subject of government plots--do some traveling to truly unfree places and see the difference. Just because the rest of us fail to jump to your cause may mean that we just don't buy what you're selling, not that your fantasies of repression have anything to do with reality.

Given the circumstances I can see your anger, but where did this come from? Where did I say I'm an anarchist and that I'm angry that people don't beleive me? Or that anyone is running a conspiracy?

Re:article 5

[MikeBabcock]

As in, it happens to be current. Its also owned by Conrad Black, as I understand it, a bit of a media mogul in his own right, but not a completely partisan newspaper.

Anyone who thinks American journalism doesn't lie to them has issues.

Re:article 5

[MikeBabcock]

Your SIG, "Keep current on the genocide perpetuated by the zionist israelis" doesn't exactly lead one to believe that you'd direct me to something neutral or with high journalistic integrity either.

The Jerusalem Post was mentioned only because it is a very large paper in the area and happens to cover the events from their perspective. The NYT covers events from an angle that the Globe and Mail (Canadian) wouldn't cover them from for that matter.

All news should be taken with an open and critical mind to some degree.

FBI Head says no arrests related to bombings

[AntiFreeze]

A short while ago, there was a press conference from the Pentagon. Rumsfield and the director of the FBI both spoke. The Director said that no arrests have yet been made of any suspects. There were some "questionings" -- an uninformative word to me -- but no arrests.

Just wanted to clarify that.

Re:FBI Head says no arrests related to bombings

[rmjiv]

Additionally, there is one person in custody on an immigration hold. Apparently somebody they questioned was in the country illegally.

That's the person rumored to have been arrested.

Re:FBI Head says no arrests related to bombings

[Rev Snow]

Good. You don't "arrest" the enemy at wartime.
You destroy him, or you take him prisoner.

Re:FBI Head says no arrests related to bombings

[zulux]

There were some "questionings"

I know we're a law-abiding people, but I snicker when I here that some people are being brought in for "questioing." Some people are now in pain. The kind of pain that scars the soul, but not the body.

Tanks to all contributors

[hhg]

I would like to thank all of you who have contributed with your comments here on slashdot in regards to this case in the last two days. You have been an invaluble source for extensive information far beyond what any comercial news-source could ever be. You have given a human perspective to the unimaginable.

Again, thank you. And God bless us all.

Ah man NATO...

[Ghoser777]

Not only did the terrorists bombing piss us off really bad (a it should), so we're already more than likely to go bomb anything remotely related to the terrorists (well, ur state was adjacent to theirs, but now we also got NATO wanting to get into the action. So barring UN intervention of some kind (I doubt it, although I don't know if we'd listen to them anyway), we're going to find a terrorist to blame and bomb the hell out of him and all his associates.

Yeah, we may not find the real terrorist, but we'll make sure we can find someone else to blame. The government has that legitimacy thing and competence thing to maintain.

What, the government would never do that? Hey, maybe they're all honest johns in D.C., but if anyone has ever read Fahrenheit 451, you know that the public doesn't want the government to catch THE terrorist, they want them to catch someone that the government say is the terrorist.

F-bacher

Re:Ah man NATO...

[cavemanf16]

How hard can it possibly be to not associate Bin Ladan, Sadam Hussein, or even Arafat, with the (at the bare minimum) inability to ask for help in ridding terrorism from their organizations and/or countries? It's documented and recorded that they all have been pleased with it, even though they outwardly usually condemn it or do not take responsibility for it.

And Fahrenheit 451 is about people who live in a dictatorial police state already, not America.

Re:Ah man NATO...

[AugstWest]

And Fahrenheit 451 is about people who live in a dictatorial police state already, not America.

wait 10 years.... if this kind of thing keeps up, you'll see what's left of our civil liberties run through a sausage factory.

Re:Ah man NATO...

[Ghoser777]

Oh man, you really missed the point. In Fahrenheit 451, the people were led to believe that the wrongly arrested man was the real convict through the media. All the government has to do is show some picturers of a Muslim, some footage of FBI agents chasing down another Muslim (not necessarially the same one, if the camera is far enough away), etc.

And why shouldn't those other countries be pleased? They HATE us. That doesn't mean they had anything to do with it.

F-bacher

Re:Ah man NATO...

[Dexx]

If somebody, say the Soviets (for example purposes only), threw a few nuclear missiles into a middle eastern country, say Afganistan (for example purposes only), would you be pleased with it? What if you were somebody who couldn't publicly support nuclear weapons, like a major political figure? Would that make you guilty of doing it?

And wasn't Farenheit 451 set in the US? I can't remember right now..

Re:Ah man NATO...

[darkonc]

If you remember the attack in Oklahoma, some people were real happy to attack random Muslims. Later, it turned out that the 'foreign terrorist' was actually a blonde US war vet. If they hadn't pinpointed McVeigh, we'd probably still be hunting down Muslims to use as scapegoats.

Re:Ah man NATO...

[SIGFPE]

What you say is very close to the truth. Listening to TV and radio over the last two days not a few politicians have said that even if Bin Laden isn't involved we should attack him anyway because of other crimes. Americans now have a lust for blood and politicians seem to freely admit that they want to satisfy this lust even if it has nothing to do with dealing with the issue in hand.

Re:Ah man NATO...

[cavemanf16]

OK, yes, your more detailed description of Fahrenheit 451 is correct as I remember now too, however, it does not change my point. While we must remain vigilant and keep our personal freedoms, less we DO become a police state, these psuedo Islamic state governments like the Taliban, have publicly made terrorist threats, have held prisoners for the mere acts of speaking out against their militant, fundamentalist Islamic beliefs, and have destroyed historical relics of other religions simply because they did not conform to their own views.

Now if someone is preaching Nazism in America, or advocating "killing all the n***ers" (pardon the mention of that awful word), or advocating abortion, I may absolutely detest what they're saying, but I MUST put up with it. However, when they act upon such things, and force those not in compliance with their beliefs to do the same, or worse yet - kill them for their lack of belief, then we have a problem. Timothy McVeigh was partially linked to the OKC bombing because of his involvement in such radical organizations. It is now time, despite how awful it will be, to take retribution on those countries that willfully partake in letting terrorists ACT upon their beliefs.

A key here is that we not give up ANY of our civil liberties, otherwise the terrorists win, regardless of how completely we wipe them from the face of the earth.

5th Plane theory?

[gordzilla]

Maybe I missed it, but has there been a confirmation about a 5th plane enroute to Colarado? This "mutual defense clause" does that mean that it's possible that Norad has been damaged and the U.S. is blind in the air?

I'm watchin CNN now and there's a reported talking about a single unidentified plane flying over NY and to me it looks like one of the new unmanned spy plane's.

Re:5th Plane theory?

[rabbits77]

Norad was designed to take the brunt of a nearby nuclear strike. Even if Norad was hit, the destruction would be minor and loss of life only incurred if someone were to have been outside around the impact area. That said, I doubt highly that this 'Fifth plane' theory is true. The FUD is still flying and will be for a while.

Re:5th Plane theory?

[gswallow]

Wasn't it just reported that an unmanned spy plane went missing over Iraq on monday?

Re:5th Plane theory?

[Lozzer]

The main NORAD complex is thought to be able to withstand a nuke from about 500yds.

Re:5th Plane theory?

[linzeal]

Yeah and it was hijacked retrofitted with a 4000 gallon fuel cell and flew to colorado at hypersonic speeds.

Re:5th Plane theory?

[Forkenhoppen]

On the CBC, the only word yesterday was that the gov't had said the fifth plane was "no longer a threat."

Re:5th Plane theory?

[SteveM]

At one time news outlets were reporting that US authorities thought that up to seven planes were hijacked and three were still in the air after the WTC, Pentagon, and PA crashes.

It was latter determined that this was not the case and only four planes had been hijacked.

Amid all the reports and the numbing effect of it all I did not pay very close attention to who or when these were reported, so I cannot provide citations.

Steve M

Re:5th Plane theory?

[praedor]

As many have stated, NORAD would be impervious to an airliner. That would barely dent the dirt and burn some bushes. They are deep in Cheyenne Mt.

The only thing on a "5th Plane" I heard about was the rumor of a plane following close behind the plane that hit the Pentagon, but which veered off - suggesting either observation or chickening out. Since it is unlikely at THIS point that another missing airliner would be overlooked, if this story was true, then I would suggest an observer, but then again it was merely an unsubstantiated rumour.

Re:5th Plane theory?

[Stonehand]

A drone, and quite probably shot down -- there was another drone earlier that'd been destroyed. Seems that Iraq's air defenses are improving.

Of course, these are unarmed, unmanned craft. Locking a targetting radar onto an armed plane tends to attract HARMs and their ilk, IIRC.

Re:5th Plane theory?

[scrytch]

score 2 interesting? how about "wild-ass guess"? I can see NORAD out my window. I think I'd notice if anything hit it. It's also designed to take a strike from nuclear weapons, that's why it's inside the freakin mountain.

Taking out NORAD would not only not make us "blind in the air", it wouldn't even have much effect. NORAD tracks space, and it's almost completely redundant with space command HQ at Falcon AFB.

What is a PVR?

[dfelznic]

Hello, The story mentions pvrs what are they?

This is time for the nation to unite, donate to the red cross trough amazon, and give blood...

Re:What is a PVR?

[sulli]

personal video recorder, like a Tivo or Replay

Re:What is a PVR?

[Ghoser777]

Personal Video Recorder.

Atleast that's what google keeps coming up with, and it makes sense in the context of the article.

F-bacher

Re:What is a PVR?

[Averye0]

PVR's are Personal Video Recorders. a la TiVO and other such devices that record video onto an internal hard drive. The video equivalent to mp3 players.

Shiver

[Srin Tuar]

So twenty odd thousand people are killed, and your first thought is, "hey, lets see what goat.secx has to say about this"

Or maybe you just have it set as your homepage...

Re:Shiver

[Spy Hunter]

Or maybe I innocently clicked a link to a page at www.somethingawful.com which automatically redirected me to goatse.cx before I could react. Luckily, my eyes didn't immediately explode since the picture is off the front page.

Then I thought, my god, I just HAVE to post this to slashdot. Wouldn't you? I just wanted to see how the moderators would react. So far they seem to be taking it pretty well...

Re:Shiver

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe you just have it set as your homepage...

Well, it is a "portal" site of sorts ...

Re:Shiver

[sigwinch]

Then I thought, my god, I just HAVE to post this to slashdot.

Thanks for the laugh. I didn't think anything about this could conceivably be funny, but I'm glad to be proved wrong.

Re:Shiver

[jfunk]

Well, it is a "portal" site of sorts ...

Damn, that was too funny! I just laughed my "portal" off. :-)*

it seems we could do more to help the effort.

[compuslave]

with the enourmous amount of hackers and computer specialists in the slashdot community, it seems that this community could be used to identify the responsible parties, and aid the authorities. I am not asking for vigilante action, but maybe some targeted information gathering. I'm thinking is terms of bots to collect information and a central database to gather and mine data. after important data has been verified (prevent passing on false rumors) then passing the results to the authorities. We've got all this computing power. It's time to use it for something more important than Quake.

Re:it seems we could do more to help the effort.

[johnwbyrd]

Geek: not all problems in the world can be solved by typing on a keyboard. Seeing as how computer discs have been recently outlawed in Afghanistan there isn't going to be very much online information to gather.

Re:it seems we could do more to help the effort.

[henley]

An interesting idea. Let's consider some implications

One: what on EARTH makes you think that any of the planning and execution of this disgusting atrocity involved any digital communications or indeed any other form of information which is amenable to Number Crunching?

Two: It's not called the "Web of a Thousand Lies" for nothing. Anyone surfing for verifiable info in the last 36 hours is familiar with this concept. Discriminating "Wheat" from "Chaff" is not a solved problem at this time

Three: You and I and the rest of the Clan here are active in a field of endeavour unique amongst the human experience as being immature, incomplete, and above all unreliable. Assuming points 1 and 2 can be dealt with satisfactorily, your bonus question becomes: How do you convince those who Need to Know that you've actually derived some usefull data?

I'm sorry. I can't see how this helps.

Re:it seems we could do more to help the effort.

[Skyshadow]

Boy, thank God the Taliban is so heavily reliant on computers for their organization and planning. In fact, I found Osama Bin Laden's plans in the not-linked-to /hush-hush directory on his web site.

Re:it seems we could do more to help the effort.

[scott1853]

And we're all qualified for this in what way? We know how to use a computer. We can write bots to go look for stuff on the net. Ok genius, so what would you propose we look for? The word Allah?

Maybe there's a perl module on CPAN that we should all be downloading.

Hearts in the right place but your mind isn't.

Re:it seems we could do more to help the effort.

[Erik Fish]

Yeah, and when the l33t h4x0rz find the top s3kr1t terrorist base we could send Jean Claude Van Damme and Hulk Hogan in to teach the bastards a lesson.

Christ on a crutch, how did your post get modded up? The hijackers haven't even been identified yet so where do you suggest the Baker Street Irregulars start looking for clues, Holmes? Oh yeah, they'll just call their friends Nancy Drew, the Hardy Boys and the Scooby Doo Gang. Then they will go on an expedition to dig through the wreckage of Old Man World Trade Center's broken down shack until they find a busted up 767 in a secret room. After that it's just a matter of determining which charred and dismembered remains are terrorists and which are passengers.

Good thing they've got Agent Scully's cell phone number!

Re:it seems we could do more to help the effort.

[AndroidCat]

Post the URL, and we can /. the site -- That'll teach him a lesson!

Re:it seems we could do more to help the effort.

[cornjones]

jesus guys, back off. I think the guy has a good idea. I have no idea where to start looking for info but any info that has been verified and could help the authorities is a good thing. if anybody has any good ideas I will happily throw some machine power at them. maybe a distributed.net client to analyze the rest of the financial district stresses and make sure nothing else is likely to topple. it seems we could do more to help the effort and we can definitely do better than bitching about them not using the network.

Re:it seems we could do more to help the effort.

[aprentic]

I've read that IBL has been encrypting his communications to his minions.
Maybe the fine folks at distributed.net could modify their software to crack these codes.
I think I'll email them about this.

Re:it seems we could do more to help the effort.

[aprentic]

Oops. My mail server is down. Could someone else email them?

Re:it seems we could do more to help the effort.

[nurightshu]

Oh, and don't forget -- when we discover that the grizzled caretaker of Old Man WTC's place is really Osama bin Laden, he'll say, "And I would have gotten away with it, too, if it hadn't been for you meddling h4x0rz and your bots!"

Re:it seems we could do more to help the effort.

[Jacer1099]

hey hey now, be fair...... there is nothing more important than quake....

Jacer

Slashdot's coverage

[sien]

I'd just like to say that I've used slashdot a bit over the past two days and I've been impressed.
Of course there has been wild speculation that was inaccurate - but there was also this everywhere.
The accounts of survivors here and some of the links provided have been really good.
What does everyone else thing of slashdot's coverage ?

Re:Slashdot's coverage

[jlttb]

Excellent job in a tough time. While the news sites were unreachable, / kept moving. (also got some good coverage from National Review Online).

Re:Slashdot's coverage

[schulzdogg]

What does everyone else thing of slashdot's coverage ?

It's amazing how things have changed. When desert storm happened I remember watching it on TV and being amazed at the access. When Columbine happened I watched CNN from work via the web.

But this time the web seemed to have reached a useful critical mass. I could watch skynet news, read cnn, which was great, but I could also read what people wrote who were there. People who lived accross the river posting pictures.

Information access at this level is incredible. The fast moving posts from yesterday, with news, rumors, personal stories, etc was compelling in a way that I'll never be able to completely describe.

I don't want to sound katz but it was an impressive display of what community can do, and the things it makes possible. Seeing it on CNN is one thing, but looking at pictures outside of someones window is incredible. The information flow was beautiful.

Slashdot itself didn't provide any breathtaking information, and katz continues to repulse me, but the thousands of posts were fantastic. The ability in nearly realtime to watch things unfold made things much easier to handle for me. It made them real, which made them less frightning.

Re:Slashdot's coverage

[PinkStainlessTail]

I started reading Slashdot a couple months ago as a non-geek trying not to be so completely ignorant (it's working a bit, too: thanks everybody). Yesterday when I was at work and this all started to hit, this was the only site I could get to come up reliably for a good couple of hours. In turn, there were some great links to still functioning sites and some very useful grabs.
So all in all I was very impressed both with the site and the community

P.S.- This close to having my home desktop setup to dual boot Win98 and linux. I'm sure you're all very impressed...

Re:Slashdot's coverage

[jfp51]

I would just like to give kudos to ArsTechnica`s Open Forum. While the news sites were bogged down, people updated threads in the lounge in a fairly responsible manner, and I got most of my info that day from there. Never hit F5 so much

I think it has been viewed 83000 times. The Internet pulled through as a news medium, but maybe not in the intended way. Maybe in a better way.

My thoughts go to my American friends. The Great White North is with you, eh!

Re:Slashdot's coverage

[Christianfreak]

The coverage here has been incrediable. This is defenatly /. at its best. Thanks for the great job guys

Re:Slashdot's coverage

[Theodore Logan]

I completely agree. Slashdot has been my major news source during the course of this whole event(as one could probably tell by the vast amount of redundant comments I've submitted).

Re:Slashdot's coverage

[FFFish]

I have been very impressed. All too often the commentary (particularly after a Win/Linux or Katz article) is sheer gutter-swill.

But I've been browsing at -1 through the terrorist-action articles, and have been thoroughly impressed with the sanity, maturity, and thoughtfulness of the majority of posters.

There has been a fantastic signal-to-noise ratio, with very few bigots and loons shrieking out their clueless rants.

A lot of the information has been factual, has provided links, and has provided good insight. Yay for Slashdot!

Now if only the rest of the net were as sane. :-(

Re:Slashdot's coverage

[shaitan_dawns]

"P.S. - This close to having my home desktop setup to dual boot win98 and linux. I'm sure you're all very impressed..."

Tad off topic but I at least am impressed and glad to see fresh blood in the linux world. Welcome to the community, if you need any help feel free to send me a mail and I'll try to do what I can ;) But please first... rtfm

With that said, I think slashdot coverage has been excellent. I've seen alot of good insight into the bloodthirsty minds of my fellow greedy Americans. Are we really so arrogant as to believe an isolated attack here requires instant nuclear retribution or annihilation of nations reacting when we picked the fight in the first place?

What we call a devestating world shaking tragedy is no different than what happens in various places throughout the world everyday. In fact often as a result of the devestation of our own bombers because we felt we had to spread our high "morality" through vicious bloodshed. But that's ok because we murder by the rules and politely and for just POLITICAL causes.

What happened WAS horrible, no more than what we can depend on our nation doing in return. Right or wrong, our attackers attack because they believe in something, because of religion, to reclaim what was there's before we decided we'd rather have someone else have it. We started a fight with them because we could and we would get bored if we didn't have someone elses fight to stick our noses in.

Has anyone considered a legitimate first place to start an investigation of the "host" nation is in our own government? At this point nobody has made the blatant connection betweeen expensive mass armed conflict and economic depression at home? As soon as we hear the word recession I think, oh goodie another war is coming soon. It has always been our answer... if we are broke we need a good war to reduce population and propigate massive spending. Always works too... hell we even set up pretty bad guys so we don't have to face the dirty means we use to stimulate our economy.

Re:Slashdot's coverage

[crucini]

It's been pretty good. Initially there was a lot of "nuke them" sentiment. In general I'm disappointed that a generally skeptical and intelligent community was partially overcome with blind hatred and anger.

Friday's "Worldwide Caution" from Dept. of State

[Memophage]

I find it interesting that this past Friday, (September 7th) the U.S. Department of State issued the following "Worldwide Caution" travel bulletin for the benefit of US travelers:

"Over the last several months, the U.S. Government has learned that U.S. citizens and interests abroad may be at increased risk of a terrorist action from extremist groups. In addition, we have received unconfirmed information that terrorist actions may be taken against U.S. military facilities and/or establishments frequented by U.S. military personnel in Korea and Japan. We are also concerned about information we received in May 2001 that American citizens may be the target of a terrorist threat from extremist groups with links to Usama Bin Ladin's Al-Qaida organization. In the past, such individuals have not distinguished between official and civilian targets. As always, we take this information seriously. U.S. Government facilities worldwide remain at a heightened state of alert."

[From: http://travel.state.gov/wwc1.html]

The U.S. Department of State apparently knew that something was up, just not exactly what.

Arm Pilots

[catseye_95051]

This ocurred to me last night.

Every commercial airline pilot i have ever met was an ex air-force pilot. (In the USe abotu the only way to learn to fly jhets is to join the US Airforce.)

Given that, I would think they have training on the proper handling of a side arm. Maybe its time to arm them all.

Re:Arm Pilots

[Luke]

Either arm them or make it impossible to get into the cockpits.

Re:Arm Pilots

[Jeremi]

Well, maybe, but then there would always be guns on the aircraft, freeing the hijaakers from having to figure out how to smuggle them on board. Instead, they could just sneak up on the pilots and grab the guns from them. Perhaps if the guns were "keyed" to the pilots' thumbprints or something, so that they couldn't be used by anyone else...

Re:Arm Pilots

[jheinen]

Not any more. Civilian flying schools have taken over supplying the pipeline for commercial pilots. The military has fewer pilots, and much less attrition than they had in the past. Within the next couple of years, if not sooner, the majority of airline pilots will be civilian trained (FYI for you job seekers out there - there is a growing need for pilots, and inthe next couple of years the shortage will be critical. If you're looking to change careers, now might be a good time to do it).

-Jeff

Re:Arm Pilots

[CaptJay]

That is a bad idea.

Passenger plane crews are not armed for a very good reason: any weapon on board can also be used by pirates if they get a hold of it. In the end, it would probably be more dangerous for the crew and passengers than doing any good.

Re:Arm Pilots

[atrowe]

This has been discussed before, but

Guns+Pressurized Cabin==Bad Combination

Re:Arm Pilots

[henley]

Every commercial airline pilot i have ever met was an ex air-force pilot. (In the USe abotu the only way to learn to fly jhets is to join the US Airforce.) Given that, I would think they have training on the proper handling of a side arm. Maybe its time to arm them all.

I have two points for your consideration:

1. Do you have any idea how Bad a thing it is to puncture a thin-skinned pressure vessel? Let alone one containing hundreds of people at altitude potentially over an inhabited area?
2. I can't quote stats (and under the circumstances I don't want to quote stats) but it occurs to me that the number of law enforcement personnel attacked or injured by their own weapon is non-trivial.

Firearms on civil aircraft... nope, that's a scary idea. Try Again.

Re:Arm Pilots

[argonaut]

It works for the Israeli's. Every El Al has an armed person on board. When was the last time an Israeli flight was hijacked ? Shimon Peres made this comment.

http://www.elal.co.il/

Re:Arm Pilots

[pete-classic]

I'll do you one better.

Allow folks with concealed cary permits to carry on board.

Look, it is now proven that guns are NOT NECESSARRY to hijack an aircraft.

I bullet between the eyes will sure slow down a hijacker though.

I am very aware of how dangerous discharging a firearm on an aircraft is, but it is less dangerous than the current situation, which seems to be "whoever is the most willing to die gets control of the aircraft."

I say, let the hijacker die for his country/god/whatever and let the rest of us get to L.A. on schedule.

Re:Arm Pilots

[NedAtl]

If your arm the pilots, then you have to train the pilots. After trained getting a firearm from one would be as difficult for an assailent to get a firearm from a police or FBI officer, different story than just handing a firearm over to a bunch of untrained(firearms wise) pilots.

A more logical solution which has been brought up is the reinstatement of the Air Marshall programs.
An armed US marshal is a threat to any terrorist if their on the aircraft.

and while I HATE to point to anything the PROC does good. They have had "Air Police" for some time, they utilize plastic rounds in 9mm's to prevent the rounds from being able to depressurize the cabin. Perhaps a thought.

Ned

Re:Arm Pilots

[gej]

What about stun guns, or other effective ways of disabling someone without endangering others? This area needs to be explored.

gene

Re:Arm Pilots

[hoggoth]

There should be a "panic button" like they have in banks to send a signal to the ground that there has been a hijacking.

Re:Arm Pilots

[glebfrank]

I would think they have training on the proper handling of a side arm. Maybe its time to arm them all.

I see a few replys to your post saying "shooting a gun in pressurized cabin is dangerous, blah blah blah." May I remind them that since yesterday, the safety of the plane and its passengers is NO LONGER the chief concern. That era is gone, say bye bye.

Re:Arm Pilots

[frankmu]

we could also "key" the airplane to the pilots. of course, if the pilots are incapacitated, there would have to be a system to bring down the plane safely.

Re:Arm Pilots

[Stevis]

Has the consequence of speeding bullet ripping through pressurized cabin crossed your mind? at 30,000 feet it wouldn't be pretty.

I do recall in Stephen King's <em>The Langoliers</em>--yeah, yeah, I know, it's not exactly the font of all aviation knowledge--they could lower cabin pressure to ~5PSI from the cockpit, enough to render unconscious but not enough to kill. Seal off the cabin, the pilots grab their emergency masks, and land the plane asap (with security meeting them on the ground.)

Seem like a reasonable solution? anyone with specific knowledge why that won't work, let me know so I can stop bugging my other friends about it...

Stevis

Re:Arm Pilots

[sealawyer]

"I see a few replys to your post saying "shooting a gun in pressurized cabin is dangerous, blah blah blah." May I remind them that since yesterday, the safety of the plane and its passengers is NO LONGER the chief concern. That era is gone, say bye bye."

So you are suggesting that a good way of stopping this kind of terrorism is for passengers to be ready to start a suicidal shootout in a plane flying over a city? Don't bother preventing the bad guys from having guns,just give everybody on the plane a gun and then trust their judgment to know when to shoot and when to just let the hijackers have their way?

No thanks.

Re:Arm Pilots

[spoco2]

Oh, top idea, arm everyone, give everyone a damn gun, fantastic, great, well done. Let there be shootouts on every flight, let the man who gets tired of not getting his whiskey fast enough shoot the stewardess.

Urgh... You don't want to have ANY weapons on the damn plane, NONE, NADA, ZILCH. Sure, you can fashion almost anything into a weapon, but it's far easier to defend against a knife than it is a gun.

What there needs to be is better ways for looking for weapons as people board planes, so we don't have these issues of knives on board.

Oh, and also, I just love the attitude I've heard from so many talkback radio listeners here in the US (I'm here on business), and commentators, which is "Flatten a few countries", "Wipe them out"...

Just beautiful, that's just so the attitude that'll stop the world decending into world war, well done all.

Re:Arm Pilots

[DA_MAN_DA_MYTH]

I like your thinking but, I'd rather have the pilots fly the plane than worry about stopping terroists.

The solution: More Sky Marshalls. Put a minimum of two on each flight. People who are trained in stopping terroist attacks.

Pros: This would obviously deter terroist action. Or help in the overall good ending...
Cons: Having a lot of trained people doing nothing and getting payed to do it. Just sitting on a flight that basically once in a blue moon has the chance of getting Hijacked. Oh well I'd pay an extra $5-$10 for that peace of mind though.

Re:Arm Pilots

[Casca]

There is, IIRC they just set the transponder code to 7600. This immediately identifies the plane as being hijacked to the air traffic controllers. It isn't complicated either, just key in the code, and hit send.

Since this never happened, I'm pretty sure the pilots were taken out before the planes took off, and the terrorists were the ones in control from the beginning. That is a pretty freaking scary thought.

Re:Arm Pilots

[Rheingold]

That's actually a pretty good idea, far better than putting projectile weapons in a pressurized aircraft...

Perhaps for the pilots being able to seal off the cabin and release nitrous oxide or another gas that induces sleep would be good too...

Re:Arm Pilots

[Mr. Slippery]

Don't bother preventing the bad guys from having guns...

Can I suggest you read one of the many news stories on recent events? Because then you might learn that these fuckers didn't have guns .

But on the general case of bad guys with guns - you can't prevent it. Strategies that depend on "first, we'll get all the guns away from the bad guys" are doomed from the start. You can't keep guns away from determined people - hell, the Nazis couldn't keep guns out of the hands of the French Underground! Gun control keeps guns away from bad guys about as well as drug prohibition keeps heroin away from junkies.

Given that fact, having a lot of armed good guys makes sense. Yes, airplanes might require additional considerations - special training, use of "safety" ammo that won't penetrate the cabin, and so on, before you can carry your gun on a plane.

Re:Arm Pilots

[Augusto]

I might be incorrect, but I think at least one of the planes the code was activated, and later was disengaged, possibly by the terrorists.

Re:Arm Pilots

[Samari711]

i'm not exactly sure about the physics, but i think using a firearm in a presurized environment is bad idea, if nothing else you can depresurize the entire plane if you shoot through a window or wall, and i think that a small explosion in a pressurized environment can trigger a bigger one or something to that effect. maybe give all the pilots and flight attendants tazers would be a better idea. would also be able to use them on people with a bad case of air rage too.

Re:Arm Pilots

[qneill]

I was talkging today with a guy I work with, his brother is in law enforcement. The brother received training about using weapons onboard aircraft. They were taught that small arms fire is much less catastrophic than is depicted in films, basically to use their weapons on the aircraft just as they would on the ground.

Re:Arm Pilots

[roystgnr]

Don't bother preventing the bad guys from having guns, just give everybody on the plane a gun and then trust their judgment to know when to shoot and when to just let the hijackers have their way?

Imagine how horrible that would be. Assuming suicidal hijackers never learn from their mistakes, you could see a dozen lives lost every year, which would mount up to yesterday's death toll in a few centuries.

There's got to be a better solution, but this one isn't half-bad.

Re:Arm Pilots

[MackE]

Actually, I believe the origin passenger service in the US was tickets sold on airmail planes. The pilot were required to carry 'mail pistols' since they were primarily mail planes

Re:Arm Pilots

[cybermage]

I'm pretty sure the pilots were taken out before the planes took off, and the terrorists were the ones in control from the beginning.

Well, this might be the case, but isn't their usually a dialog between the airport and the plane before and during take-off? You'd think they'd notice that the voice had changed at some point.

I also heard on TV (CNN, I think) that the hijacked planes turned off their transponders. Perhaps they had been set, briefly, to 7600 before that.

Re:Arm Pilots

[Happy Monkey]

This did happen on at least one of the planes. Unfortunately, I think that the hijackers disabled the transponders on the planes when they took control of the cockpits. But the FBI was investigating at least one possible hijacking that morning before the crashes, due to a signal from the plane.

Re:Arm Pilots

[ichimunki]

Um, he/she said to give weapons to trained and responsible individuals on the plane-- e.g. the pilots and/or a security detail-- a far cry from "everybody on the plane". Considering the number of times in the last 24 hours I've heard the expression "bomb with wings" and how apparently easy it was in this case to overcome the flight crew, I'd say it is a reasonable suggestion to consider.

If the reports of the takeovers being accomplished with knives rather than firearms are correct, maybe there is something to the idea of arming flight crews with something (even if not projectile weapons). But the question to ask is, will future passenger flights be vulnerable to this (knife-takeovers) or will future groups of passengers be more likely to take personal and group risks in the face of hijackings? Will Americans be more prepared (realistically?) in the future? What would you do if you were on a flight where this occurred?

Re:Arm Pilots

[kperrier]

Do you have any idea how Bad a thing it is to puncture a thin-skinned pressure vessel? Let alone one containing hundreds of people at altitude potentially over an inhabited area?


The air marshalls that fly on planes use a special ammo that traveles slow enough so that it does not puncture the hull.


I can't quote stats (and under the circumstances I don't want to quote stats) but it occurs to me that the number of law enforcement personnel attacked or injured by their own weapon is non-trivial.

Please do. I believe that this is one of the "statisitics" that actually have no basis in fact. Just like those that state that there is a child killed every second by guns.

Kent

Re:Arm Pilots

[CybrGuyRSB]

Guns probably wouldn't be a very good idea on an airplane for all of the reasons stated above, but there are many other weapons that could be used instead (i.e. taser, stun gun, etc.) Something of this nature could just be kept in an easy to reach compartment in the cockpit to be used in case of emergencies.

Re:Arm Pilots

[Stonehand]

No weapons? That'd basically require full body cavity searches on everybody entering a terminal (or, immediately before entering the plane. Now THAT would increase boarding time...).

Re:Arm Pilots

[Karen_Frito]

Untrue. There are many classes in flying commerical airliners in existance.

Re:Arm Pilots

[Casca]

I kind of doubt that the air traffic control guys would notice any change in voice. Think about how hectic it must be at the airports in question. How many different airplanes, and how many different pilots/copilots they must talk to. If the hijacker used a nuetral American accent when speakin, I really don't think it would have been noticed.

The transponders were reported to have been turned off. I imagine the pilots set them as they were pre-flighting, and then the terrorists took over before they had a chance to punch in the hijack code. Then the terrorists turned them off.

I hadn't heard the reports that the hijack code was detected from a transponder before takeoff. That is interesting.

Re: Arm Pilots

[Inthewire]

I doubt it. Pilots fly more or less regular runs...controllers handle the same areas on a regular basis...there's a rapport between them that builds throught the years.

Re:Arm Pilots

[Matthew Weigel]

Allow folks with concealed cary permits to carry on board.

Before now, I disagreed. I thought, "if we can just keep everyone unarmed in just this tiny span of space-time, it won't be a grand threat to liberty and it will work." Well, apparently it doesn't work, so the same maxim applies: if you strip weapons from law-abiding citizens, then only non-law-abiding citizens will have weapons. Terrorists pretty clearly want very good odds once they get onto the plane - guns against hands is awesome, but knives against hands is good enough - so, let everyone have pistols (yes, including the terrorists, unless you know they're terrorists in which case they shouldn't get on in the first place). The odds are a lot worse for terrorists in a "guns versus guns" scenario - that's why these folks aren't soldiers, they know the odds suck.

There are problems associated with such a plan, but they don't include "well-timed tactical strikes against multiple important locations, killing tens of thousands of people."

Re:Arm Pilots

[Casca]

Hey, thats a pretty good idea. The key could be remotely disabled in the event the pilot is incapacitated. It would at least allow the ground to determine if they want to allow the plane to be flown or not.

Heck, I'd be all for some sort of remote control system controlled by the military. Maybe tie something with a *very* limited range that requires an F-15 pilot to bring his plane to within a couple of hundred yards or something. It would have to use strong encryption obviously, but it could probably be done in a reasonable amount of time, and for reasonable funding. They could use a lot of the same systems as they have for the remote spy-planes.

It wouldn't bother me a bit that my plane was being landed by a fighter-jock with several thousand hours behind a stick...

Re: Arm Pilots

[Inthewire]

It's intentional, stupid

Re:Arm Pilots

[mOdQuArK!]

Well, as a knee-jerk reaction it sounds pretty good, but given the regular reports of passengers becoming at the best verbally abusive of the attendants, not to mention those passengers which become physically abusive, it probably wouldn't make the airline employees feel too safe. (Or that crying baby in the seat over, for that matter.)

If there was some kind of "rationality" or anger management test before you were allowed to carry a firearm, that might be interesting.

Re:Arm Pilots

[Happy Monkey]

Urgh... You don't want to have ANY weapons on the damn plane, NONE, NADA, ZILCH. Sure, you can fashion almost anything into a weapon, but it's far easier to defend against a knife than it is a gun.

Defense isn't the issue. If terrorists are taking over a plane, defense against a knife may save you from getting cut. But you are going to need to take their weapon away - that is an OFFFENSIVE act. In order to disarm someone with minimal risk to your life, a gun is necessary. Somebody needs to take the plane back from the terrorists.

What there needs to be is better ways for looking for weapons as people board planes, so we don't have these issues of knives on board.

A magic device to detect any possible weapon would be nice, but it is a pipe dream. Just off the top of my head: A strategically perforated plastic clipboard, where the edge breaks off sharp, and some tape for the handle.

Re:Arm Pilots

[jcast]

Agreed. Now, how do you propose ``mak[ing] it impossible to get into the cockpits''? Seems to me that's impossible.

If you can't draw a conclusion from that, wait until you get into college before replying.

Re:Arm Pilots

[jcast]

I'm not bothered by the pilot; I'm bothered by the guy handing out his paycheck.

Airline security = More freedom (due to less fear)

Government security = Less freedom (fear transferred to different set of thugs)

Re:Arm Pilots

[jcast]

I can't qoute stats (and under the circumstances I don't want to quote stats) but it occurs to me that you're an idiot.

You sounding reasonable... nope, that's a scary idea. Try Again.

Re:Arm Pilots

[IronGorilla]

I could be wrong, but from what I just heard on the radio, it appears that the terrorists learned to fly in an American flight school in Florida. This sounds to me like a good place to find out about that little transponder trick and make plans to counteract it.

Perhaps a single-press panic button, one that cannot be turned off in flight, is in order?

Re:Arm Pilots

[darth dickinson]

Since this never happened, I'm pretty sure the pilots were taken out before the planes took off, and the terrorists were the ones in control from the beginning. That is a pretty freaking scary thought.

There's a map of the planes' flight path here that leads me to believe that the pilots were in control for a period of time. Notice how the flight path is straight, and then they all suddenly turn?

Re:Arm Pilots

[Sebastopol]

Whoa there cap'n!

I'm still out to lunch on the whole 2nd amendment debate, but could you imagine the air-rage case if people carried concealed weapons on planes!?

Air rage is far more common then hijaking.

Plus, did you listen to all the backward, racist hicks calling into CSPAN on tuesday? There are many well armed racists simpletons in this world who, after recent events, are all too eager to vent on anyone with skin darker than theirs, or someone who wears a cloth wrap on their head for religious reasons (not sure of the proper term for these).

I think the idea of bulletproof cabins that lock from the inside would be a good idea (unless the hijakers got INTO the cabin before the door was locked).

Re:Arm Pilots

[Dastardly]

Guns on airplanes is an extremely bad idea. Just wait for some idiot to show his gun to the guy next to him and have it go off puncturing the plane.

but knives against hands is good enough

Knives against hands won't work anymore. The only reason it worked this time was because everyone figured it would be the usual hijacking:

1) 3-5 people hijack plane with knives and take hostages
2) Make demands
3) Get some demands
4) Land plane someplace where they will let you gt away.
5) Hostages get away alive for the most part.

Now:

1) 3-5 people try to hijack plane with knives
2) 50-100 passengers attack people with knives with bare hands
3) 3-5 hijackers beaten to pulp. Some injuries to passengers

Hijacking a plane with knives is a one time deal. It will never happen again. Us Americans are too much of cowboys to not risk knife injury given the new risks. Now they will have to get guns on the plane.

Dastardly

Re:Arm Pilots

[darth dickinson]

Sure, you can fashion almost anything into a weapon, but it's far easier to defend against a knife than it is a gun.

Up until yesterday, I would have agreed with you. However, thousands of people are dead now, because someone couldn't defend against a knife.

Re:Arm Pilots

[GMontag451]

Seems pretty simple to me. People have been talking about strengthening the cockpit door. Why not ust remove it all together? Make the only way to get into the cockpit be from the outside of the plane. This solution would stop a passenger from taking over the controls in the event of both the pilot and copilot dying, but how likely is that to happen anyway?

Re:Arm Pilots

[spudnic]

So they make the cockpit inaccessable. They just say "Ok, let us in or we kill everyone out here." Or, they quietly tell the attendant to go in to bring food or something or they will kill her.

It wouldn't work. Remember, most hijacking experiences don't result in the plain going down. And until now, nothing like this has ever happened.

There was this guy talking about how well the WTC towers actually did in the attach. Imagine the forces put on those towers when a HUGE airliner crashed into them. Amazing. It was the heat of the fuel that weakened the structure.

When asked if there was a way to prevent that from happening he said that the metal could be coated with some sort of material that would allow it to withstand the tempretures of burning jet fuel, but it would be very very expensive. He followed up by asking if we want to double the construction cost of every building put up from now on to do this in the off chance that something like this might happen again.

There is no way to stop terrorism. No possible way. Somebody is going to come up with some way of killing people if they want to. I can see of fanatic having some kind of balloons filled with sarin or something, sugically implanted in their body, boarding a plane or going down in the NYC subway and slashing their stomach open releasing the chemical.

Ok, maybe not that, but the point is that you can't prevent things from happening. Someone will figure out a way.

Do we want the cost of buildings and air flight to dramatically increase due to new regulations? If it would work, sure, life is worth more than money. But all efforts would be just to give us a false sense of security.

Re:Arm Pilots

[askii64]

Well, you could make the cockpit out of 20 foot thick bullet proof glass and some metal, and fill it with deadly gas so that nobody would WANT to get in. But then no pilots could get in either, so I guess that wouldn't work.

Re:Arm Pilots

[marukawa]

They could start by constructing the doors between the cockpit and the passenger cabin out of something other than papeir-mach`e.

Re:Arm Pilots

[GMontag451]

You don't have to release nitrous oxide, all you have to do is depressurize the cabin about halfway. You would of course have to have some way of preventing the release of the gas masks.

Re:Arm Pilots

[Wolfier]

I thought there had to be some form of authorization before you can manually control an aircraft.

Haven't they even implemented password? OMG.

Re:Arm Pilots

[superape23]

You are a member of mensa and you can't spell tolerance? Or rather you are a member of mensa and you can't be fucked to check your spelling? you owe me a dollar for fibbing.

PS, In general please everyone, right or left wing, please please read outside US news sources and don't rush to judge or assume that Bin Laden or "Arabs" are totally behind this, something is very very fishy. Good luck to all.

Re:Arm Pilots

[IronChef]

An isolated cockpit is probably the best idea. Armed guards too. 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, the bad guy can force the pilot to put in the right code. The pilot bravely puts in the WRONG code though, since the attacker won't know he's being duped.

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.

Re:Arm Pilots

[Fesh]

Aren't the emergency masks deployed automatically due to a pressure drop?

Re:Arm Pilots

[Fesh]

"...let the man who gets tired of not getting his whiskey fast enough shoot the stewardess."

Hmm. Anyone stupid enough to do so would probably get popped himself. There's a reason we're still around to discuss this. It's called Mutually Assured Destruction, A.K.A. Nuclear Deterrence. These things work on the micro scale too...

Re:Arm Pilots

[Evil MarNuke]

Ever tired to steal a gun from a cop?

Re:Arm Pilots

[ccmay]

Do you have any idea how Bad a thing it is to puncture a thin-skinned pressure vessel? Let alone one containing hundreds of people at altitude potentially over an inhabited area?

Rubbish. A hole the size of a bullet would make a slow leak that the pressurization system wouldn't even notice. Where do you think the air pumped into the cabin goes? It leaks out of thousands of little crevices and joints in flow volumes that are orders of magnitude greater than the air leak through a bullet hole. Airplanes can lose windows and even doors and fly perfectly well. That's what the emergency oxygen masks are for.

I can't quote stats (and under the circumstances I don't want to quote stats) but it occurs to me that the number of law enforcement personnel attacked or injured by their own weapon is non-trivial.

That's because they wear them on their hips in public places where any loon can run up behind and grab them. An air marshal would probably have a .45 caliber pistol with frangible ammunition tucked way in a shoulder holster under a jacket. I think it's a great idea.

-ccm

Re:Arm Pilots

[Flower]

No. People followed SOP and went along with the hijackers. That is why it worked. Do you really believe that if the passengers actually knew they were going to crash into a building filled with 1000s of people they wouldn't have done anything? Three of the victims were a family with a 2 year old daughter. Do you really think the father would have meekly sat there if he knew his child was going to die no matter what?

As a new father I know if I had a clue about what was actually going to happen they would have found my charred teeth around somebody's throat. But if I had *any* hope that if I complied my wife and son would eventually get off that plane? I'd obey.

Forget giving a person a gun and just give them a good sized hardcover. See my previous post http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=21572&cid=2288 468 on why arming passengers is a stupid idea.

Re:Arm Pilots

[astr0boy]

the only thing i see wrong with that is the fact that when the plane starts to land the hijackers may start killing passangers/flight attendants. If the piolet is unable to stop the landing, all you will get back is a plane full of dead people. It would avert the sort of disaster seen yesterday, but we would be in similar (well, slightly less) a state of rage that we are in now, except we would be less likely to punish the organizers.

Re:Arm Pilots

[theheadandfriends]

until the pilots have heart attacks and somebody has to climb along the outside of the airplane to gain control of it. GREAT idea. OR... until one of the pilots goes nuts and kills the rest of the flight crew, leaving the poor passangers in the back pounding on the reinforced steel wall between them and the cockpit, begging to be spared.

Re: Arm Pilots

[theheadandfriends]

no there isn't. it's unnecessary radio communication. sure, maybe at midnight they might chat, but not during the day.

Re:Arm Pilots

[einhverfr]

Better idea. Have an undercover armed guard with a concealed handgun on the aircraft at all times. This would make it much more difficult to take the handgun. Better, have 2 of them there.

Re:Arm Pilots

[Sagarian]

If the attackers were on a suicide mission like those yesterday, their killing everyone on board would be a better outcome, sadly, but obviously.

If the attackers had some other agenda, there's no way they would kill everyone on board, that would eliminate their leverage to get whatever they want, whether it's distribution of a message, freeing of a fellow terrorist, you name it.

What the type of solution proposed could do, is prevent commercial airliners from becoming cruise missiles, and would help turn any airline hijacking into a known problem, that of dealing with terrorists threatening to kill passengers on the ground.

Re:Arm Pilots

[mgblst]

The idea about guards is good. Instead of haveing those cute little stewardesses, have huge burly men, with tattoos, serving your meal. And if you don't like, and eat all your veges, they kick you off the plane.

Re:Arm Pilots

[yerktoader]

Several people have suggested an Air Marshall, which would put the responsibility with a trained and certified officer(s). This, combined with the aforementioned low velocity bullets designed for use in air traffic would make a great combination.

Arming the customers? Yeah, sure. Bad idea. Untrained civilians would make a bad peacekeeping force in this kind of situation. But a trained professional would make a perfect person(s) for air security.

This should dramatically alter your viewpoint. If it doesn't then I'd like to know why. Look forward to seeing a response.

Re:Arm Pilots

[SecurityGuy]

I'm still out to lunch on the whole 2nd amendment debate, but could you imagine the air-rage case if people carried concealed weapons on planes!?

The same point applies. How many people are going to be flaming jackasses when they know the other 100+ passengers will render them into hamburger if they present a clear risk to the health and safety of the passengers on the flight.

I can just imagine a scenario where you get the talk about floating across the Atlantic on your seat cushion in the event of a crash. Oh, and each of you has a loaded Glock under your seat. In the event of a hijacking, you're urged in the strongest terms to shoot to kill.

Who's going to hijack a plane like that? Who's going to assault the flight crew? Very, very few, and never the same person twice.

Now of course I don't suggest we do this, but armed personnel on the plane is hardly a bad idea. In fact, we did it for many years. They're called Air Marshalls and they were specifically trained for combat in the confined space of an airline cabin. Its sad we need something like this to make people understand that guns are primarily tools of protection.

Re:Arm Pilots

[Jace of Fuse!]

Not ONLY should every Pilot be armed with a pistol and low-impact ammunition, but ALSO there should be one uniformed Air Marshall, and undisclosed number of undercover Air Marshalls (between 1 and 3, or more for larger flights), and an undercover 3rd Pilot.

It's an expensive crew for an Airplane, but how many people would be alive today if every commercial airliner was manned in such a fashion?

Re:Arm Pilots

[loraksus]

How about just reinforcing the fucking door?

Re:Arm Pilots

[zulux]

Actually, the *has* to be a way for massive amounts of air to quickly pass between the passanger compartment and the flight deck. If the passenger compartment decompresses, the flight deck will litteraly bluge at the seams.if the extra preasure isen't vented. If the seams bluge, they get ripped apart by the 500 MPH winds just outside. Don't want that to happen.

Re:Arm Pilots

[IronChef]

The really hard part of all this is we have to develop the guts to take the passengers out of the equation. A plane turned into a missile can take out 10,000 people. Can -- HAS, I guess we could now say. In future hijackings we have to assume the worst intentions, and if that means forfeiting the lives of the passengers, then that is how it has to be.

The pilots must not have the ability to regain control of the plane once it's established that the bad guys are on board. Human weakness, or short-sighted compassion, can all too easily let them concede to the hijackers' demands if they have the ability to.

It's a terrible thing to throw lives away even in order to save others. But once the prospective hijackers see how things play out, they will have less incentive to try anything. (Plane starts to land, hijackers kill passengers in order to get their way, it doesn't happen, and then guys with guns kill them all.)

We CAN rig things so that hijackers can't take control of the plane... question is, will we have the guts to do so? We'll have a few planeloads of dead people until our resolve is obvious to the world.

Re:Arm Pilots

[GMontag451]

The seams on the outside won't bulge because the pressure in the sealed cockpit will not be affected by the pressure drop in the passenger compartment. The most that would happen would be the seams on the wall between the cockpit and the cabin would bulge, if they aren't as strong as the outside walls of the airplane. This would happen anyway, with the wall that is currently in place between the cockpit and the cabin on most airplanes.

Re:Arm Pilots

[pete-classic]

Hmm. Did you READ my post?

I am very aware of how dangerous discharging a firearm on an aircraft is[. . .]

Yes, it crossed my mind.

WRT lowering cabin pressure: First, AFAIK there isn't a "drop pressure to ~5psi (who the hell still uses such antiquated units?) button." I think that this would be non-trivial. Second, you've got, what, a good minute of clear headedness, and another couple of "silly time" before you black out. This seems less than ideal.

-Peter

Re:Arm Pilots

[pete-classic]

Can you imagine how polite Mr. Air Rage would be if he was but one of FOUR armed people on the plane?

I think that it reflects very poorly on us that we'd collectively rather be a the mercy of armed criminals than in the company of an armed citizenry. If the former is truly preferable to the latter then we are surely lost.

Moreover, you seem to think that only "special" people (police) and those who disregard the law should carry guns. This reveals to me that you are incredibly elitist.

I hear this all the time from so-called "liberals" (who seem to believe only in their own liberty, and being liberal with other people's money). "What? ORDINARY citizens with firearms!? Why, they'll shoot the first person who cuts them off in traffic!"

Shall we form "Box Cutter Control, INC.?" Tacitly submit to body cavity searches in exchange for the privilege of leaving our homes? Put up more signs saying "Firearms are not permitted on these premises." in hopes that robbers will feel compelled to walk away and find a different victim?

Firearms are an equalizer. If the citizenry is good, on the balance, then the net result of an armed citizenry must be good.

-Peter

Re:Arm Pilots

[farmhick]

But a group of a dozen could still either overpower one or two guards, or trick them. What if a group of three stood up, and one killed a stewardess with his dinner fork? The armed guard would shoot them, hopefully killing all three. But in the next half-second, two more people who happened to be seated near the guard jump him from behind, and kill him. If there are a dozen hidden terrorists scattered through the cabin, the chances of the undercover armed guard having his back to a nearby terrorist are very high.

The only real solution would be to have several guards on each flight. But there are three big problems with this.
1. Paying them, especially justifying it after five years of no more highjackings.
2. Getting the number of people to do a very possibly suicidal job.
3. Not letting the terrorist organizations find out who the armed guards are.

One more problem is that no one would hire an Arabic person for this position. Which would lead to civil right lawsuits, which would then doom the program as unconstitutional. All it would take for the law suit is one of the terrorist groups to send some of their unknown members to apply for the job, then file suit when they are all coincidentally not hired. (Even though they could demonstrate very impressive hand-to-hand combat and weapons skills, eh.)

I'm not being facetious here, just looking at what the most probable course of actions would be. The plan of having armed guards might seem fool-proof, but it only goes so far. And as far as the Isreali method, which many have referred to, I say this: How many planes do they have? There were as many as 4000 airplanes flying over the US at any one time one week ago. Plus another few thousand on the ground loading and unloading. Do you know how many armed guards that would be to have even just one on every flight?

Re:Arm Pilots

[farmhick]

No have the gas masks release anyway. The terrorist would have to stop every time they wanted to take a breath. That might be the best thing, so the passengers don't die if the pressure goes a littlt too low. Then the pilots from their outside-access-only and pressurized cockpit could bring it quickly down to a livable altitude. Or as quick as possible I mean to say, which won't be that quick.

Re:Arm Pilots

[mpe]

the only thing i see wrong with that is the fact that when the plane starts to land the hijackers may start killing passangers/flight attendants.

Or the plane could end up comming down anywhere on or near it's flight path. You must assume that hijackers can crash the plane regardless of any kind of remote control system. Let alone that unless the whole flight control system is redesigned from scratch this may be as simple as removing a "bolt on" to defeat such a system.

Re:Arm Pilots

[farmhick]

"could you imagine the air-rage case if people carried concealed weapons "

Sure, there would be several dead air-ragers in the first week. Then nice, peaceful quiet. Hell, I would fly, just to get myself a trophy for my wall. Well, the family probably wouldn't let me keep the actual head, but I could get a wax copy made. That's a safari story for the grandkids.

Re:Arm Pilots

[maxhead]

It occurs to me there may be a simple, low cost solution: biometrics. Put a fingerprint scanner on the wheel of the aircraft...if it is not one of the pilots, the plane goes into auto-pilot. This prevents the situation of a hostile taking over the wheel.

I wonder if you could also use it to detect stress, in order to avoid the situation of forcing a pilot to fly against his/her will.

Re:Arm Pilots

[DataCannibal]

My God what a genius you are. After forty years of armed hijacks of aircraft no one else has ever thought of, let alone considered, this idea.

Control Risks, phone this guy immediately and offer him a job

Re:Arm Pilots

[Evil MarNuke]

Ok.

Result of solution 1) Watching people die.

Possiable result of solution 2) being unable to control the plane.

Both of them cost lots of money. What about a gun? $500 bucks.

Re:Arm Pilots

[djmoore]

What do you want to bet that the brave heroes of UA93 who died in Pennsylvania to save our Capitol City fought with Leathermans, penknives, and letter openers?

I'm definitely on the side of concealed carry permit holders being able to board with their weapons.

Instead, the FAA has outlawed all knives, except for plastic butter knives with our meals.

In other words, the law abiding American traveling public will be treated like insane children. Under these rules, UA93 would have had to fight with their bare hands. What's next, demanding our belts and shoelaces? Having everyone change into tissuepaper pajamas? I've heard people suggest outlawing carry-on luggage. What, no diaper bags? No books or toys for bored children (and adults)? What about delicate equipment and valuables? Are you sure you want to trust your laptop to the baggage handlers?

This is totally unacceptable. Particularly on domestic flights, we must be free to go where we like when we like with whatever we like. Arrogant? Damn betcha. The earned arrogance of a free and powerful people. Anything less is giving in to fear, advertising our weakness, asking to be robbed, raped, and murdered.

Allowing our government and the airlines to act as our nannys only breeds irresponsibility and self contempt in us.

I will not, will not , trade one comma of the Bill of Rights for useless, even counterproductive attempts to make me safe from myself -- or anyone else.

Re:Arm Pilots

[notcarlos]

Never mind the fact that most of the commercial airline pilots I've met I've /trained/ with, and absolutly none of them were "ex air-force pilots".

(In the US about the only way to learn to fly jets is to join the US Airforce.)

You're not entirely right, here. Thousands of flight schools across the country train /commercial/ pilots how to fly /commercial/ jets.

(John Cleese says:) Your arugment is flawed. Good morning.

Re:Arm Pilots

[iamcadaver]

Try tasers. Tethered Tasers are better, and not on the Pilot ( whom should be sealed forward ) but on plain-clothed Guards.

Re:Arm Pilots

[Dragoness Eclectic]

In my experience, most people with concealed carry permits who do indeed "carry" are very restrained and understand the gravity of using deadly force. They DON'T run around plugging people who cut them off in traffic or whatever, and I doubt they would do so in an airplane.

My experience is that of living in a U.S. state which has "shall-issue" concealed carry laws, meaning that there are a lot of concealed carry licenses issued, and an even greater number of people who just carry weapons in their car without a permit (legal in my state). We don't run around wantonly shooting each other in traffic. There have been incidents where people shot carjackers, and one "road-rage" incident where someone DEFENDED himself from some crazed guy who tried to beat him with a jackhandle after being cut off in traffic...

People who go through the process of getting a CCL (which isn't trivial) are serious about what they are doing, and generally not "carrying" just for the thrill of it. I trust my fellow citizens to behave themselves with guns, just as I trust them (in general) not to behave like homicidal madmen with cars, knives or baseball bats just because they happen to be in possession of one.

Re:Arm Pilots

[__aasblx7268]

>>If you're looking to change careers, now might be a good time to do it

I suddenly got a vision of this Dinero-esque air cabby of the future, complete w/ hand guns up the sleeves & a NYC chauffers license on the hood.

Guns in the cockpit? Come on! Maybe a pit bull...

Re:Arm Pilots

[Stevis]

I don't recall saying there was a button, but that they do have control over the pressurization of the button.

What are you going to do with that minute? Get a mask on, and then be tied to the location of the mask?

Explosive decompression of the cabin is what is "less than ideal"--and that's the very foreseeable end result of cabin firearms. Not to mention the sitting-duck passengers in the very narrow shooting gallery of a passenger jet...

Why is it that we still think armed cowboys are the solution to every problem in this country?

Re:Arm Pilots

[David Ishee]

One idea to take the passengers out of the equation is to shut off the emergency oxygen supply, depressurize the cabin to a level so that everyone passes out, then land. Inspect closely to make sure no one brings on secondary oxygen.

The pilots can stay in the reinforced cockpit with full pressure.

Re:Arm Pilots

[Sebastopol]

I think that it reflects very poorly on us that we'd collectively rather be a the mercy of armed criminals than in the company of an armed citizenry. If the former is truly preferable to the latter then we are surely lost.

I disagree entirely.

First, I think it is a huge step backwards a few hundred years to think everyone should be armed at all times. I would move to england or canada where guns are illegal and handgun homicides are essentially zero.

Second, we're at the mercy of people that are obviously pissed for some reason. Perhaps we could focus on why we're pissing off so many people before rallying to turn every american into an armed vigilante.

This reveals to me that you are incredibly elitist.

Oh yes, I totally am elitest, I don't disagree. But look at the discussion, we both obviously are based on this conversation, so why point it out?

Shall we form "Box Cutter Control, INC.?" Tacitly submit to body cavity searches in exchange for the privilege of leaving our homes?

I get a good body cavity search every morning from my boyfriend, so I'm stretched and ready! Are you? ;-)

Firearms are an equalizer.

More rhetoric. Two people, two guns, one dead. How is that equal?

If the citizenry is good, on the balance, then the net result of an armed citizenry must be good.

Heh heh. Your morality is defended with a gun. I hope my morality is identical to yours, lest I incur your wrath.

What a country you describe: wake up, take a shower, eat breakfast, and strap on a firearm before going out of the house. Yee ha! Sounds like the old west! Maybe I should move to a 3rd world country where they live like this. That's more horrifying than anything else.

Re:Arm Pilots

[zulux]

You are correct in that the seams on the flight deck won't buldge - they nast bulging and stress occurs at the interface between the flight deck and the cabin - the skin on the pressurised flight deck is pushing outwards and the skin on the cabin is pushing inwards due to speed. It's the differance in stress that cause nasty things to happen.

Re:Arm Pilots

[darth dickinson]

There are several reports that the hijackers told the people on the plane what was happening, that they were all about to die, and to call their families to say goodbye.

However, given my feelings as a father also, I would have to agree with the previous poster. NO ONE hurts my baby girl.

We CAN punish the hijackers!

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks to modern technology, if we can recover DNA samples, we can clone them and put their clones on trial!

Re:We CAN punish the hijackers!

[AtrN]

clone them and put their clones on trial!

No. That won't happen. You want the DNA destroyed permanently so the bad "unit" can't breed. Think Gattaca.

Re:We CAN punish the hijackers!

[AndroidCat]

Nah, clone a thousand Bubbas and put them on the terrorists' .. tail.

Airport Security... Is that enough?

[kstumpf]

I'm glad to hear that airport security for passenger flights will be increased. I haven't seen mention, though, of non-passenger flights. There are other planes in the air, such as Fedex and UPS. Surely these planes make cross-continental flights and carry alot of fuel, making them dangerous weapons should terrorists be at the controls. Has anyone seen this point raised yet?

Re:Airport Security... Is that enough?

[Averye0]

An excellent point.

However, it would be much more difficult for terrorists to hijack a FedEx or UPS plane than a passenger flight for one simple reason. The only people allowed onboard those planes are the flight crew. When was the last time you heard of terrorists getting onto the plane by posing as part of the crew? You haven't, because it's too difficult and too prone to slipups/mishaps/blown covers.

Plus, said terrorists would have to be well trained enough to actually prep the plane for takeoff and then actually takeoff. While takeoff is not as tricky as landing, it's still a difficult manuver. It's much easier to smuggle some kind of weapon onto a passenger flight and takeover once the plane is in the air. IMO, anyone who has spent a few hours in front of MS Flight Sim has enough familiarity with the instrument panel of a 7x7 to pilot it into the side of a building. Sad, but likely true.

Averye0 out.

Re:Airport Security... Is that enough?

[Spy Hunter]

I think one of the key aspects of this act of terrorism was the use of passenger planes. What will you be thinking of next time you board a plane for a cross-country flight? That's just what the terrorists want you to think. A UPS plane wouldn't have been as effective for that.

Re:Airport Security... Is that enough?

[daviddennis]

Unless they hide terrorists in the packages, I don't think this will be much of a threat.

D

Re:Airport Security... Is that enough?

[Bobman1235]

Barring people hiding in a FedEx shipping box and jumping out in mid-flight, I don't see much danger in hijacking a commercial shipping flight such as mentioned, considering there's no passengers. I suppose the pilot could be a nutbag, but that's really always been a problem, and there's not much of a solution...

Re:Airport Security... Is that enough?

[AugstWest]

Well, some of these guys built their weapons out of their razors that they had in their flight bags.

Unless they're going to instate an "electric shavers only" policy, stepping up patrols and security at the airports isn't going to do a damn thing.

You do bring up a VERY good point, though.

Re:Airport Security... Is that enough?

[kootch]

i just have one thing to say: EgyptAir

Re:Airport Security... Is that enough?

[Greenisus]

If people are shipping very large packages (e.g. horses, cars), they are allowed to ride on the planes.

Re:Airport Security... Is that enough?

[Stonehand]

Knives are now banned in-flight, at least for now. Apparently, the rule was that anything under 4 inches was legal, albeit that doesn't mean that airport security wouldn't hassle you, but today's ban is total. I could see a razor being included in this ban.

'course, to find the non-metallic ones, you may need to do a cavity search.

Re:Airport Security... Is that enough?

[Knobby]

You're missing the elegance of the attack.. Sure FedEX and UPS planes don't carry passengers, blah, blah.. The reason passenger planes were used is because they can't be shot down! Let me repeat that again: passenger planes were used is because they can't be shot down!

If you're sitting in front of a command terminal and see a plane flying into restricted air space what do you do? You try to contact it, then you inform your supervisor, and he/she calls the appropriate authorities.. At some point someone has to say: "Well, damn! It looks like this plane is going to enter our air space maybe we should scramble a couple fighters up there to direct them back onto course.." Of course, if the fighters get there in time and the plane doesn't turn, another choice has to be made.. Do we fire upon a plane full of American citizens? Surely killing them, or do hope the plane keeps flying right through the restricted space?

With a cargo plane you say, well the 2-3 person crew must be dead or insane and pull the trigger.. There's no dilema.. A few lost packages, or a 1000 lost lives..

Re:Airport Security... Is that enough?

[Doctor Faustus]

Why not? They can just mark it as from RealDoll.Com.

Re:Airport Security... Is that enough?

[Telek]

I know that some people would rather not fly, and I respect that, but I wouldn't think twice about getting on another plane.

Let me point something out:

At any given point in time during the day there is up to 4,000 planes in the air over the United States.

There are more than 40,000 flights per day in the United States.

Even if a terrorist attack were to happen once a year (or lets just say that 4 planes goes down a year, on average), that is over 14 million planes per year. The average person flies round trip once every 4 years, putting your chances of getting in trouble slightly less than being the sole winner of a 15 million dollar lottery.

In addition, the targets were well chosen and high profile, and the planes were specifically chosen too.

Finally, with the super beefed up security now at airports, I'd say it will be very safe.

And for those of you who are keen on modding good posts to "Flamebait", even if I am drastically overrating the odds of getting killed on an airplane, here's a little bit of stats:

Death from electrocution&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp--> 1 chance in 200,000 / year
Death from drowning&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp --> 1 chance in 35,000 / year
Death from a car accident&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp --> 1 chance in 7,000 / year
Death from pneumonia/influenza&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp--> 1 chance in 3,000 / year
Death from cancer&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp --> 1 chance in 500 / year
Death from stroke/heart disease &nbsp--> 1 chance in 300 / year

Thus, even at a overreaction of about 50x over, you still have a better chance of dying from electrocution than you do from dying on an aircraft.

MSNBC Article on BinLaden and CIA

[wdavies]

This article links the CIA with Bin Laden... Scary? I saw Orrin mouthing off yesterday as well.

This link was discovered via Slashdot, via Michael Moore's page.

Winton

Re:MSNBC Article on BinLaden and CIA

[Col. Klink (retired)]

Yes, Bin Laden was trained by the CIA to help fight the Soviets out of Afghanistan.

Here's a Frontline interview with Bin Laden (from May 1998).

Re:MSNBC Article on BinLaden and CIA

[MagikSlinger]

Sadly, this is true. I remember hearing about this shortly after the Embassy bombings a couple years ago. In fact, 60 minutes did a profile on Bin Laden and spoke to some of his then supporters in Congress. To say they were upset by the blowback would be an understatement.

We used the Third World (and I do mean we -- even if you didn't support it, we all payed taxes to support it whether you wanted to or not) as chess pieces in the Cold War. This geopolitical game of chess destroyed nations and killed millions of lives. It has tragically disrupted the lives of several billion people, and turned once self-reliant cultures into those begging children you see in those Save the Children commercials. Now we are all paying the price. The game is over, but the pieces haven't finished. Russia has to deal with Islamic fundamentalists who want to splinter the Russian Federation and just plain get revenge on them for Afghanistan. We have to deal with Saddam Hussein, the theocracy of Iran and the Afghani "freedom fighters" like Bin Laden. All cases of blowback.

One would hope we would have learned from these mistakes, but we never do...

Re:MSNBC Article on BinLaden and CIA

[Dolly_Llama]

In America, we have a figure from history from 1897 named Teddy Roosevelt. He was a wealthy man, who grew up in a privileged situation and who fought on the front lines. He put together his own men - hand chose them - and went to battle. You are like the Middle East version of Teddy Roosevelt.

How dare that fucking bastard compare bin Laden to Roosevelt.

Re:MSNBC Article on BinLaden and CIA

[NearlyHeadless]

One would hope we would have learned from these mistakes, but we never do...

And what would have been the right thing to do? Just let the Soviets fuck over the Afghanis?

Re:MSNBC Article on BinLaden and CIA

[Crixus]

One would hope we would have learned from these mistakes, but we never do...

That's because they weren't "mistakes."

They were active policy choices, and these same kind of foreign policy decisions are made every day.

You and I both know they're mistakes, but the various administrations don't see it that way because at the time, they served our foreign policy purpose.

Rich...

Re:MSNBC Article on BinLaden and CIA

[tjb]

Exactly.

At the time, it was The Right Thing(tm).

At the time, *anybody* was a preferable ruler to the USSR. The muhajedin were fighting the Soviets already. They were getting slaughtered by Soviet Hind helicopters. We trained them and gave them anti-aircraft missiles.

Now, perhas you could claim that we should have helped them rebuild the country after the fighting was over, but for the most part we were shocked by the brutal civil war that followed the Soviet withdrawal. With no sides to take (good ones, anyway) the US sat it out and ended up getting the Taliban. That's just the way it goes.

Re:MSNBC Article on BinLaden and CIA

[MagikSlinger]

Yeah, we've heard that one how many times. That's like playing Chess thinking one move at a time. You have to play the game out to the end, not just to the next move.

What the U.S. could have/should have done is chosen one or two of the many factions--Yes faction*s*, plural--that you could live with and make them the leaders of the struggle. Afterwards, you set them up as the government and use them as a stalwart against the further spread of Communism. The U.S. did that in Europe, Japan, Korea and the south Pacific.

Contrary to popular belief, the mujahadim is not the Taliban. Saying the mujahadim is a bit like saying "Americans" or "Native Indians". It referred to everyone fighting the Soviets. The factions fighting were not just the Taliban, but many other groups, including several pro-Western groups who are now desperately holding onto small scraps of land. They could have been put in power to help rebuild the country and fight the Cold War. Win/win/win. Check and mate.

This policy was used by the U.S. very successfuly up until the first Indochina war (France vs. North Viet Nam). I have never heard a good explaination why the policy (Find a good local faction, support them, make them the government, give them money aftewards to become self-sufficient) was dropped. The only real failure of that policy I am aware of was Ferdenand Marcos.

Simply saying "we had no choice" ignores the fact that we did have choices. Lots of better ones, but people who have little to no skill at geopolitiking (the Reagan administration) chose cowboy actions because it made them look tough. Who cares if it really serves the end goal?

Now watch me get flamed or modded down for suggesting the Reagan administration had little to no kill at geopolitics. But you have to remember: they funded Saddam Hussein's army, they sold arms to both Iran and Iraq hoping they'd bleed each other dry (exact opposite happened), they traded with terrorists and kidnappers. In short, most of their "active policy choices" have accomplished little or made things worse in the long run.

In order to win a struggle, you have to survive the endgame.

Re:MSNBC Article on BinLaden and CIA

[therion]

"self reliant cultures"

pardon me. what the fuck are you talking about?

What can be done? Nothing.

[torpor]

The only effective weapon against terrorism is to do absolutely nothing.

Make any change at all in response, and you are instantly losing. Pandering to the desired effect, which is 'change'.

Say what you will about the loss of life, and the human tragedy of it, but the fact remains: humans die, whether at the hands of other humans, or by their own doing.

Yes, it's horrific the way things went down in New York yesterday. Terrible, and we all suffered through it (thanks to live action television) with those souls in the street and in the buildings and planes.

Americans fear death. Everything they do - their entire culture - is designed to prolong the inevitable.

It is this nations biggest weakness.

Responding to this form of terrorism with anything less than an utterly peaceful view is to let the terrorists win.

Killing terrorists in retaliation won't work - they've already demonstrated they're not afraid of death - something that most Americans can not truly admit.

Face it. In this particular case, America is not the superpower, since those who do not fear death have the mightiest weapon of all.

However, we should of course expect a typically American reaction. Bombing of specific targets. Categorically standard propagation of information by American news/propaganda corporations. Political jousting and hustling. Conspiracy, subterfuge, irresolution.

Made for TV movies will be on the airwaves by June ...

Video Tape / PVR / VCD

[ImaLamer]

I've been recording everything on TV for two days now. My GF taped some 90210 on accident, but I taped over that.

I would like to have quality video to put on VCD, so if anyone can point me to somewhere that I can download video, that would be great. Streaming video is nice, but I own a TV and get cable - we don't need that.

There is a mirror of some video at my public FTP site: ftp://ftp.one.net/pub/users/joe/

Anything that is pointed out to me will be uploaded to that site.

This is something that I believe shouldn't be forgotten - let's keep these records.

Saving PVR feeds

[iamcadaver]

Here is what I submitted to /.

The images in all our minds from Tuesday are powerful. The images in our PVRs are 'real'. I'm scared that our memories of the devastation, of our Unity, and of our humanity will be replaced with 5 second news-bytes and cut-shots. The streams in your PVR's may well never be seen again if they are erased, because the media will sanatize and shorten the vids to fit between commercials forever-more.

I'm asking for discussion, here on /., about preserving these feeds, about it's copyright implications, and about the greater good of preserving these memories forever.

Re:Saving PVR feeds

[ReelOddeeo]

IANAL, but it should be okay for you to keep personal copies of what you've recorded.

They have long term historical value.

Who knows, in a million years or so, there may no longer be any copyright issues to contend with.


And lead us not into fair use,
but deliver us from copyright infringement.
For thine is the copyright, and the patent, and the trademark
forever and ever
Amen.

Pilots were trained at Huffman

[hether]

On the radio the FBI said the terrorists who were pilots, several of the people in the groups, were trained at Huffman Aviation in Daytona Beach, FL. It sounded like the training had been some time ago and thats why they believe they had been planning this for quite some time.

http://www.huffmanaviation.com

Re:Pilots were trained at Huffman

[LinuxHam]

I heard around 5pm ET on CNN that they were trained at Piper in Daytona Beach, where JFK, Jr. took lessons. A close friend of mine graduated from Embry-Riddle in Daytona Beach, so that was the first place that came to my mind.

Re:Pilots were trained at Huffman

[daviddennis]

Looks like it would have been pretty basic training - there were no jets of any size in that menu.

I'm convinced the people involved had some kind of large jet training.

It sounds like they found fanatics and trained them to fly instead of finding fanatics who were already trained. That would certainly increase the cost of the operation, but it probably helps make it more secure.

D

Airport security

[Pope]

I've been hearing about the proposal to beef up security for domestic flights in the USA: bravo!
I have flown many international flights, but only 3 or 4 times within the USA, and quite frankly security always seemed a little lax, even compared to Canada. This is not to say that airport officals are directly to blame for this tragedy, but one can also look at it pragmatically: there are HUGE numbers of people flying within the USA at all times, and regular delays only seem to piss people off. What will happen now if the security becomes much stricter? I'm afraid we'll all have to deal with it when the time comes, but it's not going to be a pretty sight trying to process that many people.

In more positive news, many hundreds of Torontonians have turned out to donate blood! (OK, me included) Please disregard the troll who has been posting that the Red Cross has lots of blood: it's been a known fact for the past year that supplies have been *very* low both here and in the US. Go for it if you can! Even if your blood is not used for this emergency. blood is ALWAYS in demand, and will NOT get thrown out like the troll has implied. It all gets stored and sorted, never has there been a surplus!

Thanks.

Re:Airport security

[pcgamez]

As an American, I will not complain if I know I am safer.

Re:Airport security

[TroyFoley]

F-in A, I went in and had to put my name and number down because they couldn't take any more blood today. I've never been more proud to be an American.

Re:Airport security

[Wargames]

I've heard this proposal before, the only practical solution is for everyone to FLY NAKED!

Re:Airport security

[Guppy06]

" I've been hearing about the proposal to beef up security for domestic flights in the USA: bravo!"

You may be cheering, but I'm not a big fan of cops with automatic weapons, and that's what I've been seeing from footage of the local airports.

Re:Airport security

[aap]

Please disregard the troll who has been posting that the Red Cross has lots of blood

This morning around 10 AM, on WBZ Radio (Boston), they said they had enough for today but be sure to come back tomorrow.

Re:Airport security

[FFFish]

What do you mean, "Even compared to Canada." Does Canada have a reputation of being completely slack-assed when it comes to airport security?

(In Norway, I entered the country without passing through customs. That struck me as odd... especially as it was the day before the Prince got hitched!)

Re:Airport security

[ljessup]

I whole-heartedly agree with mandating that under cover cops be aboard all aircraft. Why not? We have under cover cops on trains; I think it's a good idea to start doing the same on planes. Offer military personnel, cops etc free airfare so your not paying the wages of Bob the lazy sack of shit rent a cop, but rather giving free airfare to a dependable law enforcement official who has real training. And if you argue against this because of the cost, try to remember that the measures the FAA just placed on all national airports (especially Logan - yeah what security?) will most definitely cost more anyway.

Re:Airport security

[aprentic]

It wasn't really a troll.
Blood centers in NY have a shortage of equipment and personell to take blood donations.
I went to two different blood centers today and in both cases they told me to come back tomorrow.
If you don't have type O blood they don't even want you back until later.
That said you can sign up as a volunteer. They're particularly looking for people with skills in medicine, foreign languages, and computers (hint hint).

Re:Airport security

[PaxTech]

I don't think anyone's going to be complaining for quite a while about time taken by airport security..

Re:Airport security

[JAVAC THE GREAT]

Cost -- consider there are about 4,000 flights/day. Say you pay an air marshall $50k/yr. That's $200M/yr. How much do you think that just the cost of the airplanes alone that crashed is? Certainly the cost is not issue. The problem is finding qualified people and getting them trained and operational.

Re:Airport security

[Pope]

Oopsie.
What I meant was that security in Canadian airports, even for domestic flights, is higher than for the USA. The metal detectors are pretty sensitive: once when flying from Calgary to Toronto the Swiss Army knife in my jeans buzzed the detector. The guard made me take it out, and he tested the largest blade to see how sharp it was. That was in 1986.

Pittsburgh Passengers Tried To Stop Terrorists

[mimbleton]

http://a188.g.akamaitech.net/f/188/920/1m/www.wash ingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19050-2001Sep12.ht ml

Your head...

[Anonymous Coward]

is up your ass.

To do nothing will embolden more attackers.

Re:Your head...

[torpor]

You understimate the spiritual,philosophical, and intellectual *strength* of the terrorist groups involved - many of which have far higher moral and ethical codes by which they have *lived an entire life*, than your average American politician.

To do nothing, as a politician, in the face of this terrorist act, would be the *ultimate* response.

Too blind to see that, perhaps, by your own hatred and lack of understanding for cultures and mores not your own ...

Re:Your head...

[Augusto]

Lack of understanding for cultures ?

I think we pretty much understand the culture of the terrorists, a fanatical and suicadal culture. They need to be exterminated, they want to die anyways, let's do them a favor.

Re:Your head...

[sydbarrett74]

I think you would be singing a different tune if you had lost friends or loved ones in the attack. I have. Since you embrace death, why not volunteer yourself to be a martyr?

Re:Your head...

[thenerd]

Lack of understanding for cultures ?

I think we pretty much understand the culture of the terrorists, a fanatical and suicadal culture. They need to be exterminated, they want to die anyways, let's do them a favor.

No, that's how you understand their culture given the fact that you know little about it. Yes, they are off the deep end about as far as they could be, but REAL UNDERSTANDING and compassion is the ONLY WAY you can EVER protect yourself.

The people that have been killed here have a lot in common with people that have been killed in places like Israel:

1) They are completely innocent
2) They didn't instigate any hatred
3) They are ruled by people that do not understand and will not understand the other side because they are ruled by hate

When lives are being lost the ego, the pride, and the bloodlust must go straight out the window because otherwise lives will continue to be lost. The terrorists are VERY SIMILAR to us in so far as the only way out they see is to blindly attack a country that they see responsible for their death.

Note, I'm not saying that what they've done is on the same magnitude as what we've done. They have done a terrible thing that is so hard to comprehend it's made me burst into tears more than once.

thenerd

Re:Your head...

[torpor]

Unlike some people, my mores are not dissuaded by acts of cowardice and terror.

2 days since I posted the response that began this thread, I see now that America is giving in to its own weaknesses.

Stupid, uneducated men are calling for blood.

More blood.

Can you not see the ridiculous nature of this scenario?

WE ALL LIVE ON THIS PLANET TOGETHER, IRRESPECTIVE OF OUR INDIVIDUAL CULTURAL BARRIERS.

Advanced Citizenship

[creep]

#---------------
#The following comment in NO WAY condones terrorism
#---------------
It is a shame that it has taken a tragedy like this to compel us to whip our heads around and notice what is happening. *Complete freedom* is not an easy thing to master; America is advanced citizenship. You really have to want it. I, personally, feel like I am not as patriotic or stalwart as I can be.

Unfortunately for us, those who have no regard for human life will always exist. A lack of understanding abounds in the world today, with people who feel like those who are different are bad, and anyone whose ideas and values don't agree with their own need to be exterminated.

One of the only differences between the people who organized this act of terror and the next person you meet isn't the willingness to give up one's life for a certain cause, but the complete disregard for the life of others. I feel strongly about certain values; it is safe to say that I would die for them. But I would never put the lives of others in danger just because of something that I believe in.

NATO Article V

[Ruis]

More info on what article V is:
http://www.acus.org/Publications/bulletins/interna tionalsecurity/art5.pdf

North Atlantic Treaty

[Compulawyer]

I believe the full text of the treaty (including Article 5) is here

Or copy and paste: http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/treaty.htm

Re:North Atlantic Treaty

[rve]

I dont see what NATO can do to improve domestic air travel security in the USA.

Activating article 5 in NATO is probably Washingtons way of saying to their allies "we do not expect a peep about 'restraint' or 'respecting rights of poor middle eastern countries' if/when we decide to retalliate in any way we see fit".

If any of the European countries disagree with this, they'll have to leave NATO. I don't think that will happen.

Re:North Atlantic Treaty

[sql*kitten]

Activating article 5 in NATO is probably Washingtons way of saying to their allies "we do not expect a peep about 'restraint' or 'respecting rights of poor middle eastern countries' if/when we decide to retalliate in any way we see fit".

You've got it backwards. The Europeans have invoked article 5 and offered any necessary assistance. The US needs only ask.

Re:North Atlantic Treaty

[Joe Decker]

Activating article 5 in NATO is probably Washingtons way of saying to their allies "we do not expect a peep about 'restraint' or 'respecting rights of poor middle eastern countries' if/when we decide to retalliate in any way we see fit".

Read the article, NATO member nations voted unanimously to treat this attack under the provisions of NATO Article 5. It's not Washington's way of saying anything, it's NATO's way of saying something.

What it does say, if you read the treaty (which you can do at nato.int or the google cache of the same pages), is that all members of NATO consider this an attack against all members of NATO, subject to future discussions by the NATO Security Council. This is effectively the NATO member nations (France, Germany, etc.) saying "We will support and participate in reprisals against the perpetrators of this attack."

If any of the European countries disagree with this, they'll have to leave NATO.

I disagree. If any of the European countries (or other members of NATO) had disagreed with this, they would not have voted unanimously to support the application of Article 5 of the NATO treaty in this case.

Re:North Atlantic Treaty

[rve]

That's not how NATO works. The member states don't activate the alliance without consulting washington. The treaty states that this is done after reporting an attack to the security council. Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security (1). In other words: if the European member states declare they are activating a clause in the NATO treaty, this means the US has reported to the NATO security council that they consider this a NATO matter. It doesn't happen automatically. NATO wasnt activated when Argentina attacked the British Falkland islands was it? It seems likely that the Americans want moral support to take any action they deem necessary in response to these attacks, without the usual urging to be cautious, to show restraint, to attempt to mediate and negotiate and other diplomatic red tape.

IMAGE and VIDEO Mirror tarbars

[Harper]

I have set up a rather extensive set of image and video mirrors.
http://www.watership.org/media/
http://wtc.frack.org/
Please mirror these.

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.

Re:Why not be a racist?

[jms]

... as it simultaneously creates them.

Press conference -- no one arrested in conjunction

[garcia]

According to a press conference on CNN (dont remember which one) no one has been *arrested* yet in conjunction w/the attacks.

Yes we all know that they took into custody some people that they believe are linked to Ladin and may have had something to do w/the attacks but they know apparently little at this point.

I heard rumors that they are checking into an e-mail account that was apparently used to communicate the messages about the attack.

On a side note -- I live in an apartment complex of several buildings. My building and the one closest to me have many flags hanging from the balconies. I urge everyone to not only donate their blood (there was a 2.5 hour wait this morning in Toledo, OH) but to display an American flag for the lives lost in this tragic event.

God Bless America.

Hope for a united coalition

[garoush]

Just like during the Gulf War, this incident is going to test how well the world will react. The result will either be another strong coalition with the majority of the world nations united against those few exterminates or (God forbid) WWIII.

Re:Hope for a united coalition

[Steve B]

We fought the philosophy of National Socialism and won

Nope; it's still there -- just look in the mirror.

Re:What can be done? Nothing.

[LordNimon]

Killing terrorists in retaliation won't work - they've already demonstrated they're not afraid of death

You don't kill terrorists to punish them, you kill them to get rid of them! The more terrorists you kill, the less terrorism there will be. Duh!

Of course, the hard part is killing only the terrorists and sparing the innocent victims of Mid-East strife.

The Americans

[Str8Dog]

The Original Broadcast real audio format. Hope no linux users get to irritated.

The Americans

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.

Re:The Americans

[Str8Dog]

Search for Gordon Sinclair in Google.

Re:The Americans

[jtosburn]

This might be like trying to tell the Irish how much jolly old England has done for them, all that capital invested, jobs provided, etc.

All it does is ignore all of the lousy things done by the US all over the world. There are very good reasons to dislike the US government, and not knowing them doesn't mean they don't exist.

Re:The Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

First a few facts:


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?


Ever heard about the Airbus corporation? Concorde? The Eurofighter? The Airbus is used by many of the major airlines in the world. The Airbus A350 has perhaps the longest range in any commercial passenger aircraft.


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.


All three countries that you mention have their own corporations which design and manufactures trains, locomotives, railway tracks etc.. they also run and service these themselves. France has the what is considered the best (and the fastest) locomotives in the world. Incidentally, India has one of the largest railway networks in the world. Can you state the time when USA has actually helped these countries run their railway systems?


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.

Countries around the world help nations in need. There have been numerous occassions when even small nations such as New Zealand have rushed to the aid of countries in distress - NZ helped out Indonesia during their political crisis..the Dutch aided Israel during the unrest there...to name just a few examples. USA has the largest economy in the world and resources far greater than any other country in the world, so it is not surprising that some of the smaller nations don't rush to aid USA financially.


My point:

The USA has a lot of good things going for them and their contribution to the world is extraordinary. But in trying to state this, please don't trash the rest of the world.

Re:The Americans

[msouth]

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.

Well, appreciation is nice and all, I agree. But what I wish is that we Americans would start opening our eyes to the bad things we do.

To use a ridiculously absurd analogy, consider what just happened to be a way-over-the-top tasteless flame. It is natural and perhaps justified to put the flamer in his place. But the truly noble person will also be able to look at that flame and see whether there was something true in the flamer's argument, and, if there is, take the true part to heart and do something to change it.

You don't have to agree with or even tolerate the flamer's methods--you can still work to get his account revoked because of his misbehavior. I'm all in favor of that. BUT, if you want to really be the best that you can, you will look for the faults in your own actions that contributed to the flamer's feelings.

As some people have observed, that might help you avoid being flamed like that in the future--but, completely aside from that, it's the right thing to do, and something that you should be doing anyway.

Re:The Americans

[theMAGE]

The author of this article is at least misinformed:

1. Why do all the International lines except Russia fly American Planes?

Have you heard of Airbus?

2. When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down through age

I know at least France and Germany were broking down because of the Allied bombs... They were rebuilt after the war.

One important thing this Canadian idiot fails to mention is that American business benefited immensely by the WWII. The homeland was not touched, and British and French money paid for a lot of war material produced in the US. Then, when the British emptied their coffers, the good Americans gave them loans, getting them deeper into debt...

Re: The Americans

[Jaeger]

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?

Airbus seems to have a pretty good business, selling its planes to most European airlines and even some American ones. That Concord that shuttled passengers across the Atlantic in a few hours? It wasn't an American plane.

(I'm not trying to detract from the message, but that point is definatly wrong.)

Re:The Americans

[elefantstn]

All it does is ignore all of the lousy things done by the US all over the world.

Dumbass: You completely utterly singularly missed the point. Everyone already knows the bad things, this was the other side of the story. Wake up, idiot.

Re:The Americans

[archen]

That's partially true. I'm actually surprised that the world has reacted as it did. Although we've done a lot for the world, we've also messed with a lot of things we shouldn't have - sometimes well intentioned, sometimes not. I doubt this tradgedy would have happened if we never mucked around in the middle east. But I wonder what the world would be like now if we hadn't gotten involved in WWII? In essence, it's a double edged sword.

Re:The Americans

[part!cle]

I Appreciate Canadian support. It does really mean alot to me, but dont let it get to your head. We, the USA have done great good, but also have dont pretty shitty stuff too.Usually the bad done by us is by large corps that get greedy or by apathy and ignorance (like our forign policy towards the middle east, at least I think), but still we have been lucky in the past and were able to help others with that. Not Quite sure where this is going, just Thank you to the author for the moral support, but we should not think ourselves as angels either. Was going to list a bunch of crummy stuff we did in the past but it seems counterproductive.

Re:The Americans

[Gilanthis]

Look above at the date this was broadcast. Then think again aboutt he points you just made.

Re:The Americans

[Guppy06]

First we have:

"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."

And then we have:

"webmaster@NOSPAM!str8dog.com"

So we should spam everybody but you?

Personally, I'm getting worried that we're getting just a little too nationalistic for our own good.

Re: The Americans

[Gilanthis]

Not my reponse to the post above and another posters response to yet another post above and then look at the author of the first posts own response to the first post and then rethink what you just said in light of that.

Note:I thought the same things you just stated when I first read the article ;)

Re:The Americans

[QuickFox]

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.

In the San Francisco earthquake many countries offered help, including Pakistan!

Today, here in Sweden, reports say Sweden wants to send a team of rescuers. It isn't very much, some 80 people I think, but what can our small country do at this early point? The US is still deciding whether to accept or not. This morning it was reported that many countries are offering to help, including Cuba of all countries! AFAIK help is being offered from all around the globe.

It seems such things don't get much coverage in the press over there. That's too bad, the world could use some unity and warm feelings right now, to counteract the new fear and suspicion.

But it is happening, even if you don't get to read about it in your paper.

This does not deny that the historic debt of the rich and democratic West to the US is immense, truly immense. Without the help of the US we might now suffer under Nazism or Communism, or under poverty similar to the Third World, or some such.

That debt is immense. However, the debt of all rich countries, together, to the former colonies is even greater.

Re:The Americans

[cburley]

Thank you, msouth, for saying in so few words what I've too-often tried, and failed, to say in my own highly verbose manner. (Won't even go into how well I do at actually following your advice...sigh.)

Re:The Americans

[Joe Decker]

As an American, I can tell you that there were offers of and reciept of assistance during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake from countries all over the world, many of them much poorer economically than this one, and that many of the folks here in the San Francisco Bay Area, such as myself, remember that and are to this day touched by it.

That having been said, I am proud of the country I live in for a thousand reasons, and I am touched by the author of the text above. Thank you for sharing it.

Re:The Americans

[sql*kitten]

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 NATO disaster/rescue unit has been made available to the US.

Re:The Americans

[MikeLRoy]

There are a few things you forget to mention about your "ever generous country". (I am Canadian, and am in fact ashamed of many things my country has done. I am simply retorting this comment).

After WWII, the US imposed its own private rules upon Japan, going so far as two hand-write its constitution, which stands until today. Because of the US, the emperor at the time (Hirohito?), who should have been charged with inciting war, bus wasn't due to American intervention.

Over the past 40 years, America has helped causes which further its own interests. How many people have died because of US-lead embargoes against regimes with starving populations (Afghanistan, Iraq)? Where was the US when thousands of Hutu's were slaughtered in Rwanda? Canada was there, and received no support from the US until it was too late.
Where was the US when 1.2 million Cambodians were killed in the seventies? They were fighting along side Cambodia against Laos.

A few million here, and a few billion there isn't exactly generous giving. The US constitues 6% of the world's population, at 60% of the world's wealth. Most of that is gained by exploiting foreign labour and materials. When was the last time there was a drought in the US that killed people? Not since the 20's. For the richest country in the world, the US is very unforgiving of foreign debt, or of countries who don't support it. That 10-trillion tax cut could feed the entire continent of Africa for over a decade. A billion in aid to a rich country is nothing. Try defending people on the basis that they are people, not their potential in trade with the US.

-Michael Roy
umroyma0@cc.umanitoba.ca

Re:The Americans

[PieceMaker]

Right, so your last point is that America went to war in WWII to improve its economy?

What a dip...

Re:The Americans

[alienmole]

To use a ridiculously absurd analogy, consider what just happened to be a way-over-the-top tasteless flame.

Ah, I get it! Luckily, the U.S. has more mod points than anybody else. Those terrorists are going to have some seriously negative karma soon!

Re:The Americans

[anotherbadassmf]

RealPlayer 8 is available for linux ( I am listening to bbc world radio right now on MDK 8.0).

Re:The Americans

[dadragon]

Well, the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc had all their economies skyrocket after the war. I don't think anyone went to war to improve their economy.

Re:The Americans

[dadragon]

If you hadn't gotten involved in WWII, the war would have taken longer. The commonwealth forces were still reasonably strong after the Battle of Britain. With the Canadian/British navies we could have squeesed Germany as they were trying to do with us with their navy. We had air supremicy after the BOB, but the troops weren't there.

Re:The Americans

[Str8Dog]

Please read the entire thread. I posted a follow up that this was originally written in 1973.

Re:The Americans

[KerrAvonsen]

*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.*

In the San Francisco earthquake many countries offered help, including Pakistan! Today, here in Sweden, reports say Sweden wants to send a team of rescuers. It isn't very much, some 80 people I think, but what can our small country do at this early point? The US is still deciding whether to accept or not. This morning it was reported that many countries are offering to help, including Cuba of all countries! AFAIK help is being offered from all around the globe.

[snip]

But it is happening, even if you don't get to read about it in your paper.

Exactly. I know Australia has already offered firefighters to help with rescues, and other people have already mentioned how Australia helped with California bushfires back then.

Unfortunately, the US media never seem to report these kind of things. If it isn't totally about the US, it doesn't get reported.

There's also numerous comments about how the US "saved everybody" in WWII. Yeah, well, Australia jumped in and helped England a lot earlier than the US did, even though the Germans weren't threatening Australia (when did Japan come into the picture? It wasn't there at the beginning -- yet Australia was helping already, long before the US did.)

People have talked here about the noble, heroic US soldiers who have died fighting for the freedom their country. Australians soldiers have constantly died fighting for the freedom of other people's countries. Yet when Australia was peackeeping in East Timor, the US turned their backs on us, saying it was a "local problem". (Yes, we saw that very much as a betrayal)

But we, along with so many others, have pledged our support, once again, to help our friends and allies, putting ourselves at risk on foriegn shores, because we believe in freedom.

Please stop thinking of yourselves as the only good guys! This attack wasn't an attack on "freedom and democracy" or on "civilization". If that was the case, they would have crashed a plane into Big Ben (or some other British landmark) as well. Or into the Eiffel Tower (etc) (I doubt they would have crashed into the Sydney Opera House, we aren't important enough to be a target). This was an attack on the USA, and the USA only. But we are still pitching in, because we help our friends, and it was a horrible terrible thing for them, whoever they are, to do.

(Feeling very uncharacteristically patriotic.)

Re:The Americans

[Pig Hogger]

The same rubbish was posted elsewhere, to wich I answered this.

Re:The Americans

[shepd]

Actually, if we are going to thank anyone for our freedom and ideals, it should be the country that gave them to us, England.

The country you separated from. The country you once fled. We are infact the country you once fought (with good reason at times). We were once England. We shall continue as the free dominion called Canada. We will not be Americans. We don't want to be and we have repeatedly explained that to you.

Please don't think this means we all despise you.

We thank America for their kindness and generosity in their defense of our country, even though we understand it comes with the requirement we remain attached to your country. We thank America for all the time it selflessly helped us through natural disasters like our ice storm. We thank America for dealing so well with a country that has so many people from so many cultures that there are the minority who may dislike your country. We thank America for their freedom of trade with our country, and for the kindness of your citizens when we visit you.

Even after the wars, albeit so very long ago, we like you. We'd rather be good neighbours with you than any other country. And that's as far as we both want to take it, and as far as we should if we want to keep our cultures and ideals separate.

Just please appreciate one thing: Don't tell us you gave us freedom. You must know you didn't. England did when they formed this nation, and they did it again when they set us free from their country. That's why we celebrate Dominion Day (its real name until our release from Britain in 1982) on July 1st, and Victoria Day on May 24. It's an honour to the country that truly gave us our Freedom.

Millions of Canadians feel sorry for your tragic loss, and we are willing to do what it takes to help you bring the most peaceful and lasting resolution to your tragedy.

Re:The Americans

[Samrobb]

No, you didn't reply to it. You spouted off a lot of inflamatory rhetoric and propaganda. There's a slight difference between the two.

Any point you might have made (and I don't doubt there's a valid point or two lurking somewhere in that mess) were obscured by your desire to attempt to paint the US in the absolutely worst light possible. Ignoring the good and noble things done by the US and US citizens is as much an error as ignoring the base and evil things that the same government and people have done. Both try and produce a mental image of a country that is, at best, a caricature. The real truth is that the US has, at times, acted despicably; and, at times, acted nobly. My personal opinion is that, overall, the US has done more good than evil in the world.

Terrorist Websites

[japes]

Are there any terrorist websites that our fellow Arabic speaking /.ers can translate? I am interested in finding out if there are other news groups / sites that are discussing the aftermath or even claining responsibility.

I had heard there was a recent takeover by FBI of a website that harbored Middle Eastern News.

Also, through a close source, a friend whom flies on all bombing missions when her base command is called, left a message with her parents last night stating that "I am leaving for 2-3 days. I cannot tell you where I am going, but once you hear the news you'll know. "

Sounds like we are making a run somewhere.

Re:Terrorist Websites

[Stonehand]

It seems that Hizbollah even has an English section. They've been linked to various incidents, IIRC.

Right on!

[jiheison]

This battle is already lost. All we can do now is pay respects to the dead and work towards making this a world where this kind of thing is no longer imaginable.

The arrogance with which we rain destruction down on arbitrary targets whenever we are stuck is an insult to the laws and due process that this country is founded on.

The only way to win this 'war' is show the world that our humanity and civility can not be shaken.

Re:Right on!

[Rev Snow]

Due process is for accused criminals, not
wartime enemies. Pull your head out of your ass.

Re: Right on!

[Inthewire]

To paraphrase Dennis Miller:
"But if we kill terrorists we will be no better than they are. We will sink to their level. They will win!
Really? Hmm...probably won't be too many of their guys at the trophy ceremony though."

Re:Right on!

[mimbleton]

What kind of bullshit is that?
Please show me single major conflict that was solved by one side "worked to make world better"
?
Gee, if people like you were running American 50 years ago Hitler would probably just laugh his way thru the world.
I remember reading one of his biographies where he was cited as saying that most of his successes were due to stupid "democratic leaders" clenching to their concepts of equality and good human nature.

Re:What can be done? Nothing.

[linzeal]

Kill some terrorists and watch 10 take their place. Change the damn favored "godly" state of motherf*ng israel and watch what happens. American weapons kill islamic people every day be it bombs in iraq, cruise missiles in sudan, or m-16's in the west bank.

References

[Str8Dog]

In my haste I forgot to reference the origal thread Sorry about that.

Also this is of interest:

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.

Re:References

[EisPick]

It is real, and it received a great deal of attention in its day.

I can vouch for that. I remember it getting a lot of airplay on radio in Washington DC (probably on WMAL-AM) when I was a kid.

Re:References

[boskone]

Being a US citizen, i can say I definately appreciate these comments. Even to this day, I can only think of one time in my recollection that a foreign country offered help for an internal american issue was when the russians offered use of firefighting planes during the big fires out west last year.

I hate being hated all the time. I don't think we do good all the time and I think we're misguided at times, but I'm tired of being villanized all the time too.

Re:References

[QuickFox]

those who would dare to criticize the USA

The US is the most powerful country in the world. It's only natural that people have opinions about those who have power over them.

This is natural, it's healthy, it's good.

It's also in the nature of democracy. The US is always proud to stand for democracy and freedom. I don't think the US would want the world to function like some sort of dictatorship, where the great leader can't be criticized and everyone must keep quiet. Such dictatorship is not in the nature of the US.

We don't get to vote in the system that leads the world. We talk instead.

Re:References

[boskone]

Your efforts are appreciated. Thank you to the people of Australia for their help on that issue (fires).

But, was the namecalling and inflammatory tone of the first poster necessary? I said "in my recollection" and tried to be deferential while expressing what my perception was.

During wars, I know that we have fought alongside many of our friends and allies worldwide. To my recollection however, Vietnam wasn't "our war". We came in to bail out the French who we had a pact with.

Did we mismanage the war? Probably. Should we have been there? Perhaps not, but to not go in would have let down our ally (France).

Perhaps my perceptions are incorrect or I am mis-recalling things, but I'm not trying to start an argument here, my original post was just stating that we get a lot of abuse and very little kudos.

I think part of that is formed because our own media within the US likes to whip us and tell us how bad we are too, so we don't really here positive messages about ourselves.

I, like most Americans, have a very positive view of Australians and view you as brothers to us. I can only hope that you feel the same way to us.

Best regards...

Controlled Impact Demonstraton video & pics

[Unix_Poseur1]

Hello,

Here are some links for the demonstration mentioned above. They are on the Dryden Flight Research center site which has an archive of aviation related images, videos, and more. An incredible site. The videos are particularly unsettling

videos

photos

Unity folks, unity is important

Re:Religion

[Ghoser777]

First of all, one of the bedrock principles of the US is the protection of freedom of speech... which kind of goes along with the freedom of religion. Oh yeah, and implicitely the freedom to think whatever the hell you want. There are plenty of white supremicists who belive crazy stuff with no backing, but I would rather them have their right to believe what they like than to supress that right. Maybe my ideas would get the short end of the stick one day.

Hey, maybe we should ban all atheism, since it is such a hopeless belief system, with no afterlife or reward system. Maybe that's the cause of a lot of depression.

Almost all religions are against killing and deaths of innocent individuals. BUT, the people who run the religions can be corrupted and use religion for their own purposes (i.e. the Crusades).

F-bacher

Wall Street Journal Coverage

[Anonymous Coward]

Is available without registration at: The Wall Street Journal>

What can be done? Plenty.

[Synn]

It's real simple. We've known of terrorist orginazations for decades but have done very little to combat it.

All civilized nations need to delcare war on terrorism.

Make it real simple:

If you're a terrorist organzation you are at war with us and will be treated as such(ie killed).

If you are a country that habors or funds terrorists you will be treated no differently than the terrorists.

There needs to be a message sent that terrorism in any form will no longer be tolerated and treaties should be put into place so that if it rears its ugly head again in the future it'll be eliminated with the same vengence we used on those that commited these acts.

All major ISPs being served warrants now!

[David Frankenstein]

I just heard on AP radio that all of the major ISPs are being served warrants for any log files looking for a particular email address. Earthlink exec was quoted as saying it was not an Earthlink address, but they wanted to scan their logs for it.

Re:All major ISPs being served warrants now!

[MarcoAtWork]

I wonder if this is the Nostradamus newsgroup person that has been talked about several times recently...

Re:All major ISPs being served warrants now!

[Steve B]

If they're properly obtaining and serving warrants, and not attempting to stretch them into fishing expeditions, no problem.

That said, we need to be on the alert for attempts by politicians and bureaucrats to exploit the dead to push their latest wish list. Besides the evils contained in the wish lists themselves, such attempts undermine support for legitimate government action against terrorists and other criminals. Those who pull such stunts are, therefore, allies of the terrorists as well as enemies of the Constitution.

Re:What can be done? Nothing.

[daviddennis]

I have some sympathy for this view, but if we kill terrorists, at least those we kill won't be able to do anything like this again.

And since they are not afraid of death, surely this wouldn't matter for them either?

The way to win is to make sure everyone knows that terrorists inevitably lose. Look at McVeigh; he wanted to sabotage the Clinton administration through his attacks, but people immediately rallied behind their President and he would up at least doubling in the polls. Surely not what McVeigh was seeking?

D

article 5

[MillMan]

I think the only reason they went for this is due to the incredibly high profile nature of this situation.

The US will attack anyone it pleases, breaking international law if it has to, which it has done repeatedly. Most of our attacks dating back to the early 80's (Latin America) and probably earlier are usually denounced in the international press. There are only three things that really deter our government from attacks:

1) US public opinion
2) international public opinion
3) threat of counterattack (ie we don't attack Russia because they killed x number of people over issue x, because they can nuke us. Countries like the former Yugoslovia or Somalia do not present this problem).

And really #1 and #2 can be kept to a minimum when no one knows what is going on to begin with when the media doesn't report it.

Since #1 is the most important you see information controls and propeganda in the US far more than the rest of the "civilized world". As such you can go to Canada and at least get a more accurate picture of things going on in the world, instead of another evening of Larry King talking to Chandra Levy's parents and a 1 paragraph mention of the thousands of people killed by security forces in country x in the back of the New York Times.

If at a minimum the investigation shows the attackers to be Arab, whether they are connected to Bin Laden or even if they are American citizens, Afghanistan will be crushed. This is looking more likely by the hour.

Evils of Technology

[ZZane]

I only hope that any law maker that tries to use this horrid attack as a platform for the 'Evils of Technology' will realize that this whole attack was carried out with airplanes siezed by men with knives and fake bombs. All of which existed LONG before the Internet and easy personal encryption.

There ONLY effective reform for a case like this is heightened in-aircraft security (seperate pilot cabin, possible sleeping gas capsules in the passenger area, etc..) and/or possibly stricter immigration checks.

-Zane

Sun micro

[ImaLamer]

Our local morning paper released an afternoon edition which had a nice list of companies and what floors they are on.

Many of the companies who had offices weren't only banks of the world, but computer/internet companies.

Any news about Sun Microsystems and the like?

Re:Sun micro

[Darkon]

According to SunHELP, all Sun NYC employees are OK.

Re:Sun micro

[catseye_95051]

I can confirm that this is what we have been told inside Sun. All our WTC employees got out fine. None of our pentagon employees were hurt.

Re:Sun micro

[Gambit Thirty-Two]

bepaid.com was located in the north tower i believe. their web site no longer responds.

Re:Sun micro

[mrBoB]

On CNBC I saw a list of passengers (age, where their from, and for whom they worked) from the many flights and noticed a Sun Microsystem employee... Any better information?? They, of course, didn't say what the person did for the company, but only that they worked for Sun... -Bob

Re:Sun micro

[catseye_95051]

Yes I can confirm that we had oen person abaord an aircraft. It was a middle level manager.

Beyond that I have been asked not to say anything in respect of the privacy of his family.

Re:What can be done? Nothing.

[sweetooth]

If you stand back and do nothing you invite the terrorists to come back and take another stab at it. If you show that you aren't affected by the tragedy at all you will also encourage them to do something worse next time.

3 days in France

[doug]

France had some huge storms around Christmas 1999,
and much of the national power grid was down. Of course the big cities were fixed quickly, but the smaller towns were in the dark for a week or more. How long the phone system worked depended on the type of switch serving the town.

IIRC older phone switches had diesel generators and would stay up as long as required as they could be refueled. The newer ones had batteries (cheaper and smaller) and would only run for a three or four days.

Obviously the details will be different, but I'd expect something similar here. Y(M/km)MV

Re:3 days in France

[nbvb]

All of the telephone network CO's have diesel generator backups. ALL of them.

The problem is refueling. We can't get diesel trucks in there to refuel!!

there's an argument to be made....

[AugstWest]

...that on some level, we brought this upon ourselves.

Our "defense" industry is largely what caused this debacle -- the number one export for the United States is weapons. Think about that for a second -- we make more money selling weapons to the rest of the world than any other thing that we make.

The middle eastern countries are mostly split into 2 factions. We, in the United States, choose one of the 2 teams and sell arms to them. Often, we will sell arms to both sides. Remember iran-contra? Anyone? Anyone? Oh, wait, that was patriotic heroism. Only a crackhead or a defense industry salesman would sell fucking ARMS to IRAN.

So, basically, our #1 export is pouring gasoline on fires that have burned for thousands of years. Eventually, one of those fires hits us back here at home, and everyone wants to cry out "more defense" as if this could protect us, or help us sleep at night.

This attack is a reminder that ballistic missles aren't going to save us anymore. Star wars isn't going to stop 8 men with knives from hijacking
domestic flights.

The only thing that is going to save us a sane, rational foreign policy that doesn't incense our enemies in the middle east.

This isn't even a partisan issue. Clinton is as much to blame as either Bush, Ronald Reagan is as much to blame as Lyndon Johnson.

We as a nation need to stop instigating fights if we want to stay out of them. It's that simple.

Re:there's an argument to be made....

[frknfrk]

absolutely.

but another of the main problems is that the people of America have absolutely no idea of what is going on. you tell people that the biggest export of the US is arms, and people are going to say 'what?' because they have absolutely no idea what is going on.

and that is what i hope changes. i believe that the people of the US (an ostensibly democratic nation) would choose NOT to do many of the atrocities which our nation commits IN OUR NAMES in the Middle East and just about everywhere else (Africa, central Europe).

we need full disclosure of our government's activities abroad. if these activities need to remain secret, we need to ask ourselves why they need to be secret. i would guess that most Americans would choose a government which does NOT conduct government puppetry abroad.

-sam

Re:there's an argument to be made....

[msouth]

we brought it on ourselves by indirectly supporting/turning a blind eye to the horrible oppresion of palestinians. That, probably more than anything else, is what fuels hatred for america.

you would hate america, too, if you lived there and saw what the palestinians suffered.

For an unbiased viewpoint on this, read "Blood Brothers" by Elias Chacour (available on amazon, I checked). Before you flame this veiwpoint or dismiss it as fringe, read that book and see what you think. It will change your entire view of the middle east.

Re:there's an argument to be made....

[AugstWest]

It gets worse, though... Bin Laden and the al-Qaida are the 2 top suspects in all of this, and according to this article at MSNBC, both groups were given their "startup funds" by our CIA in an attempt to weaken the Soviets, who were occupying Afghanistan in the 80s.

So, who was the head of the CIA at the time? Oh yeah, George Herbert Walker Bush. Interesting, how it all comes back to bite him and his family on the ass.

Re:there's an argument to be made....

[frknfrk]

amazing, isn't it. i've been posting about that lately, too.

afghanistan is in a precarious position (no, not the back of a VW). imagine if, say, Colin Powell, after Desert Storm, instead of remaining an outstanding citizen, went to an economics school and became a religious fundamentalist, setting out to 'liberate' Canada from their 'oppressive socialist' regimes.

it is such a state of affairs in Afghanistan, as bin Laden, a national hero for fighting the Soviets (with, as you said, US funds), went to economics school and became a religious fundamentalist, setting out to 'liberate' his homeland of Saudi Arabia from the 'oppressive capitalist' regimes.

for MUCH more on this subject, check out the discussion on kuro5hin, or better yet, a short biography of bin Laden on abcnews.com.

Re:there's an argument to be made....

[the_great_cornholio]

Actually, Bush was Vice President in the 80s. He was head of the CIA in the early 70s.

I concur with the thrust of the point.

Re:there's an argument to be made....

[frank_adrian314159]

So, who was the head of the CIA at the time? Oh yeah, George Herbert Walker Bush. Interesting, how it all comes back to bite him and his family on the ass.

Really? How does it bite GB II on the ass? It seems that his political task has become much easier at this point. He has the nation (and the world) rallying around him and he can blame any "security mishaps" on past administrations (as if anything the administrations all the way back to the Nixon era could have done could have actually prevented this).

In short, the only people who got bit in the ass were the poor b*stards in the planes, in the WTC, and in the Pentagon.

Re:there's an argument to be made....

[metachimp]

We as a nation need to stop instigating fights if we want to stay out of them. It's that simple.

Or, at the very least, put some forethought into how we conduct ourselves abroad. Internationally, people pay attention to the fact that in the recent past, the US has actively toppled democratically elected governments that we don't like, created insurgencies, and have chosen to ally ourselves with nations that commit injustices both inside their borders and in the territory of their neighbors.

Our "blank-check and blind-loyalty" policy towards Israel, for instance, is probably one of the main reasons why the attack occurred. We could play a much more constructive role there, I believe. We should condition our military support of Israel on their continued and genuine pursuit of a settlement with the Palestinians. We support the archaic and medieval monarchies of the Persian Gulf, and continuously oppose democratic reform in that area. This is what makes us such a tantalizing target. Some of these 'terrorists' cut their teeth in wars of national liberation, in which we stood on the 'wrong' side.

That being said, terrorism is a long, slow, painful way to wage a war. Ask any resident of Belfast, Gaza or San Salvador. However, it flourishes wherever people feel systematically victimized and oppressed, and there is no interest in addressing their concerns.

Religion and/or political ideology are used to short circuit the logic sector of the brain. How else do you get people to steer airliners into buildings? It is not inherent in Islam to condone violence, no more than it is in Christianity, just as the desire for national identity or sovreignty does not require violence. It does give charismatic people the ability to influence others just enough to disengage their rational thought processes. Combine someone like this with groups of people who are traumatized by the misdeeds of a particular country, and violence of the most explosive nature is right around the corner.

Back to my original point... Perhaps, during the quest for justice that has ensued from these events, it might be in our interest to not just focus on the planners of the attack, but on the larger issues of justice that give rise to these attacks in the first place. It cannot adequately be argued that these people are just simply irrational and they hate us and want us all to die. People don't commit acts like this without what they perceive to be provocation.

I have heard a lot of people around me say "Why? Why did this happen?" For pete's sake, wake up. The reasons are many. I hate that this happened, and I feel genuine sadness for all those who lost friends and family in the attack. My hope is that down the road, people will take a good hard look at what we, as a nation, do outside our borders. I have read various columnists talk about how we need a national mission in response to these awful atrocities. I have a suggestion: we as a nation, should commit ourselves to re-assessing our activities abroad, confronting hypocrisy in our activities in the global community, and re-committing ourselves to being a nation that fosters justice everywhere, no matter what combination of politically expedient forces are out there.

Re:there's an argument to be made....

[frknfrk]

i found a MUCH more detailed and probably more impartial bio on pbs.org.

in short, he forewarned Saudi of Saddam's invasions and offered the forces he had lead in Afghanistan to repel them, but instead found that the United States was coming to his country. with a degree in economics he could plainly see that the US was there to stay.

-sam

Re:there's an argument to be made....

[OuiPapa]

I have been all around this crappy little planet, and every day I thank god for the shining gem of western culture.

Well, they say 'travel is education'. Some people go to school, and never learn a thing.

As for "reaping the benefits" of US/Western culture, the rest of the world suffers the dichotomy of loving the American pop culture, and hating its government. Perhaps this should clue you in on what to do, and what to avoid. Send them Hollywoood, but keep out the CIA.

Re:there's an argument to be made....

[deebaine]

I am sorry. You are wrong. I know that to be a pigheaded, knee-jerk response. I know that it suggests that I am thoughtless and unwilling to compromise. That is not the case. I understand your points, and I agree with some of them.

But the logical bankruptcy of your argument stems from the fact that absolutely nothing, not even a powerful attack on a foreign military, justifies a premeditated attack targeting civilians.

We did not bring it upon ourselves simply because nothing we could have ever done would have warranted this kind of attack.

-db

Re:there's an argument to be made....

[lohen]

Nothing? Come on. The USA, and its ally the UK, have by constantly bombing and by enforcing severe sanctions upon Iraq caused the deaths of over a million civilians since the gulf war ended. That's over a hundred times the estimated fatalities from this round of attacks. The bombing raids on Serbia also caused widespread civilian casualties, and until the Serbians chose to pull out of Kosovo totally failed to stem the actions of Serbian troops on the ground. On the contrary, the amount of atrocities commited against Kosovan citizenry massively increased as a direct result of the bombardment.

The USA has also done next to nothing to rein in its allies, such as Israel, when they directly target civilians. On the contrary, the USA has sponsored endless terrorist groups and oppressive regimes where it was in the national interest to do so at the time. It's exactly this kind of short-sightedness which ultimately killed so many US citizens yesterday. Get over it.

Re:there's an argument to be made....

[Salis]

All nations act upon their own self interests, it is true, but in no other place in history has a nation such as the United States of America had the benevolence and wisdom to intervene to stop the conquests of extremist, militants governments and NOT seek ownership of the land they fought to protect.

The U.S has either loaned or gifted hundreds of billions of dollars to countries who show the willingness or intent to create a government that we have deemed to be the most favorable to giving freedom to citizens around the globe, DEMOCRACY.

In Korea, in Vietnam, in the Gulf, we have protected the ideals of democracy from other forms of aggressive government and will ALWAYS do so in the future. This is beneficial for those governments we protect as they, in the long term, gain better standards of living than they formerly had, including the freedoms and rights that we, in the U.S, often take for granted.

Terrorism seeks to humiliate and disband our favored form of government. They view our ideals of liberty and freedoms of speech, religion, and press as DETRIMENTAL to their chosen form of government: Militant Religionism.

Islam is not a militant religion. They use it as an excuse for their own selfish desires. Be wary of any Muslim who says Allah allows him to kill civilians of his enemies for they are 'Satan', for if they read their own holy scripture, they would read that Jihad, holy war, restricts one's militant attacks to the enemy's armies ONLY and severely restricts one's attacks on women, children, and enemy property.

Other religions have historically been used as an excuse for military attacks and those attacks have been universally seen as immoral (the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Holocaust). These Islamic terrorists are no different. Their religious beliefs are not a valid cause for such immoral action.

Those who practice Islam are not be to blamed, but those who practice terror should be wiped from the face of the Earth.

Howard Salis

Re:there's an argument to be made....

[startled]

"you would hate america, too, if you lived there and saw what the palestinians suffered."

Hmm, I know several people who have lived there, and seen that, and don't hate America. So either you know the original poster fairly well and are specifically referring to him, or you're full of shit.

And, of course, Blood Brothers is not "unbiased". I'm all for alternative viewpoints, but to just pick one and decide it's 100% truth is foolish.

All that being said, you have a valid point buried beneath all the rhetoric. We haven't made a whole lot of friends by choosing to help Israel. But there are two sides to that conflict-- Palestin, like Israel, has a large amount of responsibility for sabotaging the peace process during Clinton's term. Arafat got greedy, a few Palestinians couldn't hold back from being violent, and now they've got Bush in office. Did they think they would get a better shake from the U.S. post-Clinton? Palestinian short-sightedness and fanaticism is as much to blame as the right-wing warmongers government.

The middle east is extremely complex. Saying one side is responsible is like picking the Protestants or Catholics as responsible for violence in Ireland. And there's really no way to get involved in the entire mess without getting a good number of people angry with you, and botching a few operations along the way. Perhaps we should've just stayed out all along, but there's hindsight for you.

Re:there's an argument to be made....

[c_chimelis]

Our "defense" industry is largely what caused this debacle -- the number one export for the United States is weapons. Think about that for a second -- we make more money selling weapons to the rest of the world than any other thing that we make.

I disagree. Actually, the number one export for the United States is the U.S. Dollar. We give more money in foreign aid than we could ever ship weapons. There is no one reason that anyone can point to that would invoke such actions as we have witnessed recently. Instead, a multitude of reasons are apparent to anyone who has travelled a bit throughout the world.

Foreign policy ranks at or near the top. It's a known fact that no matter what the U.S. does, SOMEONE will still hate us. It should be obvious that you can't support someone without pissing off someone else (anyone that's tried to be a friend to both parties of a split-up couple can tell you that). There are times that the U.S. has chosen to support both sides of a conflict, which hasn't always bitten us in the tail and, in fact, proved to be quite the success. The Iran-Contra situation wasn't necessarily about getting money from the sale of arms to Iran, it was more about choosing the greater "bad" in that region: Iran or Iraq. Iraq's military might was threatening to totally unbalance the region and threaten U.S. interests there (and, yes, there are more things in that area that interest us besides oil, believe it or not). As a result, the sale of arms to Iran was the best move the U.S. could make at the time, especially considering the fact that Iran had depleted their military forces and hardware so much that Iraq threatened their very existence (plus, Iran just plain hates Iraq...). Without such a sale, I venture to say that the Kuwait situation would've happened years before it did, and Iraq probably would've continued into Saudi Arabia in the same push.

American wealth is another major irritant to the world. Let's face it, while our currency may not be very strong, the U.S. business community has a very real impact on foreign nations and governments. To less resource-rich countries, we appear to be greedy and rich jerks who thumb their noses at most of the problems of those countries. Public addresses in the former Soviet Union, Libya, and Iraq have almost always labelled the U.S. as rich and greedy and the lack of foreign aid to some of these countries usually evokes that kind of sentiment (which can be turned violent if a few zealots are added to the mix).

The last big issue (and there are many more, but too many to list) is that we carry the biggest stick on the block, but won't use it. I liken the world as similar to being in prison: if you don't want to be messed with by most of the population, beat up the largest guy that you can find on the first day in prison and you'll get respect. The U.S.'s sheer might and importance makes for an easy target for anyone looking to enter the world stage. To make matters worse, the commitment to the use of military might by the U.S. has softened drastically since Vietnam and Korea, so anyone who wants to start trouble may be more inclined to do so figuring that we'll pursue diplomatic means in almost all cases.

The news loves to also pick on the CIA because of the lack of forewarning. I wish they would also remember that Congress crucified the Agency not too long ago and virtually removed their ability to conduct just about any involved field operations. Prior to yesterday, I guarantee you that a majority of Americans would have been seriously opposed to black ops and assassinations in other countries by the Agency. Today, however, I'm sure that most of their minds would have been changed. I, personally, believe that the Agency's old practices were vital and necessary in most cases, and should never have been called into question. Instead, Congress forced the Agency to rely heavily on electronic surveillance and communications-based espionage rather than actual field operations using agents. They also pushed quite a bit of the CIA's power (and funding) over to the NSA, whose job is more to monitor the citizens of the U.S. than those in other countries. Fact is, "impersonal" espionage does not work by itself. It can be a great adjunct to the flow of info from field agents, but it definitely is not a substitute (if police solely relied on phone calls to 911 to detect crime rather than putting patrols out on the streets, can you imagine what it would be like out there?).

In summation, there are quite a few reasons why these things could've possibly happened to the U.S. with no warning at all. In reality, only the perpetrators know the real reasons and we can only guess. But, if I were a betting man, I would bet on at least a few of the above reasons before I would ever bet on arms sales to foreign powers as a possible reason.

Re:there's an argument to be made....

[frknfrk]

except that the REASON these terrorist acts were commited is nearly guaranteed to be this 'number one export' issue. they didn't use arms exported to israel to hijack the planes, they hijacked the planes because we export arms to israel, and israel uses those arms in ways even we disagree with.

Re:there's an argument to be made....

[vectro]

I can't believe you cite Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq as instances of "protecting the ideals of democracy". How exactly does murdering villagers, destroying the wildlife, and generally trashing the country espouse democracy?

And as for Iraq - that was about nothing but the oil. Our continuing embargo against Iraq accomplishes nothing save keeping starving civillians starving. In what way did the gulf war save democracy?

Finally, you do yourself a disservice by ignoring our involvement in South America. In Panama, Columbia, and other countries, we served to undermine democratic countries with policies we didn't like. Not exactly "protecting the ideals of democracy".

Re:there's an argument to be made....

[Stonehand]

All America needs to do to incense a fanatic is, frankly, to keep existing.

Think about its reach in terms of financial and cultural power alone, for instance -- there are symbols of American influence practically everywhere in the world. This most certainly causes resentment.

And, er, some of these people aren't happy with anybody BUT radical Islamic states. So merely being meek in foreign policy ain't going to help.

Re:there's an argument to be made....

[Stonehand]

Naah. I'd still disdain Arafat as a corrupt (the man profits off of casinos, et al, while his people starve) terrorist leader. After all, he's released from prison many terrorists (double-digits, methinks), and exactly zero peace offers. Yup, that's how to negotiate -- reject an offer that gives the entire Gaza Strip and almost all the West Bank, and not bother to make a counteroffer.

Re:there's an argument to be made....

[Guppy06]

"the number one export for the United States is weapons."

Oh? And where do you get your numbers? Either way, I find it hard to believe in light of how the number one exporter of weapons globally is France.

"The middle eastern countries are mostly split into 2 factions."

Oh, I wish.

Israel is one by itself.

Predominantly Muslim countries that are genuinely friendly towards the US (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan) make a second.

Predominantly Muslim countries whose governments are on friendly terms with the United States, but whose populace isn't all that keen on that idea (Yemen comes to mind). That's three.

Predominantly Muslim countries who don't really give a damn one way or another (Afghanistan, Pakistan). Four.

Predominantly Muslim countries that were outright hostile to the US, but now want friendlier relations (Iran, Lybia). Five.

Predominantly Muslim countries that continue to be outright hostile to the US (Iraq).

That's at least six I can divide the Muslim world into. Of course, for a real analysis, you'll need to look at that part of the world on a country-by-country basis, because each one has different relations with the US (we set up diplomatic relations with nation-states, not religions). This is just as generalized as I feel comfortable with.

"The only thing that is going to save us a sane, rational foreign policy that doesn't incense our enemies in the middle east."

It would appear that our enemies in the Middle East are neither all that sane (suicidal) or rational (the only big winner here is Israel). So how will being "sane" and "rational" be all that better?

And besides, it's real easy to be an armchair diplomat than to actually try to deal with internatonal relations. I note that you only call for vague improvements with no specific ideas on how to make those improvements.

Your ally is using military force against terrorist cells targeting civilians. How do you respond? Do you tell them that they shouldn't defend themselves as scores of their civilians are brutally murdered, or do aid them with materiel that may itself be used against civilian targets?

Your main enemy (militarily, economically, philosophically) is backing one side in a war against another side that has a habit of using weapons of mass destruction. Do you let your arch-rival take control of oil fields vital to the survival of the Western world while continuing to spread a philosophy that is hostile to you, or do you turn a blind eye to chemical weapon attacks by their enemies?

During hostilities involving one of your allies, you have an intelligence-gathering ship off-shore, feeding information to another one of your allies. That second ally, in turn, feeds that information to the enemy of your first ally. The first ally then proceeds to attack and disable your ship, killing scores of her crew. Do you cry out for retribution while it is shown how you're not as good an ally as you should have been (helping their enemies shoot their planes from the sky), or do you sweep it under the rug as a misunderstanding, outraging survivors of the attack?

These aren't so cut-and-dry that a lack of US arms would have solved the problem, and these are all situations that US foreign policy makers needed to deal with in the Middle East (along with scores of other extremely ugly, no-win situations).

While it's real easy for people like you to sit in your comfortable desk chairs and pound away at a keyboard, there are life-and-death decisions that need to be made, ones where people will die no matter what you do, people will be hostile towards you no matter what you do, and no two people agree on who the good guys and the bad guys are.

If we get involved, people are slaughtered. If we don't get involved, people are slaughtered. The only difference is that in the second one we actually fucking TRIED to do something, instead of just abandoning those people to their hapless fate.

Welcome to real life.

Re:there's an argument to be made....

[AugstWest]

How does it bite GB II on the ass?

Well, let's see.... Thousands are dead, both the pentagon and the world trade center are demolished, and the entire terrorist world knows that we are vulnerable, and are laughing at us.

The world trade center was taken out. On a global scale, that's huge. This will be a dark spot on the legacy of the entire Bush family, seeing as how their foreign policies have brought this on our nation.

What's unfortunate is that noone in the media is even whispering about this, so your outlook will probably prevail.

Re:there's an argument to be made....

[Zoop]

Our "defense" industry is largely what caused this debacle -- the number one export for the United States is weapons.

While I'd prefer we sold more Macintoshes than weapons (either the apple or Apple breed), keep a couple of facts in mind before you get too hysterical:

1) Most of these arms sales go to warlike countries such as Canada and Belgium.
2) The arms sales in the 80's were supposed to go to factions OPPOSED to Iran's government, not the Iranian government. It was no doubt a grievous mistake, as it turns out this may have been an Iranian ruse.
3) Until environmentalists get over their hysteria about nuclear energy, we will be dependent on oil and that's the only reason we continue to be involved in the Middle East. It's easy to say with the ludicrously low prices for gasoline America enjoys that we should get out anyway, but the "energy crisis" of this past year shows that yuppies will scream bloody murder if they have to give up their gas-guzzling SUVs. No government that didn't ensure we had enough governments in the region willing to sell us oil will last. If you don't like that, campaign for nuclear energy to tide us over until we can make something safer work cost-effectively.
4) Most government assistance outside of the middle east was during the Cold War, a contest in which the right to carp about your government's policy was at stake. As much improvement as I believe the US government needs to make in this area, the other side was so much worse that it was literally a struggle between freedom and repression. Fortunately, freedom won, and we no longer have to hold our nose in supporting one side to prevent the other side from gaining another foothold in another region of the world. It is a wonderful luxury.

I do not suggest unquestioning or mindless support, but at a time like this, I suggest a sense of perspective.

Re:there's an argument to be made....

[metachimp]

Examples? All you had to do was ask!

Chile

El Salvador

Panama

Grenada

The list goes on.

Re:there's an argument to be made....

[AugstWest]

There wasn't a single word of my post that justifies this carnage. This is a deeply, horribly, everythingly fucked up response.

Whether or not the Taliban is involved, I despise them to the core of my being. They have destroyed the history of the nation which they currently ocupy, wiping out statues and monuments that are thousands of years old to establish their position as the second biggest bullies on the planet.

The term "great evil" is being tossed around all over the 24-hour coverage by the Palestinians, the Iraqis, GW and Bill Clinton.

Which of them are correct? That entirely depends on which country you were born in, and how willing you are to get into the heads of "the enemies."

Who is the great evil? Is it the group that just destroyed the WTC, or is it the group that has for over 30 years now armed and rearmed the citizens of the middle east to systematically fight our enemies for us?

If you're grappling with that question, there's a very simple answer that none of us are taught to look at.

The simple truth is that we (many of you and me), as Americans, aren't involved in this war. Neither are most of the Palestinians, or the Pakistanis, or the Afghanis.

The "groups" I spoke of in that question are the leaders of these forces, the men in control of our country who have been instigating the constant battles in the middle east for over three decades, as well as the al-Qaid and the men that follow Bin Laden.

This war has been brought about by the men in the CIA and these small groups in in the middle east. I have known people from all of these countries for many years, and they're Americans like the rest of us. They're all currently hoping that other Americans don't suddenly decide to hate them, and express their collective anger against a small, militant group of individuals, not whole nations of civilians because of these abominations brought about by a few dozen power-hungry little men.

I can't side with either of them. That's how they get their power.

Re:there's an argument to be made....

[AugstWest]

Then i do stand corrected.

What did he do in the interim?

Re:there's an argument to be made....

[Salis]

The U.S's primary source of oil is from Argentina, not the Middle East. However, Europe draws most of its oil from OPEC nations (of which Saudi Arabia is one of the most influential and which Iraq is not a member of). We went into the Gulf to protect Saudi Arabia and Kuwait (an Ally and Europe's partial supply of oil) and to prevent a known militant government from imposing its government on MORE civilized nations.

If we allowed Iraq to stay there we would send a precedent to the world that expansion by conquest is allowable and that we do not put our military might behind the words of our intent to protect civilized nations from militant governments.

As for our embargo and economic sanctions on Iraq, Saddam Hussein prevents his citizens from receiving any foreign aid any country tries to offer. The U.S, along with international humanitarian organizations like the Red Cross, have tried to alleviate the food shortages in Iraq to no avail. Hussein doesn't want his citizens to have food, to have liberty. The only way for us to help the citizens of Iraq is to wage war against Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein. But..that presents a contradiction which I'm sure you'll reply with, that we have to wage war on a nation to help the people of the nation. How can that be so? That is one reason why we stopped less than 75 miles from Bagdad in the Gulf war and why Saddam is still in power...

As for Vietnam & Korea, the ideals behind the interventing were sound, but the methods used to stop a communist government from imposing its government on a democractic one were limited by politicians enforcing a 'middle ground' strategy on the military leaders.

The military leaders could not use decisive force with which to accomplish their mission and the political leaders never fully stated with that mission truly was.

Was it a mistake to intervene on Korea or Vietnam? That's a debatable question, but the effects of the two wars did prove that the U.S was, in popular mood until the early 70's, willing to protect a government's right to have a democratic government.

Let's still remember that we still have U.S troops in Korea and that the only reason why North Korea would want to talk instead of fight to reunite Korea is because of those troops. Were they not there, N. Korea would have long ago attempted to assert military control over South Korea once more and would have probably won.

Let is also be known that the lifestyle of those in South Korea is much better than those in North Korea. Democracy & capitalism allows its citizens to have the potential to have a much better lifestyle than governments who practice communism, totalitarianism, or fascism. There are always exceptions to the rule, but lifestyles in democracies are always better than in other forms of government. Even more important, a democracy has the potential to allow its citizens to be educated and excel in science & technology very quickly and easily such that the nation can quickly become economically self-sufficient.

Look at Estonia as an example of such embracement.

While Korea & Vietnam aren't exactly good examples of the U.S's best efforts, they are examples of our best intentions. And, the U.S's military and political leaders now fully understand the mistakes made in Vietnam, especially, such that there will never be a military intervention again whose mission wasn't narrowly defined and whose tactics weren't constrained to minimize the risk of civilian casaulties and ensure success.

Look at Kosovo and Bosnia as further examples of military intervention that were successful in stabilizing a region using multilateral (NATO) support.

Howard Salis

Re:there's an argument to be made....

[AugstWest]

Well spoken. But my question to this policy is, at some point or another our foreign aid (not just the weapons, but the went to these people that attacked us today... Was there a better solution to the oil/anti-comunism battle that America went through in the 80s?

I don't know the answer to that question, and I do indeed realize that. I'm glad we had this discussion, it'll make me continue to think about this.

Toward the future, there is no mathematical way of denying that we will need to end our dependence on oil. We're just running out.

It will be interesting to see how a planet with no need for fossil fuels will readjust itself socially. I hope we live to see it.

Re:there's an argument to be made....

[AugstWest]

1) Most of these arms sales go to warlike countries such as Canada and Belgium.

So why don't they hate Canada or Belgium? They've apparently got good military technology. What are we doing to piss people off that the Canadians aren't?

Re:there's an argument to be made....

[linzeal]

Golf and getting his sons prepared for office.

Re:there's an argument to be made....

[AugstWest]

...and we also "arm them" with a lot of foreign aid.

Re:there's an argument to be made....

[linzeal]

It was a co-government with israel IIRC not there own state.

Re:there's an argument to be made....

[AugstWest]

I don't hate the US at all. I love this country. I am a very patriotic and law abiding citizen, I just happen to disagree with the way that my country has been lead for a while now.

I just don't believe that feeding a killing machine is the only way to handle this.

Re:there's an argument to be made....

[AugstWest]

I don't blame the intelligence agencies for not seeing this coming. They apparently stop a lot of these things, and I've actually been hearing some good things about their numbers the last couple of days.

I don't see how you could even blame airport security for letting people on an airplane with a razor in a carry-on bag. This was reeeeally sneaky.

Re:there's an argument to be made....

[NearlyHeadless]

Our "defense" industry is largely what caused this debacle -- the number one export for the United States is weapons. Think about that for a second -- we make more money selling weapons to the rest of the world than any other thing that we make.

No, the US is the #1 exporter of arms, but arms sales are hardly our leading export. According to http://www.iansa.org/news/2000/aug_00/us_arms.htm, arms deliveries from the US in 1999 were $18 billion (new contracts were $11 billion).

By contrast, according to the latest Statistical Abstract (Table 1329), electrical machinery accounted for $75 billion dollars worth of exports, computers and office machinery, $40 billion, power generating machinery, $30 billion, etc. Total exports were about $960 billion, so arms sales are only about 2% of the total.

Re:there's an argument to be made....

[On Lawn]

hmmm your logic sounds like... if I drink a gallon of gasoline I die, therefore, if I died then I must have drunken a gallon of gasoline.

But just as there are many reasons for death there are many reasons for unrest and this outlash. Theres also many reasons a three year old takes a rock and throws it through a TV set.

And thats exactly what is going on, they are lashing at authority they don't agree with. "Mommy won't take me to the store to buy guns to fight the Israelies, I'm going to scratch out her picture."

Whether or not it the policy is fair depends on more than if someone is screaming and kicking or not. However mindless destruction becuase they don't like what is going on is unanimously agreed as wrong. See the difference?

Re:there's an argument to be made....

[nfras]

Democracy? It has been about 1 year since East Timor had Australian then UN troops installed as peacekeepers. They have recently held their first democratic elections. It has been a decade since Kuwait was liberated by the UN coalition and they have not held any elections. So don't give me any crap about fighting for democracy.

Iran is another example. The Shah was such a democratic leader wasn't he? Deposed by a popular uprising. If the US government cared about democracy and the people they would be involved in Myanmar, Irian Jaya, ad infinitum.

And freedom of religion. How can a country which extolls freedom of religion force school children to swear allegiance to a flag? and utter the line "one country under God"?

I agree that terrorism is the enemy of every peron on this planet, and that the people in the WTC did not deserve this. However, to say that the US is blameless in this tragedy is wrong. The US is guilty of its own terrorism. The bombing of Baghdad, Tripoli, the funding of the Contras, the funding of the Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, Nagasaki, Hiroshima.

I do not and never could condone what has been done to the people of the United States, it never should have happened. This attack was a disgrace and those who are responsible have no right to be deemed part of the human race. However, those who say "why did this happen?" do not have very far to look. When your government forces its beliefs on others, expect some of them to fight back.

Re:there's an argument to be made....

[Pig Hogger]

We did not bring it upon ourselves simply because nothing we could have ever done would have warranted this kind of attack.

Are you sure? How about...

• Dropping two (2) atomic bombs on Japan?
• Dropping 8 (eight) times as much bombs on Viet-Nam (an agricultural nation) as was dropped on Germany (a heavily-industrialized nation)?
• Propping up ruthless dictators who killed thousands of their opponents?
• Supporting the stealing of Palestine for the benefit of people who never did live there, at the expense of the actual people who did live there?
• Leashing out hordes of hungry briefcase-toting ogres that tear down the sovereignty of other countries by imposing rules that insure that american business can barge-in and siphon-off profits?

Re:there's an argument to be made....

[Salis]

You extract from over 60 years of American history what you think is representative of our government. Here is what I think: The fact that we did not force our ideals of government on Kuwait once we liberated it contradicts your theory. What we did do was uphold their civilized form of government against the aggressive actions of a militant totalitarian government. I can tell you do not live in a Western country, because you misconstrue what is so obviously not a breach of religious freedom. The pledge of allegiance (not 'swear') is a pledge of loyalty to our country, that is was created to protect the 'unalienable rights' of all its citizens that were given to them 'under God'. Ie, no man may take away those rights, because man did not give man those rights..they were given by God and can not be taken away. Those rights were listed under the 'Bill of Rights' and also mentioned within the Declaration of Independence (of the US) that all man have a right to 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'. You cite our bombing of Bagdad, Nagasaki, and Hiroshima as terrorism. The latter two caused the end of WWII, forcing Japan to surrender even though they would have continued the war and were prepared to repel a ground invasion of Japan with its home militia of 6+ million. Such a ground invasion would have costed at least a million lives on both sides of the battle. President Truman felt it worth the 100,000 dead to save 2 million lives. It was not a rash decision, I trust you, nor were the times and scope of action requiring any less of a historic act. WWII needed to be ended as Europe was already in ruin and an extended Pacific campaign could not be afforded. If Japan wished not to be bombed, they should have surrendered. Of course, it is sad that it had to come to that, but war is often sad. The bombing of Bagdad was strategic and highly restricted and limited to military targets. On a previously unheard level of precision, the U.S minimized the deaths of Iraqi civilians and targetted only military installations and related infrastructure (power, fuel, ammo, communications, etc). _No Other Country Has Ever Been Able To Limit Civilian Casualties In Such A Manner.- The U.S spends billions of dollars on limiting civilian casualties in war. Can you say the same of other nations? The U.S does not seek terror on populaces, it seeks diplomatic and military leverage on _governments_ while trying to leave the citizens of that government with as few deaths as possible. The mistakes the U.S have made pale in comparison to the mistakes our enemies have made, in scope of deaths and in immorality. Our mistakes rise from a lack of good information and a rashness in action, not in immoral intent. We've overcome those weaknesses in the recent past, taking our time to plan retaliatory strikes and gain international support. We never target civilians and we never fail to give peace a chance. Give me an example of another nation whose behavior has been better than the U.S, in economic aid, in military protection, in leadership, in science and in the arts, and in freedoms and liberties that it gives its citizens. I will move there to live my life. Howard Salis I am not an Anonymous poster.

Re:there's an argument to be made....

[Salis]

*woops..reposting for easier reading.*

You extract from over 60 years of American history what you think is representative of our government. Here is what I think:

The fact that we did not force our ideals of government on Kuwait once we liberated it contradicts your theory. What we did do was uphold their civilized form of government against the aggressive actions of a militant totalitarian government.

I can tell you do not live in a Western country, because you misconstrue what is so obviously not a breach of religious freedom. The pledge of allegiance (not 'swear') is a pledge of loyalty to our country, that is was created to protect the 'unalienable rights' of all its citizens that were given to them 'under God'. Ie, no man may take away those rights, because man did not give man those rights..they were given by God and can not be taken away. Those rights were listed under the 'Bill of Rights' and also mentioned within the Declaration of Independence (of the US) that all man have a right to 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'.

You cite our bombing of Bagdad, Nagasaki, and Hiroshima as terrorism. The latter two caused the end of WWII, forcing Japan to surrender even though they would have continued the war and were prepared to repel a ground invasion of Japan with its home militia of 6+ million. Such a ground invasion would have costed at least a million lives on both sides of the battle. President Truman felt it worth the 100,000 dead to save 2 million lives. It was not a rash decision, I trust you, nor were the times and scope of action requiring any less of a historic act. WWII needed to be ended as Europe was already in ruin and an extended Pacific campaign could not be afforded. If Japan wished not to be bombed, they should have surrendered. Of course, it is sad that it had to come to that, but war is often sad.

The bombing of Bagdad was strategic and highly restricted and limited to military targets. On a previously unheard level of precision, the U.S minimized the deaths of Iraqi civilians and targetted only military installations and related infrastructure (power, fuel, ammo, communications, etc). _No Other Country Has Ever Been Able To Limit Civilian Casualties In Such A Manner.- The U.S spends billions of dollars on limiting civilian casualties in war. Can you say the same of other nations? The U.S does not seek terror on populaces, it seeks diplomatic and military leverage on _governments_ while trying to leave the citizens of that government with as few deaths as possible.

The mistakes the U.S have made pale in comparison to the mistakes our enemies have made, in scope of deaths and in immorality. Our mistakes rise from a lack of good information and a rashness in action, not in immoral intent. We've overcome those weaknesses in the recent past, taking our time to plan retaliatory strikes and gain international support. We never target civilians and we never fail to give peace a chance.

Give me an example of another nation whose behavior has been better than the U.S, in economic aid, in military protection, in leadership, in science and in the arts, and in freedoms and liberties that it gives its citizens. I will move there to live my life.

Howard Salis

I am not an Anonymous poster.

Re:there's an argument to be made....

[nfras]

Re: Kuwait. Part of the UN resolution was that if Kuwait was liberated then they would need to hold democratic elections. The only reason that no pressure has been put on Kuwait to do this is that the current power base in Kuwait is a known quantity to the western powers. Slavery is still legal, and practised in Kuwait.
I stand by my citation of Hiroshima as terrorism. I quote from the dictionary (.com) definition of the word terrorism "use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." Hiroshima and Nagasaki resulted in the end of the War n the Pacific, however it did so using the death of millions of civilians. Not only those who died as a direct result of the explosion but those who were affected by radiation, those who had not even been born at the time. It was an act of terror. Just as the WTC was an act of terror. Do as we say or more of this will happen.
The pledge of allegiance to the flag was instituted after the war of Independence to ensure that the next generation would support the government, as only around one third of the population of America actually supported the war. It was and is enforcing ideals on others.
In regards to the Gulf War. More British soldiers died at the hands of the Americans than died because of Iraqis.
As for the fact that you can tell that I do not live in a Western country, I do. I have lived in the US, in France, in the UK, in Australia and in Russia. You can assume what you like, but never think that you will be right.
Anyway, my comments were not meant to be an antiAmerican tirade. I merely wanted to show that as a country, America has blood on its hands. Many around the world see this as an evening of the scores. I condemn this act and my condolences go to the people of the United States.

Re:there's an argument to be made....

[pegacat]

During hostilities involving one of your allies, you have an intelligence-gathering ship off-shore, feeding information to another one of your allies. That second ally, in turn, feeds that information to the enemy of your first ally. The first ally then proceeds to attack and disable your ship, killing scores of her crew. Do you cry out for retribution while it is shown how you're not as good an ally as you should have been (helping their enemies shoot their planes from the sky), or do you sweep it under the rug as a misunderstanding, outraging survivors of the attack?

there's a short write up of the Israeli attack on the NSA's U.S.S. Liberty at salon: http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2001/04/25/libe rty/

... and the usual explanation is not that the NSA were leaking info, but that the Israelis wanted to cover up the extent of their military success, and how deeply they were penetrating into the countries which had attacked them. Check 'The Puzzle Palace' by James Bamford, although it sounds like even more evidence has come to light since then. The bit where the Israelis machine gunned the life boats (as described by the US sailors on board; we're not talking arab extremists here) makes exceptionally fine reading.

Re:there's an argument to be made....

[Zoop]

So why don't they hate Canada or Belgium?

Simple. We exist as the most powerful and wealthiest democratic state. Why hit the smaller players?

By the way, did you know that most of the aid we give Israel was mandated as part of the peace treaty with Egypt? How warlike was it for us to aid both Egypt (an Islamic country) and Israel?

If this were truly about who we support, Bin Laden would be our best ally since we funded other Afghans (not Bin Laden, it turns out) kicking out an invader on their soil. We funded the defense of his native country against a non-Islamic state (oh, you thought Saddam was religious? Read more.).

No, this is about attacking the symbol of freedom and self determination, which Bin Laden and selected Palestinians do not want for other ethnicities and religions.

Re:there's an argument to be made....

[hanwen]

absolutely nothing, [..] justifies a premeditated attack targeting civilians.

No one is saying that the WTC attack is justified.

The hard part here is that both the US and its opponents do wrongly. The WTC attack involved the death of many innocent bystanders. Likewise, the Iraq embargo, Vietnam, the (US support of the) Palestinian occupation, all of them involved the suffering and death of many innocent civilians. Such policy sows hatred in many people, and that hatred is the cause of the attacks.

I think ... no, I hope. I hope that the US will try and understand that hatred. I hope that you will not fuel more hatred. Because more hatred implies more suffering.

Re:there's an argument to be made....

[Balp]

I'm not shure that the vitims of the US misses think the same. In the rest of the world, at large parts everything wasn't so bad and evil in communism as it is in the US I have heard a loot of pepople in Estern Germany that sometimes like to have the communism back because pepople where more human against each other as they had one common enemy (the goverment) that now. This not to be read as communism is good, becaus it isn't but there are always two sides of a coin. Nothinbg is pure evil and nothing is pure good.

There is nothing that counts as a good reason for that terorism. But then I don't think there is anything that counts as good reasons for the violence in Israel either (or any other place in the world at the moment).

Re:there's an argument to be made....

[jstott]

User #410832 Info) "the number one export
for the United States is weapons."

Oh? And where do you get your numbers? Either way,
I find it hard to believe in light of how the
number one exporter of weapons globally is France.

The U.S. passed France for the honor of "world's largest arms exporter" right after the Gulf
war.

-JS

Re:there's an argument to be made....

[Salis]

The UN makes a lot of resolutions that go ignored. That's not particularly uncommon.

So along the lines of terrorism, one should also include every act of war, every battle in every war, every revolution, and every racial attack that has ever happened in the U.S or in the world. I think that definition isn't narrowly defined enough. War is not terrorism, war is declared, as it was against Japan, and as Japan declared against us. That was not terrorism.

I've been reading David McCullough's "John Adams.", a biography of John Adams and a history of the times. Yes, a lot of people did not favor the American Revolutionary war, both before and during. They did so not because they disagreed with the reasons for fighting the war, but because they thought peace was possible between Britain and the American colonies.

Of course, the Loyalists were mostly the merchants and rich land owners with immense ties to Britain..they left soon after the Revolutionary War began. By the time the War was over, the vast majority of people in the U.S were happy of the outcome, glad to be free of Britain and under the sovereignty of their own states or commonwealths.

As for the Gulf, more Americans were casualties of friendly fire and disease in the field than from enemy fire as well. That's not uncommon in war, modern or past. To say the Americans tried to friendly fire the British is absurd, as it happened to their own troops as well to the same degree. Friendly Fire is something to be minimized to all possible ability, but not uncommon in any war.

Re:there's an argument to be made....

[AugstWest]

If this were truly about who we support, Bin Laden would be our best ally since we funded other Afghans (not Bin Laden, it turns out) kicking out an invader on their soil. We funded the defense of his native country against a non-Islamic state (oh, you thought Saddam was religious? Read more.).

This becomes all the more interesting as we see Russia coming to our aid and providing information about Afghanistan, not too long (historically speaking) after we originally funded al-Qaid and Bin Laden to get Russia out of Afghanistan.

It's all very convoluted.

Re:there's an argument to be made....

[metachimp]

I don't claim any justification. I just was merely pointing out that because of these kinds of activities, there are people who take an adversarial stance to us.

Re:there's an argument to be made....

[vectro]

We went into the Gulf to protect Saudi Arabia and Kuwait (an Ally and Europe's partial supply of oil) and to prevent a known militant government from imposing its government on MORE civilized nations.

Which sounds great, until you realize that we were (and are) supporting a Saudi dictatorship only because they will keep the oil flowing. Face it, if it weren't for the oil, we wouldn't have been there.

And the only reason we stopped short of Baghdad was because Bush decided he didn't want to take the bad press of going in.

Kosovo: Forensics teams from Spain and the FBI found less than 2500 bodies, and it's impossible to know how many of those were a consequence of "the Serbs' brutal, but hardly genocidal, two-year counterinsurgency campaign against the KLA". (Colony Kosovo, Christian Parenti) There are more murders than that in the US in a year. And what was the inevitable consequence of our involement? The brutality is switched from one of serbs attacking albanians to one of albanians attacking serbs.

As to Vietnam, so killing innocent civillians and villigers is a "middle ground" approach? Under that definition, I suppose they should be thankful we didn't nuke them once or thrice.

How about Latin America? read here for a description of our noble involment in Nicaragua. Think were's so hot about promoting democracy? Why are we giving attack helicopters and other arms to the Columbian dictatorship? Ostensibly, to fight drugs - but seriously, who thinks they aren't going to use them against the guerillas?

Finally, it's worthwhile to discuss China. Although we haven't been involved in any direct military action in China, we stand by while they slaughter civilians and wage war on Tibet. Why? Because we can't afford to stop trading. We also grant "most favored nation" status, despite their awful human rights record, and entirely non-democratic government.

Face it, our political involment in the world over the last 30 years has been noble; Rather, it has consistantly been to force our own economic advantage, everything else be damned.

Re:there's an argument to be made....

[Salis]

First, the Saudi Arabian government is a monarchy and while a minority of populace there are against the presence of the U.S and are more hostile to their current government, the majority of the people in Saudi Arabia are happy with their government (at least until last Tuesday..who knows what will happen now.) That means that our presence there is not shoring up an otherwise tyrannical government, which you infer. We are no more shoring up Saudi Arabia's government with our presence than we are in Italy or Turkey.

We DEFENDED Saudi Arabia from an OUTSIDE aggressor. They asked for help and got it. Of course, they have a valuable commodity, but they have never nor will ever just 'give' us oil because we defended them. It was in our interest to see that a truly depostic government (Saddam Hussein) does not obtain even more oil and more land. It was also in Saudi Arabia's interest as well. ;)

Also: Straight from General Clark's mouth (he was a Corp commander in Desert Storm and was the NATO commander in Bosnia/Kosovo), he says that they stopped the attack before going into Bagdad because the President had defined the mission of the attack as the liberation of Kuwait and the repulsion of Iraqi forces out of the area. Once that was achieved, the President felt that the international coalition that he had formed was not built to support a siege of Bagdad and that once the mission was completed, the attack should be over.

A less nobler person would have continued the attack BECAUSE getting Saddam out of there would have been enormously gratifying for U.S interests, but OTHER nations might have disagreed. Thus, we put the coalition's interests above our own.

I consider supposed independent publications that reported from Serbia/Kosovo as suspect. NATO forces that went into the area after the Serb attacks into Kosovo had chilling stories of multiple mass graves and slaughtered peoples. I tend to believe individual accounts from soldiers than a publication with a possible agenda (like Serb propoganda...they used such publications extensively).

I'm ignoring your inquiry to South America because, prior to the 1970s, the CIA did a lot of manipulation there that the U.S Congress, when it found out, was very angry about and imposed very harsh restrictions on the actions of the CIA thereafter. The War on Drugs is as complex and deep as the newly waged 'War on Terrorism'. I'm not even going to begin to argue about it.

China is interesting in that they have 1.1-1.2 billion people and they really don't care at all about most of them. Unfortunately, the U.S has tried and failed to force them to treat their populace better. Repeat, they have TRIED AND FAILED to use FORCE.

So, by opening up trade, the U.S hopes to persuade and nudge China into a more population-friendly position of government policy. IF you can't push by gun, then you can pull by carrot. :)

Of course, the extra trade won't hurt, but the more economically China is dependent upon the U.S, the more they'll listen to us.

Fix The Planes

[jmvidal]

Im amazed that no one has proposed the obvious technical solutions to this specific problem. I, for one, am amazed that this did not happen earlier. In a distributed system no single agent should have too much power. Pilots of jumbo jets have too much distructive power. We need to fix that.

For example, if a plane diverges from its set flight-path a mechanism should kick-in which sets it on autopilot at x-thousand feet. This can only be overriden by ground control.

Or, how about a button that upon pressing locks the airplane on a fixed altitude and sounds the alarm. You know, like the safe in any convinence store.

Submit your own idea.

Re:Fix The Planes

[Skyshadow]

Sure, and the first time someone switches on a call phone during a landing approach the plane takes control away from the pilot?

Taking control away from the pilots isn't the solution here. Making sure the pilots are able to retain control of the aircraft is the only way to avert tragedies like this.

There are at least two ways to accomplish this:

1. Physically seperate the flight crew from the cabin.
2. Protect the flight crew.

Personally, I'd much rather fly on a plane featuring an armed-to-the-teeth Marine than on one where a computer might decide to take over on behalf of the pilot. Being a geek, I have very little faith in all-powerful technology.

Re:Fix The Planes

[Nonesuch]

Have you really thought this through?

Pilots have full control over their aircraft, because they need the choice to use their judgment in flying the plane -- When you take away options, you leave the situation open to other disasters, failure modes that were not anticipated in the design of the system, but which could be averted by the human pilot.

For example, if a plane diverges from its set flight-path a mechanism should kick-in which sets it on autopilot at x-thousand feet. This can only be overriden by ground control.

Great. Now all I need to do is disable all of the radio receivers on a airplane (with a low-power spark gap transmitter on board) and watch the plane go in a straight line at x-thousand feet until it runs out of fuel.

Im amazed that no one has proposed the obvious technical solutions to this specific problem. I, for one, am amazed that this did not happen earlier. In a distributed system no single agent should have too much power. Pilots of jumbo jets have too much distructive power. We need to fix that.

Drivers of cars have too much power

Captains of cargo ships have too much power

Voters in Florida have too much power

The solution is not to override the decisions of the pilots, but to provide AAA (Authentication, Authorization, Accounting) to ensure that the person at the controls is who we think they are, and provide warnings and suggestions to the pilot.

Re:Fix The Planes

[oni]

I doubt this or even something similar will ever happen again - but, how about giving the pilots the ability to flood the cabin with sleeping gas?

Re:Fix The Planes

[Skyshadow]

Sleeping gas, at least on the sort of scale you're talking about, exists only on Star Trek.

Thanks to the variety of physical conditions people come in, even an impossibly uniform layer of gas would kill a third of the people on the plane while leaving another third just sort of crabby.

Re:Fix The Planes

[henley]

Go read The Risks Digest. Then come back and explain in great and convincing detail how you've solved the problems of managing technical complexity and especially it's interface to the human element in automated control systems such as you're proposing.

I don't know the solution to this problem, but it's in the human domain, not the technical.

Re:Fix The Planes

[opusman]

Even better, make the flight deck inaccessible from the passenger cabin. Stretch the bodies of airplanes a meter or two, or take out a couple of rows of seats. Give the pilots their own door to the outside, a toilet and bed, and food & drink facilities, and put a nice thick metal wall between them and the passengers.

Re:Fix The Planes

[j7953]

The idea of computers taking over when humans fail (as judged by the machines) is an old idea, and a wrong idea. Who would provide backup for the autopilot, then? Override by ground control might come too late, and anyway, how can they trust the pilot? And if ground control can send an override permission signal, the terorrists can also do that.

What happens, for example, if for some reason the aircrafts position gets reported wrongly by a very small distance, e.g. the plane thinks its 100 meters more west than it actually is. When the pilot tries to land, the plane will think he'll be crashing it (either by missing the runway, or by coming down too early / too late, depending on the runway heading), and take over. There will be no way to land that aircraft.

You might also want to note that you're arguing against having any pilot at all. If you think that machines can handle emergency situations better than a human, then I suppose they should also be able to handle routine situatuations. Would you board a flight where the aircraft has no pilot?

Re:Fix The Planes

[Casca]

That would work, but I'd prefer something that floods the cabin with a gas that knocks everyone unconcious in a hurry.

Just make it a policy, in the event that an air emergency is declared due to a high-jacking, the cabin will be flooded with knockout gas, and the plane will be landed at the nearest available runway. Sure you might lose a couple of people as terrorists try to kill some off to get the pilot to comply, but once the terrorists realize that it doesn't matter what they do in the cabin, they might stop trying.

Re:Fix The Planes

[AndroidCat]

Depending on the agent used, it would probably kill me with a hyperthermia allergic reaction.

Not exactly the friendly skies...

Re:Fix The Planes

[oni]

good point. I hadn't thought of that

Thanks to the variety of physical conditions people come in

and once the quantity and potency of gas were published terrorist leaders would simply recruit people for hijacking duty who fit the physical profile of someone who would be unharmed.

maybe we could beam the hijackers to the brig. ;)

Re:Fix The Planes

[Steve B]

I'd prefer something that floods the cabin with a gas that knocks everyone unconcious in a hurry.

Too bad that a knockout gas that is reasonably safe (for the general population including infants, asthmatics, etc) and reasonably effective (against a fit, adrenalin-pumped enemy) does not exist.

Slashdot's finest hour

[sulli]

I have been extremely impressed with both the slashdot stories - getting better with all of the links to mirrors, eyewitness accounts, newspaper stories, and the rest - and the many eyewitness and survivor accounts. I've also found it a good place to share my own feelings about the events of yesterday, in an open and honest forum.

As important, the signal to noise ratio is the best I've ever seen - almost everyone has been respectful and honest. I will admit to being an occasional troll myself, and I'm very pleased that there has been almost zero harassment or false stories - just as it should be.

One of the stories is now number one on the Hall of Fame with 2422 stories. Again, just as it should be.

Many thanks to the Slashdot crew for keeping the site running, and posting such meaningful, powerful stories. And thanks everyone for sharing your experiences. It's made a difference for thousands of people.

A bluff? No way

[Synn]

Pearl Habor saw 2400 military personel dead.

Our final reaction? Nuke Japan.

We're gonna see around 10k+ civilians dead here. If you think we're gonna bluff anybody you're in for a shocker.

Re:A bluff? No way

[PW2]

Pearl Habor saw 2400 military personel dead.
Our final reaction? Nuke Japan.

Many thousands more Americans and others died during the war with Japan following Pearl Harbor;

The death total that prompted the nuke was much greater than 2400 people because of the long war with Japan, but did include the 2400 that you mentioned;

Ending the war when they did also saved countless lives on both sides;

There was a lot of thought and private discussion that occurred before "the bomb" was dropped.

Re:A bluff? No way

[Synn]

I agree, dropping the bomb wasn't revenge thing for Pearl Habor.

It's just the context.

I see a lot of poeple afraid our politicians aren't really going to do anything substantial over this event.

Battleship Maine sunk = US/Spanish war.
Pearl Habor = WW II
Sept 11, 2001 (is going to) = a hell of a lot more than a token gesture.

FYI: Google has organized all newstory links.

[uigrad_2000]

And, also many resources (Red Cross, AA, United, Survivor Database, Pentagon Updates, etc.)

Our favorite search engine's list

Re:FYI: Google has organized all newstory links.

[ortholattice]

A general overview of some companies' status. (I didn't see this on AP/Reuters newsfeeds.) Some message boards are attempting to collect lists of survivors such as this.

Change the rules, be realistic about conflict

[Ars-Fartsica]

Bush was correct to make the hosts of terrorists as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Just as in criminal law it is illegal to aid a criminal, so it must be with regards to states and terrorists. Hopefully in the future, nations will look at the treatment "host" nations get and give them pause. They may also step up efforts to suppress terrorists internally before they act.

Secondly, we have to be realistic about striking back at terrorists and the nations who host them. This has little to do with right and wrong - the US has meddled in the Middle East for decades, and Islamic regimes are well known for their support of terror policies. There are no innocent parties, so forget about who has morality on their side. Start worrying about protecting your famillies, interests, values, and property. You were never in the "right" so forget about sheltering your petty morality. This is a war. You will have to kill innocent civillians. If you do not, you may die. Those who support Islamic fundamentalist regimes are your enemy, regardless of their direct involvement with terrorist acts.

Americans killed plenty of innocent Germans and Italians and Japanese in WW2 to protect its interests. It was acceptable then, it is acceptable now.

Re:Change the rules, be realistic about conflict

[(void*)]

Hopefully in the future, nations will look at the treatment "host" nations get and give them pause. They may also step up efforts to suppress terrorists internally before they act.

You said it yourself - hopefully. What seems to be more likely is that the terrorists and their leaders will go into hiding, and your host countries will just be more surreptious about their dealings with these terrorists.

Re:Change the rules, be realistic about conflict

[KalvinB]

It's not that it's acceptable, just inevitable. The so called "innocent" know we're comming. If they don't leave before we arrive it's their own fault if they're killed. I can feel sorry for refugees who are in the middle of getting away but people sitting on their porch in the middle of a war zone...I don't think so.

If the government is too stubborn at the expense of their people then that is also not our concern.

It's not pleasent but reality often isn't.

Ben

Re:Change the rules, be realistic about conflict

[Jimzovich]

You can make this case, and I understand it. Please be careful about how you characterize my "petty morality" however. What makes us different from enemies, hopefully, is the value we place on innocent lives. And if innocent people die even on behalf of the side of good, don't expect me to cheer the victory. That's may be the jingoist way, but for a warrior, even the victories hurt like hell.

Re:Change the rules, be realistic about conflict

[cd_Csc]

You say this, but in a few days we'll all be terribly upset the next time somebody suggests that an ISP is responsible for the actions of the "computer criminals" it hosts. What's the difference?

Re:Change the rules, be realistic about conflict

[part!cle]

OK so i guess we are all assuming that it was an act by Bin Laden. So we are going to transforn the palestinian land into a glass parking lot. What happens if he is hiding out in the palistinian capitol? bomb them all? how about Istanbul. Still bomb them? how about chicago? what if he was aided by members in florida? does the innocents still not matter if we all of a sudden have them in our own country? Sure I would be the first to ask that we find those responsible and shoot them so full of holes so that you can play battleship with their remains, and I would not feel the first bit of regret. I know I should but I would not. The actions of terrorism can sometimes be pinpointed to a country but if not we cannot go and play the finger pointing game. Even though Bush only added the "harboring" statement in his speach to cover his ass if we end up bombing another embassy or water treatment facility, i will have to reluctantly agree with him this time. But we should only start slinging bombs across the globe if they are actually responsible, (even in part) and not just start bombing away because we need a scapegoat, and congress needs to show that they did something to stay in popular. Losing innocent lives are never an _acceptable_ way of conducting war, but unfortunately it is _neccisary_. And please , everyone, shut the hell up about nukes. I am not going to go moralizing (too late?) that we will stoop below the level of the terrorists because, by now, you either got it or you are without a clue. And even though the terrorists are obviously primarily responsible, we (the USA) need to take a close look at our forign policy that I feel is deeply flawed, and GWB is not likely to put in any 2 cents worth listening to. To be educated enough to fly a Boeing (If anyone tells you its easy, tell them to stick a sharp object up their ass) and at the same time suicidal enough to crash into a 110 story building, they most likely (even with religious fanaticism) have seen family or friends killed by american made weapons. Check out or forign policy on any forign news center, even out allies newscasts, to see our staggering weakness in forign interests.
Alright i have said what i thought, and of course this is all IMHO, and i remain open to all other views on slashdot and most newscasts.
And: Thank you slashdot members for being my prefered avenue for news with your educated analysis, not some fake sentimental fillers from off of fox news.

Re:Change the rules, be realistic about conflict

[Theodore Logan]

This situation is a tragedy. Your attitude is another one. A third is that many people actually seem to agree with you. I have replied to so many posts just like yours these past two days that it's getting tiresome, but I will try once again anyhow.

This has little to do with right and wrong

I disagree. When you have to decide whether to kill people or not, it always has to do with right and wrong.

This is a war. You will have to kill innocent civillians.

This is an act of terrorism, not war. If you don't believe there is a difference, look both words up in your dictionary of choice - you may be surprised at what you find. And no, you don't have to kill innocent civilians. I am embarrased having to point this out, but if someone is to be killed, it is the people responsible. Innocent civilians are, well, uuh, innocent. Does that not make it clear enough why they should not be killed for a crime (and allow me to repeat that: this is an act of terrorism, in other word a crime, not an act of war (or at least that's what we think at this point in time)) someone else, who may or may share their opinions about americans, committed.

Americans killed plenty of innocent Germans and Italians and Japanese in WW2 to protect its interests. It was acceptable then, it is acceptable now.

Really? If I try real hard, I think I can see a tiny difference between killing civilians because there is total war in all of Europe, and where more than 15 million people have died, than when some random extremists bomb a couple of buildings and where casualties MAY count in the thousands (that is not yet for sure - may as well be hundreds).

If every country replied to terrorist acts the way you think they should be replied to, we would have total war, everywhere, all the time.

Move cautiously. Think rationally. Locate the guilty. Punish the guilty. Forget. Move on. REPEAT

Re:Change the rules, be realistic about conflict

[2nd Post!]

It was impossible then to avoid such blunt and broad attacks. It is possible now to avoid such blunt and broad attacks. That said, it is not acceptable to involve civilians in an act of war, else we have just become terrorists.

We *can* minimize the damage we do. We must do everything possible to avoid destroying the host when excising a cancer, otherwise our weapons, our pilots, our soldiers, are *no different* than the 12 bastards who got on 4 airliners and took out the WTC and hit the Pentagon.

Don't do this to our soldiers, don't do this to our people, don't do this to our country.

Re:Change the rules, be realistic about conflict

[cookiej]

You should define "Innocent."

I have always believed that the populace of Iraq, Palestine, etc. were merely a cowed people -- not agreeing with what their government does but feeling they could not change it.

After some of the images of those bastards in Palestine cheering the death of 10K+ Americans, I now feel there are very few innocents in that land.

Anyone notice that the van the cheering bastards were driving was a Ford?

I sure did.

The last surprise attack on American soil was met with the only deployment of nuclear weapons in the history of mankind. If they all feel the afterlife is a much better place, so be it.

The glass parking lot is looking better all the time.

Re:Change the rules, be realistic about conflict

[orionsnebula]

i did look up the words 'terrorism' and 'war' on the Merriam Webster Online dictionary.

WAR is defined as 2 a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end

TERRORISM is defined as the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion and if you then link to the word terror:

terror : 4 : violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands

hmmm.... to me flying a commercial airliner full of innocent people into a huge, populated, symbol of american commerce DOES fit the definition of terror, in which the definition of terrorism follows, and this systematic use of terror has/will create a hostility towards whomever is responsible, and i believe most americans have felt antangonized.....
just my view into those definitions

Re:Change the rules, be realistic about conflict

[Ars-Fartsica]

When you have to decide whether to kill people or not, it always has to do with right and wrong.

Then American voters should have educated themselves about how American foreign policy moved in the Middle East and voted in a government that could formulate a policy to preclude this amoral disaster. That was when it was about right and wrong. The wrongs on both sides were done long ago, now its simply about retribution and survival.

This is an act of terrorism, not war.

What is the difference? "Terrorists" are just what the big army calls the little army.

This is a war. You are a target. Your enemies have decreed this whether you like it or not. Act accordingly.

I think I can see a tiny difference between killing civilians because there is total war in all of Europe, and where more than 15 million people have died, than when some random extremists bomb a couple of buildings and where casualties MAY count in the thousands (that is not yet for sure - may as well be hundreds).

Oh how rich, and naive. This is the first volley in the war between the Islamic regimes and the Western democracies. These two groups cannot coexist. Let me repeat that for you so it sinks in and you can refer to it later: the Islamic regimes and Western democracies cannot coexist.

Twenty years from now when this is viewed as the first attack in what will constitute a long and bloody war between states (yes, this will escalate), and millions have died (horrible, but this is going to happen now, no way to avoid it), and nuclear weapons have been used on American soil (this will happen, I can assure it), you can remember I told you so.

If every country replied to terrorist acts the way you think they should be replied to, we would have total war, everywhere, all the time.

No, you would have peace because one side would win and life would go on. This is how the second world war was approached - drop the pretense of diplomacy, treaties, and other stopgap measures, and let someone win. The Middle East is a powder keg that should have been allowed to burn off years ago. The conflicts there have needed resolution, but the US has prolonged the stalemate for its own purposes. Now the chickens are coming home to roost.

Re:Change the rules, be realistic about conflict

[part!cle]

Yes, and notice that you see the same celibrating scene over and over again? how can that be a translated as a whole nation?
Yes that scene did strike a nerve. If you took it personally, its cause it was. Very personal. But also think that there is no way a right or wrong here. tens of thousands of Palistinians have seen family and friends die at the hands of American weapons, and whenever they try to bring it up, we shut them down. However of course I am not condoning this action, I am just pointing out that it is not black and white. MOST Israilies and Palistinians are prejudiced agains each other, neither are perfect but im guessiing that if you were born there you would feel resentment too. Plug in the walkout of the US during the racism conference, a really awful forign poilicy from US towards the middle east, a bunch of nuts blathering about using a nuke (a nuke to kill a terrorist group is like using a battleship to hunt for fish, a bunch of palistinians who support us and are afraid that they will be the scapegoats (too late?) and GWB, who in all due respect, could not tell the difference between our forign policy and a hemorroid, and we have a situation that we cant just solve by flailing bombs across the globe. No country is 100% behind a cause like that. Ill bet there are americans even that are happy about that, albeit a very tiny insignificant minority.

Re:Change the rules, be realistic about conflict

[Theodore Logan]

the Islamic regimes and Western democracies cannot coexist.

And your proposal is.. to wipe them out? Great idea, especially considering that we don't yet know if any of those are involved in any way. I wish we would have done the same after Oklahoma City. Damn that would be good, we'd probably be at WW4 already!

No, you would have peace because one side would win and life would go on.

This time, allow me to quote a great anonymous thinker: "Oh how rich, and naive." I'll leave the rest for you to figure out. Hint: usually, when you wipe out nations because of crimes committed by a group of extremists, you don't have peace, you have more war. Next quote: "Let me repeat that for you so it sinks in and you can refer to it later:" usually, when you wipe out nations because of crimes committed by a group of extremists, you don't have peace, you have more war.

Re:Change the rules, be realistic about conflict

[Ars-Fartsica]

If you believe that violence is the only (or even the best) solution to ANYTHING, you are an insignificant moron.

How absurd. Violence has been the number one most effective way of getting one's point across.

Ask the Nazis about their policies for taking over Europe and liquidating the Jews - stopped by violence.

Ask the Soviets about Afghanistan and their desire to subject the people to Soviet rule - stopped by violence.

Ask the Confederate Army about their desire to prolong slavery - stopped by violence.

Of course your attitude is the utter naive claptrap that western culture has imposed on its citizens, while its leaders and armies have effectively used violence to achieve their means.

Re:Change the rules, be realistic about conflict

[Ars-Fartsica]

It was impossible then to avoid such blunt and broad attacks. It is possible now to avoid such blunt and broad attacks.

Ah yes, the myth of stealth fighters and laser bombs. Sorry! Any soldier knows the real work of securing the battle field has to be done on the ground - using hard, bloody, imprecise tactics.

As a counterexample, look at the conflicts where America refuses to get into a ground conflict - the Balkans and Iraq - both forces requipped themselves shortly after the US pullout and continue to impose their will in their respective regions.

Re:Change the rules, be realistic about conflict

[Ars-Fartsica]

Terrorists attack the US. You hear from somewhere that they're probably arabic. Now you brilliantly arrive at the conclusion that "the Islamic regimes and Western democracies cannot coexist." This is truly amazing, it is also very sad.

No, I have been saying this for a decade. I would hold this opinion even if we found out the real terrorists were from Kentucky or Scotland.

Why not just drop the naive pretenses and admit that you have enemies? Your enemies know who their enemies are (you), so wise up and get with the program.

Re:Change the rules, be realistic about conflict

[Ars-Fartsica]

usually, when you wipe out nations because of crimes committed by a group of extremists, you don't have peace, you have more war.

The states are sponsoring this activity. Drop your simplistic notions that five guys in the backroom planned this. These guys didn't seek flight training by accident.

Its amazing, Some Amaericans have become so weak they can't even bring themselves to admit that they have enemies and identify these enemies, even in the face of violent attacks.

Maybe it is a good thing that there is some jarhead out there who just follows orders...otherwise he would probably sit around engaging in the same sort of posturing mental masturbation that precludes you doing anything about your own safety and way of life.

Re:Change the rules, be realistic about conflict

[madcow_ucsb]

"The Nazis made us realize that sometimes you need to stop talking about peace and start dropping bombs."

I don't know who said that or if I phrased it right, but that's the thought that keeps going thru my mind. God only knows where we're headed with all this, but we're sure as hell headed somewhere.

Re:Change the rules, be realistic about conflict

[madcow_ucsb]

I don't know if we *can* get thru this without killing innocents. The parallel I immediatly saw from this was *not* like Pearl Harbor or the Civil War. I immediatly thought it was like the American Revolution.

We all remember our history classes, right? Back in the olden days armies would line up on opposite sides of a field and march towards each other shooting wearing bright colors and being very "noble" about the whole affair. Then us Americans get this cool idea of wearing dark colors and hiding in trees and practicing guerilla warefare. Later everyone had to do it because there was no way to fight without being a "coward" hiding while we fought. It was simply an evolution of warefare.

Now we're the redcoats and the terrorists are the americans. To think that we can fight this without changing our tactics signifigantly just seems impossible to me. Maybe there's a way. Damned if I know what it is, though.
How do you fight someone who is not afraid to die and is not afraid to use the innocents around him?

Re: Change the rules, be realistic about conflict

[Inthewire]

Absolutely. 100% correct. Violence begets violence. Vaporization begets compliance.

Re:Change the rules, be realistic about conflict

[Dastardly]

(and allow me to repeat that: this is an act of terrorism, in other word a crime, not an act of war (or at least that's what we think at this point in time)

Ahh. But, you still leave the door open. I assume you think like I do. If the organization responsible was funded by a foreign nation, wouldn't that be an act of war. If Iraq payed bin Laden to perform a terrorist attack on the U.S., isn't that an act of war by Iraq, and should be responded to in kind?

The part that may be shaky is whether harboring the group responsible can be considered an act of war. I don't see any other choice though. How do you prosecute another country for 1000+ counts of accessory to murder?

Dastardly

Re:Change the rules, be realistic about conflict

[Wolfier]

The cheerful innocents are brain-washed. Take a look at the words of the media in the Middle East.

Think what will happen to you if you are someone in the Middle East and repeatedly exposed to media like that.

The only cure is counter brainwash, but it is very hard to implement.

Re:Change the rules, be realistic about conflict

[Ars-Fartsica]

Why so certain? The president isn't sure, why are you?

You don't think they tell everything they know to Fox News, do you?

Re:Change the rules, be realistic about conflict

[IronChef]

How do you fight someone who is not afraid to die and is not afraid to use the innocents around him?

You can only fight that battle on the enemy's terms. Mark my words, to end this we will have to sink to their level and end some. We will be the terrorists in the end -- but it be over someday, and it will be worth it, compared to what we would get by pussyfooting around "establishing dialogues."

Like others have been saying, all the civilized nations need to declare war on terrorism and those nations that harbor terrorists. If that doesn't work, then ultimately the rule of law is in danger, GLOBALLY.

If the world's greatest powers can't prevent commonplace terrorism, everyone's screwed, even the silly peaceniks in their little bitty countries posting on here about how awful America is. Those people better wise up, because if we go down, their time will come too.

Re: Change the rules, be realistic about conflict

[IronChef]

Violence begets violence.

Pacifism begets slavery.

(I think I have to give credit to anther /.er for that one.)

Re:Change the rules, be realistic about conflict

[cookiej]

Perhaps I am naive but I DO think that they would have shown other footage, if they had it. They showed Arafat donating blood. I guess I'm just another sheep being manipulated by the genius media. I had heard that the camerapeople were being threatened (by the PLO leadership) while filming the footage. I doubt they were looking to take much more.

You're right. They die at the hands of American weapons. So do Americans. Israelis die at the hands of them, too. And Russian weapons. And where do the bullets come from? Maybe Germany.

I don't see the Israelis flying planes into buildings of countries that provide guns to the opposition.

AND, I've never seen US Citizens (or Israel, for that matter) with people dancing in the streets for *ANY* massacres that occur. As a matter of fact, I believe that a majority of the U.S. Citizenry was against the raids that Israel performed -- even those that were performed to minimize loss of life. They just don't use suicide bombers in crowded malls.

Like I said, if they're after an afterlife, I say we have them get in line and simplify the process.

This is about as black and white as it gets. Black: Surprise attack against civilian targets.
White: Whatever response is returned to those that have reaped the whirlwind.

Re:Change the rules, be realistic about conflict

[madcow_ucsb]

I posted a comment similar to the one on your site earlier (I think - I may have had to leave before I submitted it, I don't remember)

But anyway, I think there really is a two pronged response needed here. You're right on the first one: a *strong* military response is needed. This is mostly a short-term solution, however. We *must* send a message saying that the world will not tolerate this kind of behavior. And I think this would have to be a very bloody message indeed.

But in the long term I think that the government needs to step back and take a look at exactly what THEY'RE doing as well that's causing these groups to hate us so much. A complete reanalysis of our Middle Eastern policies has been long overdue.

But neither of these responses will be effective without the other. If we simply turn the Mid-East into a parking lot, as so many are shouting for, it will MAYBE stop terrorism for a short time. But it will be back and even stronger than before.

But if we simply step back and change our behavior, the terrorists will see that by using a bigger bomb they finally got a response out of us. And so if they ever want anything else from us or ANY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD they will know how to get it: by blowing something up that's even bigger.

A militant response is most definitely called for in my opinion, but we also desperately need to look at what we're doing and maybe stop the hatred and terrorism before it stops.

Re:Change the rules, be realistic about conflict

[tjb]

Iraq hardly rearmed itself. There is an order of magnitude more tanks strewn about the desert and airplanes permanently grounded on wrecked runways than are currently functioning in the Iraqui military. There were more tanks detroyed on the road of death than there were in Kursk.

Serbia, on the other hand was pretty adept at hiding their forces. We did successfully immobilize them (which is good, a tank that can't move is akin to an unloaded gun: a good blunt object but not a serious weapon), but high-altitude bombing proved rather incapable of actually identifying and destroying them (which is bad, we should have gotten down and dirty with apaches).

Tim

Re:Change the rules, be realistic about conflict

[IronChef]

But if we simply step back and change our behavior, the terrorists will see that by using a bigger bomb they finally got a response out of us. And so if they ever want anything else from us or ANY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD they will know how to get it: by blowing something up that's even bigger.

That's it exactly, well put.

Luckily, SecState or SecDef has said something to the effect of "we're not just going after the people that did THIS. We're going after all terrorist havens." I have high hopes that NATO will do its best to purge the earth of those bastards. I want to see months of warfare, followed up by our entire allied intel community rooting out the remnants wherever they hide.

(I'm sure they won't be bombing Sinn Fein of course, I think they meant "the kind of terrorists that are harbored by unfriendly nations, and blow up planes and buildings in our allied nations.")

A militant response is most definitely called for in my opinion, but we also desperately need to look at what we're doing and maybe stop the hatred and terrorism before it stops.

I can get behind that, as long as we don't "wuss out" on the very necessary immediate messy part. There's no harm in looking at the whole situation with an open mind once we have made our country as safe as we reasonably can.

Personally, I think (and have for a while now) that we should cut off aid to Israel. I don't want to get into the Israel/Palestine political stuff... my reasoning is actually quite simple: Israel is a big boy and it can take care of itself. Would they really crumble away without our money and weapons? Doubtful. If they want weapons, they can BUY them from us. They can also build them themselves; they have a very capable industry there.

I think that our support of them is largely symbolic, not practical, and it's a symbol that has probably cost us a lot of lives now. That kind of support is more justified if Israel is in imminent danger of destruction. I DO believe in the US supporting its allies, with blood if needed, but I am not convinced that Israel's plight is that dire yet.

(If anyone wants to counter my perception of US aid to Israel, please post. If we stopped payments, would they just wither away?)

If the cause of the 9/11 attacks is precisely traced to our support of Israel, I would like to point out that Israel owes us one, and I would like them never to forget that.

Re:Change the rules, be realistic about conflict

[mimbleton]

Dude, don't you get it?
It is either us or them!
There is no middle ground here.

20 000 dead and some people still don't get that simple truth our overriding goal is to protect our civilians and history shows that one cannot eradicate brutal regimes/organization without being just as ruthless as they are.

Re:Change the rules, be realistic about conflict

[Bob Arctor is dead]

I am a student of military history, and what you're saying is simply untrue. I'm sorry if that doesn't fit in your Steven Seagal view of the world.

But you know this, of course. You just want an excuse to nuke some countries to make you feel better about yourself. Your cowboy attitude is what made people give their lives to take a plane right into WTC in the first place.

Re:Change the rules, be realistic about conflict

[Water Paradox]

Abraham Lincoln said it. When he became president, seven states had already seceded. He said in his inaugural address, "Look, we have no intention of attacking you. Put down your weapons and let us work this out like adults. But if you attack us, we will respond in defense, with force."

Who attacked first? And who won. There is a time for peace, and there is a time for war. When the two switch is in the hands of God, for if it were in the hands of man, we'd all be dead.

You've got a few minutes.

Jesus Christ died so you could live.

Re:Change the rules, be realistic about conflict

[part!cle]

Very true also. I am inclined to agree with most of what you say. Although there were some unfortunate incidents when americans celibrated when we bombed the chineese embassy, (there are always the sad few that like this stuff) and the Pakistani people (of course assuming that some of them were behind this) were being stonewalled. OF COURSE this is not how to respond, by killing maybe thousands of people. and I agree that many forign innocents will die because of this, because just cause terrorist extremists, but that does not mean i will go and justify that. Yes in an ideal world i would round up the bad guys and use them as target practice. But because a vocal minority (they are a vocal minority) celibrated this tragity does not mean we target the lot of them.

Re:Change the rules, be realistic about conflict

[part!cle]

and of course i accidentaly cut out the middle of my arguement, so its hard to understand. In any case: I agree.
But dont go steriotyping towards different demographics.

What good would that do????

[Microsift]

Let's say Amazon spends 100 million last year, and took in 101 million in revenue excluding the donation "revenue" They would owe taxes on 1 million dollars. add a million to revenue, ans a million to expenses, they still owe taxes on a million dollars(their ACTUAL profit). If you are going to be stupid, please don't be anonymous, so that your Karma will relect your stupidity!

Re:What good would that do????

[Nightpaw]

*snort* Profit?

Re:What good would that do????

[GigsVT]

If you are going to be stupid, please don't be anonymous, so that your Karma will relect your stupidity!


That would make a great sig! Go for it. :)

Re:Why the Surprise?

[frknfrk]

let's not forget that the US and others would LOVE to send aid, food, medicine, etc, to the PEOPLE of Iraq. However Saddam does not allow this. and let's not forget that it was an Iraqi army which marched over Kuwait, and was repelled. and let's not forget that it has been Iraq which has persisted in the attempt to build nuclear and biological weapons when it is obvious that Saddam cannot be allowed to possess these weapons.

bottom line: food, medicine, and other aid is readily offered to the people of Iraq. the government of Iraq (Saddam) will not allow this aid to be given, then turns and tells the people of Iraq that the US denies them food, medicine, and safety. that the US bombs them without cause.

maybe Saddam should stop trying to build biological weapons and allow his people to eat. but then he wouldn't have fear to rule them with.

i can't believe i am saying this, but perhaps Saddam should look to Khadafi (yes, Khadafi) as an example of a leader who sets aside his own goals and looks to provide his people with a future in the next century.

-sam

Is this exploit self-patching?

[redelm]

I wonder what's going through the minds or airline pilots and their security chiefs in the aftermath of the WTC collapses.

Are they going to allow their planes to be seized by hijackers [cooperate for ransom], or are they simply going to put the helm over into a dive rather than surrender? Or try aggressive flying (barrel rolls) before that?

The whole matter is very macabre, but needs to be thought through. IMHO, the total tower pancake collapses was an unexpected payoff to terror. What are the odds? Is it better to deliberately crash than possibly be used as a kinetic/incendary projectile?

Target: Air Force One?

[Skyshadow]

I've been seeing media reports that both the White House and Air Force One was initally a target.

I understand how you'd hit the White House (same as any other building), but how exactly were they planning to take down Air Force One? Does anyone have details or even a guess?

Re:Target: Air Force One?

[autocracy]

While landed

Re:Target: Air Force One?

[phillymjs]

They could never have taken out Air Force One. The thing is likely bristling with ECM (Note: I am basing this on a documentary I saw on the plane, not the movie starring Harrison Ford), and probably has improvements to the engines and other important parts a la the 'law enforcement package' that cars are sold to police departments with. That's not including a fighter escort who would have taken out, by any means necessary, any plane attempting to crash into or launch a weapon at Air Force One.

For those reasons, I'd have to say the White House would be the easier of the two for bad guys to take out-- but 'easier' is relative, and I say that only because it's a stationary target. I've read that the White House is rather well-defended in terms of anti-aircraft weaponry, but I'll always wonder if it would have been enough to stop a speeding passenger jet piloted by a couple religious-zealot pigdogs.

If they were attempting to purely damage American morale, the best targets they could have hit in the D.C. area would have been the Capitol building-- which would have really turned this whole mess into a Tom Clancy novel-- or the Washington Monument, IMHO.

After the second plane hit the WTC, I just kept waiting to hear about one hitting the Statue of Liberty, or the Empire State Building. Judging how quickly most of the prominent buildings and landmarks were evacuated across the country, a lot of other people were thinking that, too.

~Philly

Re:Target: Air Force One?

[plugger]

Maybe even now the spinners can't help themselves. At the press conference where this was announced, the reporters seemed very interested in the nature of the threat to Air Force One, which I presume was in Florida at the time of the attacks.

Re:Target: Air Force One?

[linzeal]

Wait, Wait, the white house has anti-aircraft weaponary and the Pentagon does not ? What about the NSA/CIA compounds? Camp david? I can't believe that military people would protect the presidents pretty house and not while high on the hog of taxpayer money installed the same tech in the pentagon...

Re:Target: Air Force One?

[kalanar]

From what CBS is reporting and the pentagon press conference, they felt a "considerable" threat that Air Force One was threatened.

When in Florida, President Bush said he was leaving for Washington. When Air Force One took off from Florida, the hijacked plane that crashed into the PA was still in the air and unaccounted for by the FAA. Bush then went to LA to get out of the air, and then continued on to assess the situation from the bunker in Nebraska, with his National Security committees and the Vice President at the White House from the situation room.

I'm sure you can find text of the pentagon press conference where Secretary of Defense was talking about the threat. Even though, there was a lot of speculation by media outlets, because the officials from the Pentagon were simply saying that there was "considerable" evidence of a threat on both: the White House and Air Force One. It was mentioned that the PA hijacked plane or the Pentagon plane could have been aimed at Andrews Air Force Base *after* Bush landed. This may be why Bush arrived at the White House under protection of multiple decoys, or at least a little more reason why it wasn't released *where* he was on his way too. At that point, the government was in shock.

So, in essence, anything that anyone says about Air Force One or the White House being threatened is pure speculation. The Pentagon is not releasing anything about intelligence or how they gathered it. This is proven by what Ashcroft and the Secretary of Defense said during an earlier press conference today.

Hopefully this helps.

Re:Airport Security... Simple Idea

[WayneGayle]

Why the hell can't we have cameras on airliners broadcast video to the ground or satellites? Would it be too hard or too expensive? I can get a webcam for under $50 i'm sure, why can't airlines?

Knives, screw drivers...

[Gastropod_ca]

Man there were a couple times that I flew from Canada to the States and back with some tools, like a screw driver in my carry on. I always carry them around to fix up my bike and I forgot I had them when I was travelling by plane.

The security people teased me a little about it, but I was allowed to take them with me. The bicycle pump looked like a pipe bomb under the x-ray apparently.

But to think that this tragedy started with these bastards stabbing stuardesses and pilots. It would be so easy to hide stabbing weapons in something. You can never fully detect that. Even a plastic stabbing weapon could be used.

One thing is certain now though. If hi-jackers take over a plane now.... a lot more people on board will try to be a hero(which we are told not to do). I'm am glad those passengers on the PA flight stopped them before they got to their destination.

Re:Knives, screw drivers...

[DuckyDog]

Serious weapons can be easily smuggled onto an airplane. I own a 100% ceramic pocket knife and I don't even bother to take it out of my pocket when going though security because it doesn't set off the metal detector. There are off-the-shelf, non-metallic guns who do not set off the alarms either. All it takes is money. While we need the metal detectors to catch the unsophisticated hijacker, in this day we need much, much more. The airport is one place where I'd be willing to acceptuniversal face scanning and recognition.

Re:What can be done about terrorism? --kill em all

[M0rt]

I do not know if this is obvious to everyone else but I want to say it. This act has proved that terrorists are a signifigant threat to EVERYONE. Any of us could have been visiting that area.

In effect this act has opened hunting season on every terrorist on the planet. Not just the ones that are capable of this large of a disaster, but any terrorist group that can eventually grow to this threat level.

I think that the community of terrorists have been smart enough up until now not to threaten everyone like this because they knew it would be their deaths. If you see a bombing in an embessy in some country you never heard of and you think, what a shame. But a major coordinated attack against a place I might have actually visited makes me fear for my life.

If they have any intelligence anyone who calls themselves a terrorist better destroy any proof of what they are and go strait. Other wise they will end up dead. I am sure that the the governmets will not stop hunting these people down even after they get the ones responsible for the WTC attacks.

I almost went down and signed up for the military. I just wanted to get the chance to kill these bastards. If you can get a slacker like me to want to join up then imagine what effect this has on our military. The people who signed up to defend our country before they were threatened.

I appologize for my poor writing skills, I failed english many times.

After all, sheep will be sheep

[dmccarty]

Experts seem to agree that security measures can never completely prevent a determined, well organized attempt involving suicide killers.

If there is one reason why wolves prey on sheep, it is simply because sheep behave like sheep. If sheep banded together and fought off the wolves, limited as a sheep's natural defenses are, wolves would not kill sheep.

It's a simple parallel, but the metaphor is strong. Bank robberies commit robberies because they believe they will get money. Kidnappers steal children because they believe it will be profitable. Hijackers hijack planes because they believe they will be successful. If average citizens really hated terrorism, if they hated it so much that they were willing to sacrifice their own lives as a deterrant to future terrorist acts, terrorists would realize that their attacks would be fruitless.

The whole idea of a hostage is the assumption that a person threatens the life of another person who doesn't want to lose theirs. If people weren't averse to losing their lives in the name of stopping a global evil--terrorism--perhaps we wouldn't see those evils take place. It's ironic that one of our most cherished Western qualities, the sanctity of life, is also what makes us so vulnerable to those who don't hold that to be an important trait.

But ultimately, I don't think it can happen. What parent would be the first to give up a child? What passenger would be the first to take the bullet when they rush the hijackers? What bank customer would be willing to confront an armed gunman? But if us sheep could stop being sheep, I think something special would happen...

Re:After all, sheep will be sheep

[ZaMoose]

What parent would be the first to give up a child? What passenger would be the first to take the bullet when they rush the hijackers? What bank customer would be willing to confront an armed gunman?

Apparently the passengers and flight crew of the plane that went down near Pittsburgh, PA. Reports of struggle from cell-phone witnesses and a wildly out of control airplane have strongly suggested that those aboard were doing their active best to resist.

I've been thinking about this, and everyone seems to agree that arming pilots with projectile weapons would be a Bad Idea(tm). Well, what about arming flight crews and steward(esse)s with passive restraint weapons? Tasers, stun guns, pepper spray, etc.

I also like the idea of a fully sealed flight deck. Maybe you could selectively, partially depressurize the passenger cabin, enough to at least immobilize the hijackers by way of oxygen deprivation. Or even release sleeping gas/etc. and knock 'em all out. Then go "Passenger 57" on their sorry terrorist butts.

Re:After all, sheep will be sheep

[archen]

I think that perhaps if this scenario happens again it might be a bit different. A few weeks ago, had someone hijacked a plane, I would have just sat there. I mean we've seen this on TV; plane is hijacked, hijackers demand stuff - they get it or they don't, most people get out alive.

If I were on a plane now and a plane were hijacked, I'd jump the closest hijacker immediatly and try to tear out his throat before the other guys stabbed me to death. I think this tradgedy that has taken place might change the minds of how people behave in these situations. I'd sure as hell rather die gouging some terrorist eyes out than end up a passenger watching in terror as the plane hits the side of a sky scraper.

Re:After all, sheep will be sheep

[Dastardly]

Bingo!!! This is a one time ocurrence. Knives won't cut it. Guns, maybe.

In a very real sense this was the biggest con/bluff in history, and from now on it will probably get called because the rosks of not calling it are too high.

Re:After all, sheep will be sheep

[IronChef]

What bank customer would be willing to confront an armed gunman?

Me. I carry a gun, legally, and I am a very good shot. A damn good shot. If some headcase starts waving a gun around threatening people and I am nearby, I'm going to do what I have to in order to protect the people around me.

More people need to adopt that attitude. Society would be better off if more people were selfless and willing to defend the public and themselves.

Like you said, people are sheep. I hope that recent events will get some of the sheep thinking critically about their role in society.

Re:After all, sheep will be sheep

[Riktov]

That's not what dmccarty is talking about.

If you were unarmed with no means of resistance, and a terrorist with a gun to your head announced to the world that unless his imprisoned fellow terrorist is freed he would pull the trigger, would you say, "I refuse to accede to your demands. Go ahead and kill me."?

Re:After all, sheep will be sheep

[IronChef]

No, I'd probably crap myself! You're really on the spot in the situation you have proposed. But give the choice between fighting and giving up -- like in a bank robbery, or a hijacking where someone's talking crazy and waving a weapon -- you have to fight. There, you have a chance. It's not instant death, as if a gun was already to your head.

I'm not saying it would be easy to jump a guy with a weapon. One's nerve could fail. But if more people were willing to fight the wolf, we'd all be better off as a society.

Re:His name was Timothy McViegh!

[gstovall]

I don't think Mr. McViegh was a Christian, any more than I believe that any of the "Islamic terrorists" are true believers of Islam. Both faiths teach peace and forgiveness. It's perversions of the faiths that leads to the McVeighs and the Bin Ladens of the world.

If true, this is amazing

[phillymjs]

While headed into downtown Philly today I heard on the radio that a guy was pulled out of the WTC rubble today, alive, and "not really hurt that badly," according to someone who I presume would be one of the rescuers who pulled him out.

The amazing-if-true part is that he said he was on the 80th floor of one of the buildings when it collapsed... I was only kinda half listening at the time, so I don't have complete specifics.

If it's not BS, that dude must have had one hell of a ride.

Anyone else hear this? Still nothing on CNN.com about that guy.

~Philly

Re:If true, this is amazing

[linzeal]

83rd floor and he was a firefighter. Probably means any stranglers were dead above the 83rd floor if he was part of the main firefighter contigincy.

Re:If true, this is amazing

[joss]

> PLEASE contact your Congressional representatives and tell them you support full scale nuclear war against Sudan, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I sure hope you're trolling.

Pakistan has nukes itself. Even though I can believe you would be prepared to see the deaths of 1,000,000s of Pakistani's in order to get revenge for the attack, I find it hard to believe that you would be prepared to see 1,000,000s of Americans die to achieve this.

Maybe I'm wrong though, maybe you really are that "patriotic".

Re:What can be done? Nothing.

[1010011010]

How about killing the brains and money that convinced these chuckleheads that suicide attacks are glorious? Knock the head off the beast.

Re:What can be done? Nothing.

[AntiFreeze]

You are absolutely correct. Terrorism's point is to force a change within your target -- in this case, retaliation could be exactly what the terrorists are hoping for. I sure don't know what they're thinking.

Doing absolutely nothing would be an impressive reaction. But it will never happen. America must react. Why? My reasoning is slightly different than yours: Politicians must fight for re-election. Any politician who is against retaliation would be comitting professional suicide. Speaking of reservations is one thing, but doing anything other than fully going along with whatever the President's plan will be would cause a massive public uproar. This has caused to much pain for too many people -- ignoring it is not an option. Emotions conflict with logical reasoning. I've unfortunately encounterred this sentiment more frequently than I'd like to admit.

Re:Censored Photos or Video?

[seizer]

censoring could have a place.

the reason they aren't showing any pics of the PA crash, is almost without doubt because the casualties are very very graphically and plainly visible. it would be in shocking taste to show these pictures - even the footage of people jumping is almost beyond belief.

once the situation cools, *then* there is a place for these images. to see them now would be too shocking, too disturbing, and just bloody irrelevant. these images are for calm review, not for hotblooded perusal.

US foreign policy, not global trade, the issue

[Ars-Fartsica]

Global commerce has little to do with this issue. More relevant is US support for Israel and the oil sheiks. The Islamic fundamentalists want the oil sheiks out of the Middle East so they can turn the monarchies (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait), into theocracies (Afghanistan).

I am not condemming US policy - the US was right to support the Israelis, and the oil sheiks have been filling our cars with cheap gas for decades.

Re:US foreign policy, not global trade, the issue

[theMAGE]

the oil sheiks have been filling our cars with cheap gas for decades

And this is a service to you, how?

The car manufacturers and the oil corp keep singing you "Buy these BIG cars" and you sheepishly keep buying them and feel happy with you big new penis extension... and they are happy with your money

Re:US foreign policy, not global trade, the issue

[cs668]

I think this goes beyond US support for Israel.

I think that to reach this level of fanaticism you have to have people that are so fundamentalist that our way of life is incompatible with their belief system.

The US becomes the symbol of a lifestile that they can not tolerate.

I don't think a policy change is going to help something like this. We would have to change

Re:US foreign policy, not global trade, the issue

[cs668]

Oops:

I think this goes beyond US support for Israel.

I think that to reach this level of fanaticism you have to have people that are so fundamentalist that our way of life is incompatible with their belief system.

The US becomes the symbol of a lifestile that they can not tolerate.

I don't think a policy change is going to help something like this. We would have to change our whole Ideology, and I personally am not ready to go fundamentalist.

Re:US foreign policy, not global trade, the issue

[angel'o'sphere]

see your children starving to death ....
see your children dieing on contamination caused by A-10 amunition used in Kuweit/Iraq ...
see your children die on simple deseases because the embargo let not enough medicals through ....
see your children be killed by armed civilians thinking your child had a stone in his hand where it was dried bread ...

I don't think you need to be a fundamentalist to think you have to d something.
In fact those are the people believing in liberty, those are the people who are not free and prefere to die instead to live under -no freedom-.

USA denies everybodies freedom except their own citicens' (at least their own citicens believe they are free, nice trick)

Why does a country, seeming to believe in personal freedom, not understand, that all other people also like to be free?

Regards,
angel'o'sphere

Re:US foreign policy, not global trade, the issue

[jiheison]

I think it is a mistake to assume that there is no rationale behind the hatred for the US. It excuses us from addressing our own shortcomings, and justifys our own irrational violence.

Terrorists would not be attacking us if we were not a bully in the international community. In fact, when it comes to identifying other lifesyles & political systems that simply can not be tolerated, we are the most guilty. No one has rained more destruction on its ideological enemies than the US.

Re:US foreign policy, not global trade, the issue

[jcast]

Note: The US is over here. Middle Eastern dictatorships are over there. Gues which one is doing more to take away their freedom?

Re:US foreign policy, not global trade, the issue

[pcidevel]

see your children starving to death ....

And this is the US's fault how?..

see your children dieing on contamination caused by A-10 amunition used in Kuweit/Iraq ...

I've got a bright idea.. don't try to take over another country and we won't come in a shoot at you.. Iraq clearly started that fight..

see your children die on simple deseases because the embargo let not enough medicals through ....

Again.. don't start wars with us you aren't prepared to fight.. I'm sorry that there is a trade embargo against these countries.. but again and again they prove they need to be punished (see the events of yesterday).. Get a clue, act like adults and we treat you like adults..

see your children be killed by armed civilians thinking your child had a stone in his hand where it was dried bread ...

Again.. this is the US's fault how?.. The Arabic people are shooting each other because of us?.. doubt it..

USA denies everybodies freedom except their own citicens' (at least their own citicens believe they are free, nice trick)

How are we making anyone in the Middle East 'not free'?.. They have their own rulers.. we only ask that they don't invade neighboring countries that happen to be our allies.. that isn't restricting the freedom of the people in the Arabic countries.. How are the US citizen's not free?.. please give a few examples...

Re:US foreign policy, not global trade, the issue

[Ars-Fartsica]

And this is a service to you, how?

Uh, cheap gas?

The reat of your post is gibberish.

Re:US foreign policy, not global trade, the issue

[Ars-Fartsica]

I've got a bright idea.. don't try to take over another country and we won't come in a shoot at you.. Iraq clearly started that fight.

Agreed. And the US was right to drive them back. But you did not protect freedom or democracy. Kuwait is a monarchist dictatorship. It is legal to hold foreig slaves in Kuwait. There Philipinos servants held in virtual bondage by their employers, with the consent of the Kuwaiti government.

The woman who went to the UN to talk to the Assembly about her rape at the hands of Iraqi soldiers was in fact an ambassador's daughter who was not in Kuwait during the invasion.

Note that the US has also, at other times in history, bankrolled and supported Iraq. And Iran. And Afghanistan. Every time it suited a justifiable foreign policy decision.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT RIGHT AND WRONG.

How are we making anyone in the Middle East 'not free'?

A good, if not somewhat naive, question. The US has interfered in Middle East politics for decades.

• The US supported the corrupt regime of the Shah in Iran (so did the Brits).
• The US supported the Afghan militias during the Soviet invasion. Osama bin Laden was trained under this support. The same people the US equipped, now rule Afghanistan.
• The US has alternately supported and destabilized Iran and Iraq at various times.
• The US has propped up the corrupt monarchies in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
• ...and more

I am not claiming that any of these acts were "wrong" - people need to get over the notion that nations act for "right" or "wrong" - these are simplistic notions for children. Nations act in their own interests, as the US did.

Re:US foreign policy, not global trade, the issue

[pcidevel]

The US supported the corrupt regime of the Shah in Iran (so did the Brits).
The US supported the Afghan militias during the Soviet invasion. Osama bin Laden was trained under this support. The same people the US equipped, now rule Afghanistan.
The US has alternately supported and destabilized Iran and Iraq at various times.
The US has propped up the corrupt monarchies in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
...and more

None of these examples show how the United States prevented stood in the way of the Freedom of the Arabic people.. I'm sorry that the Arabic leaders are keeping the Arabic people from their deserved freedom, but this isn't the US.. these people that are fighting a 'War of Terrorism' against the US are the very people restricting the freedom of the Arabic peoples... It's incredibly hypocritical for them to be constantly shouting how they are fighting the US in the name of freedom, when these people (Hussien, bin Laden, et al) are the very people that are performing atrocities and restricting the freedom of their people..

When a country is at war with one of our enemies, we may help to fund those wars... It's in our own self interst to do this.. This is in no way a restriction of the freedom of the people of those countries.. and we are more than allowed to change our opinions at a later date if these countries suddenly become a threat to our nation..

Re:US foreign policy, not global trade, the issue

[Ars-Fartsica]

None of these examples show how the United States prevented stood in the way of the Freedom of the Arabic people.

Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator. He was supported and bankrolled by the US during the Iran/Iraq war (back when Iran was enemy #1). Saddam Hussein would not be in power if it were not for US support. The US made Saddam and then couldn't break him.

When a country is at war with one of our enemies, we may help to fund those wars... It's in our own self interst to do this.. This is in no way a restriction of the freedom of the people of those countries.

Well, when the US bankrolls inept dictators like the Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein, or when it bankrolls extreme Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan (during the Soviet invasion), it isn't exactly helping the cause of freedom. People need to get over the notion that the US acts to preserve freedom or democracy overseas. In fact, looking at Chile and other South American nations, the US has from time to time undermined the democratically elected leader in favor of a dictator - Pinochet for example.

Re:US foreign policy, not global trade, the issue

[jiheison]

None of these examples show how the United States prevented stood in the way of the Freedom of the Arabic people.

How is actively supporting a repressive regime not considered standing in the way of freedom. These are our one time/current allies, and we are helping them continue to abuse their people.

It's incredibly hypocritical for them to be constantly shouting how they are fighting the US in the name of freedom

Listen up dude, they aren't. They just want us out of their affairs. When they say freedom they mean freedom from America's influence, not the personal freedom that Americans talk about. These aren't democracies.

When a country is at war with one of our enemies, we may help to fund those wars... It's in our own self interst to do this.

Exactly. As natural as it may be, no one should expect a pat on the back for putting their own self-interest before the lives of others.

Re:US foreign policy, not global trade, the issue

[Ars-Fartsica]

What evidence is there that without US support of Saddam, he wouldn't still be a ruthless dictator (or someone else just like him)?

Well, Saddam would have never have been able to hold on to power without the ruthless enforcement of his own private guard (the Republican Guard), who eventually came to dominate the military. I hold it to be self-evident that he is in control largely due to US support back in the 70s.

As for who would be in control if he wasn't on the scene, most likely another autocratic nut or a fundamentalist Islamic regime - both equally odious.

Re:US foreign policy, not global trade, the issue

[Ars-Fartsica]

When they say freedom they mean freedom from America's influence, not the personal freedom that Americans talk about.

Precisely. Although now it is too late to withdraw - we are committed.

It is important to note that the Islamic fundamentalists hold the US responsible not only for (rightly) backing Israel, but for propping up the corrupt monarchies in the oil rich arab nations (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc.). While Islam is the state religion in the monarchist states, they are not full-on theocracies and are more or less US lapdogs.

Re:US foreign policy, not global trade, the issue

[lytefoot]

If we give someone a gun, and he shoots someone, are we to blame? We wouldn't be to blame if he got the gun himself, but once we're involved, we have responsibility. Even if he would, in the normal course of events, gotten his own gun or opted for a knife instead, by choosing to become involved we have accepted responsibility.

Please don't automatically fault the critical thinking skills of college students; some of us have yet to acquire our visual blockers.

Re:US foreign policy, not global trade, the issue

[eean]

Why should we support the Israelis? The Palestinans got kicked out of their homes. Since like if we should support anyone it is them.

Re:US foreign policy, not global trade, the issue

[mcskoufis]

Guys I know is really terrible what happened. But the US have been involved in far too many diplomatic "attrocities" during the past. Apart from the middle east crisis in which the US take clearly the part of Israel do you remember a few years ago in Yugoslavia what happened?

The peace makers britain and US were bombarding hospitals, schools and other fundamental resources that are targeting innocent civilians!

In Iraq the same, in cyprus thousands of people went missing under the turkish intrusion which was masterminded with the CIA and the military juda they helped bring to power in Greece and still 30 years later still support its turkish interests.

Not to mention vietnam!

IS THIS OK WITH YOU? Do you expect people will do nothing just because you are stronger?

Then why all this fuss about Microsoft? Isn't it the same sort of global monopoly?

But of course you are not even aware of this right?

(for the record i'm greek...)

Re:US foreign policy, not global trade, the issue

[Kharny]

Who told you that the US is right in backing Israel???? Israel has commited numerous crimes against humanity in the last couple of years. Maybe the US should stop supporting israel and instead get both parties in the peace process together, instead of actively supporting one.

PS: offcourse i'm totally against terrorist attacks against civilian targets such as the WTC.

Re:US foreign policy, not global trade, the issue

[HeghmoH]

Everybody else is ripping your other stuff to shreds, so I'll concentrate on the one thing they're ignoring.

A-10 ammunition doesn't cause harm unless you get hit by it, in which case it causes a great deal of harm. End of story.

The fearmongering by people claiming that it causes cancer and whatever crap is totally made-up. If you look at the mechanics of the thing, there isn't any way it could happen.

Re:US foreign policy, not global trade, the issue

[Diomedes01]

Exactly... the shells are made from depleted Uranium, which is heavy and will shred things very nicely; it is not, however, radioactive. This is just FUD being spread by the "Help the poor Iraqi children" foundations of the world. I mean, really. I'm sorry that these kids have no medical supplies and no food, but it is certainly not the fault of the US. People need to realize that the Iraqi government brought this down on itself, as will the Taliban (if Bin Laden is indeed confirmed as the one behind these attacks).

Re:US foreign policy, not global trade, the issue

[plague3106]

So is cheap gas worth risking more terroist attacks?

Re:US foreign policy, not global trade, the issue

[HeghmoH]

What is "radioactive"? Yes, U238 is technically "radioactive" in that it gives off a certain amount of radiation, but so is that computer you're sitting at right now, and every single other object you interact with on a daily basis.

Re:US foreign policy, not global trade, the issue

[/ASCII]

If you have reason to belive that the gun will be used for murder, you are responsible. I would even go as far as to say that if you sell someone a gun withou looking him up, to see that there is no reason to suspect he would use the gun on someon else, you are responsible.

Re:US foreign policy, not global trade, the issue

[HeghmoH]

Go grab a geiger counter and hold it up to the side of a brick house sometime.

The comparison between bath water and lava is so totally inappropriate that it blows my mind. You say the half-life of protons is more than the age of the universe, which is correct. Well, the half-life of U238 is a full one-half or one-third the current age of the universe!

I mean, good Christ, you have a million times the cancer risk from the possibility of radon in your BASEMENT than those soldiers who handled the ammunition, or those people who live in the area where it was used. Coal power plants put, hmm, URANIUM into the air! Where people breathe it! Do you or anybody else complain about radioactive materials release from coal power plants? No, even though there's more radioactive crap released from a coal power plant than from a nuclear one. You could make bricks out of the depleted U238 from those bullets and use them as decent radiation SHIELDING.

The idiocy of people when it comes to radiation and radioactivity never ceases to amaze me.

Re:US foreign policy, not global trade, the issue

[jiheison]

Although now it is too late to withdraw - we are committed.

The fact that we are commited does not mean that our position is defensible from a moral standpoint. The land in Saudi Arabia is considered holy by Islam and our military occupation of its lands and influence over its leaders is an affront to their most deeply held values.

Why does the average american cry foul when countries such as China try to buy influence here, but blindly assume some kind of god given right to manipulate the goverments of the rest of the world in pusuance of our economic goals? This kind of arrogance is why we will continue to be a target.

Re:US foreign policy, not global trade, the issue

[HeghmoH]

You're right it is innapropriate. Lava, at 1,000 to 1,500 degrees kelvin, is only three to five times hotter than my bathwater, which I like to keep between 300 and 310 degrees kelvin. It doesn't seem particularly ridiculous to suggest that concentrated Uranium 238 could be three to five times as radioactive as my monitor. Of course, comparing the electromagnetic radiation of a computer monitor to the nuclear radiation from uranium is comparing apples to oranges anyway.

Let's try, oh, mercury concentrations in your drinking water instead of this temperature bullshit. Multiplying the amount of mercury in your drinking water by ten isn't going to result in any premature death.

I wasn't talking about the electromagnetic radiation from your monitor, I was talking about the natural radioactivity as a result of trace radioactive elements in the monitor's structure.

As for using U238 for radiation shielding... I'm sure you could. It would make about as much sense as using acetic acid to wash hydrochloric acid out of your eyes instead of water or, better yet, saline solution. In other words, sure you could, but non-radioctive lead would more sense. The only reason you would want to is if you wanted to deal with something extremely radiactive and the U238 was the only sheilding available.

More like using tap water to wash out your eyes instead of distilled water.

According to http://www.ieer.org/fctsheet/pu-props.html, the radioactivity of Plutonium is 17.3 curies/gram. http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/natural.htm puts the radioactivity of Uranium at 0.7pCi/g, around twenty million times less. And lastly, http://www.pu.org/main/facts/pu.html has a picture of a guy handling a big lump of plutonium just wrapped in plastic, wearing nothing but some rubber gloves.

Actually, yes. I worry about radon too, but it's not an issue in my appartment.

I wasn't talking about radon, I was talking about uranium in the coal exhaust. According to http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-34/text/colma in.html, worldwide about 5,000 tons of uranium and 12,000 tons of thorium were released into the atmosphere by coal burning.

And yet nobody seems to worry about that anywhere near like people worry about the much smaller amount of uranium involved in the A-10's depleted uranium ammunition.

Yes. It never ceases to amaze me either. That's why I wrote a reply in response to a poster who claimed that so-called "depleted" uranium isn't radioactive.

I didn't say it wasn't radioactive, just that it's not radioactive enough to worry about.

Now that one of us has quoted some numbers to support his argument, is the other one going to? Something tells me it's just going to be more of the same bullshit.

Re:Airport Security... Simple Idea

[Unknown Poltroon]

for the same reason you dont want camers watching you every other damn place.

But does that mean...

[MadCow42]

Interesting...

Now, does this mean that the U.S. must consult with the Security Council before taking any action? ("Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council")

I'm not sure if that's the case, but it might help temper a hot-handed solution the U.S. might think up on it's own (although I hope it wouldn't go that far), and if so, it's a pretty damn smart move on NATO's part.

Just thinkin...

MadCow.

Re:But does that mean...

[Ghoser777]

No, it just means we have to tell them THAT we did it, not before we do it. It would be kind of hard to report our actions before we make them in the middle of a battle or something like that. Also, it would be a considerable security risk, especially if the terrorists (whoever they are) tep into out lines.

F-bacher

From Space

[neema]

This website has many images of the disaster from space. Out of all the images, I found this one the most disturbing.

$1.1M and counting

[sulli]

Keep those donations coming!!

Psalm 20

[Webmoth]

For those /.'ers of a Christian bent, I would like to quote the 20th Psalm (KJV) in hopes of providing comfort and encouragement. For those of other religious persuasions, I hope that you will be able to find comfort and encouragement through your favorite channels.

The LORD hear thee in the day of trouble; the name of the God of Jacob defend thee; Send thee help from the sanctuary, and strengthen thee out of Zion; Remember all thy offerings, and accept thy burnt sacrifice. Grant thee according to thine own heart, and fulfil all thy counsel. We will rejoice in thy salvation, and in the name of our God we will set up our banners: the LORD fulfil all thy petitions. Now know I that the LORD saveth his anointed; he will hear him from his holy heaven with the saving strength of his right hand. Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. They are brought down and fallen: but we are risen, and stand upright. Save, LORD: let the king hear us when we call.

Fly your flag "in the name of our God." It is God who strengthens us out of Zion; it is God who defends us; it is God who sends us help from the sanctuary.

--Jon

encourage people to conserve bandwith

[twitter]

What's up with the promotion of audio and video sites?! The phone network is dammaged and jammed so the internet is the only useful means of communication many people have. Let them use it for their mail or personal communications! We should disscourage people from visiting sites that simply package things that can be had by traditional broadcast methods (remember radio and TV?), especially video formats.

Re:encourage people to conserve bandwith

[nettdata]

But how many people have a TV or radio in their cube?

Re:encourage people to conserve bandwith

[twitter]

I don't have a TV in my cube, but it did not matter. My wife was home and told me stuff while it happened. Lots of people here had radios, and anyone can for less than ten bucks. That and a few still images were all I needed. If you surf with images and plugins turned off, your surfing will be faster and less taxing to the rest of the world. I did not even bother to watch reruns when I got home.

Please try to limit your communications to text and a few small images until everyone is accounted for. Real information exchange is more important than adverts and canned junk that looks better on TV anyway.

Patently ridiculous

[Ars-Fartsica]

The only effective weapon against terrorism is to do absolutely nothing.

How absurd. Are you suggesting taking the extra police off of the streets and not introducing any more effective security mesaures at airports? Precautions can protect you. You learn what precautions are useful from experience. You are suggesting that we not learn anything from this experience at all.

Re:Patently ridiculous

[torpor]

On the contrary, I'm suggesting we learn absolutely *everything* we can from this experience.

What other way is there to live ones life, after all?

I'm not saying don't take precautions. I'm just saying: we should not retaliate with further violence.

That will solve *nothing*. Well, actually, it might make for good politics - kill a few bad guys, lick our wounds, build a memorial with grass, make a tv-movie, blah blah blah, fell good about ourselves, etc.

But, functionally, it is not a solution to the problem here, which is that two entirely different groups of humans - people who live on and share the same planet and resources - are trying to control each other using violence.

That's really the problem: control.

The best way to solve this control problem: do nothing to make control easy for the opponent.

Re:Patently ridiculous

[FFFish]

That is an intriguing idea.

But let's refine it a little: rather than do *nothing*, do nothing violent. Don't retaliate with military might.

Rather, do a *lot* politically. Make sweeping changes to foreign political policies. Do the things that need doing -- and I have *no* idea what needs to be done -- to begin creating friendship with those nations that have traditionally treated America coolly or with contempt.

Bring the terrorists to justice, but do it subtlely. Develop cooperation with the governments that support them, and figure out how to get to them without drawing a lot of media attention to it.

The more friendships the US develops, the more supportive it is of other governments -- including those that aren't at all American-like in nature -- the more it can help civilians all over the world achieve a greater standard of living, the more it will find support and the less it will be threatened.

In other words, change the game. Tit-for-tat just creates martyrs. Play by different, bigger rules, and the terrorists become obsolete. Maybe.

Dunno if it would work. But you have raised an interesting idea.

Re:Patently ridiculous

[cc_pirate]

Yeah! That's what Chamberlain thought about Hitler. Just be nice to him. Maybe it's really everyone elses fault he's a baddie? Give him what he wants and don't rock the boat.

Guess what. It DOESN'T WORK!! The only thing these people understand is force. Their whole lives are nothing but brutal, brutalized events wherein the strongest have power over the weakest. The only way to stop them from attempting to exert their brutalizing power is to show them what real brutalizing power is!

Violence may not be "nice" and it may not be "civilized" but it solves problems. If you don't believe me, go ask the city fathers of Carthage about it.

Re:Patently ridiculous

[GMontag451]

Yeah! That's what Chamberlain thought about Hitler. Just be nice to him. Maybe it's really everyone elses fault he's a baddie? Give him what he wants and don't rock the boat.

False analogy. Hitler was not attacking Europe for religious reasons, or because Europe was oppressing them. Hitler attacked Europe because he and the German people felt they had the power to take over the world.

These Muslim fundamentalists, on the other hand, are doing it for religious and emotional reasons. Do you really think America could have sunuffed out the Civil Rights movement in the 60's by killing a lot of blacks?

Re:Patently ridiculous

[GMontag451]

Your logic can be applied to the Jews as well. Do you think they would stop until they have exterminated the muslims? Even if your argument is valid, which I dispute, I don't see how it has any bearing on my point. My point was that Muslim fundamentalists (if they were behind this attack at all) are not attacking us in order to take us over, but are attacking us in order to try to get us to stop supporting Israel. Maybe we should stop sticking our nose where it doesn't belong, and they would stop attacking us.

Re:Patently ridiculous

[GMontag451]

Yes. The jews do not have a history of trying to exterminate people they don't like. They have a history of killing people who bother them first. They don't believe they have a religious mandate to conquer the world.

Oh please. Read the Bible. There are numerous accounts of entire cities being wiped out because it was God's will for the Hebrews to live there. And for more recent examples, look at what is happening in the disputed territories. Israeli terrorists are killing more Palestinians than the other way around, mainly because we supply them weapons. The only reason you don't hear about it is because it is not politically correct to put Jews in a bad light. And yes they do have a religious belief that they will one day rule the world. It is part of the messianic tradition. Some day, God in the form of the messiah will come down and set up "the kingdom of God".

So we just let them exterminate the jews? I can't support this position. What if they decide to attack us because we don't *support* them?

Letting Israelies exterminate Palestinians is equally unsupportable. And I don't see China or England or Canada being attacked because they don't take sides.

In short, there is no moral reason to favor one side over the other in the Israeli - Palestinian conflict. There are fundamentalists on both sides that have committed, and continue to commit, atrocities. So please leave your anti-Muslim bigotry out of this discussion.

The Israel factor.

[Robber Baron]

This is an excerpt from an analysis I just received from Stratfor

The big winner today, intended or not, is the state of Israel.

Israel has been under siege by suicide bombers for more than a
year. It has responded by waging a systematic war against
Palestinian command structures. The international community,
particularly the United States, has pressured Israel heavily to
stop its operations. The argument has been made that the threat
of suicide bombings, though real, does not itself constitute a
genuine threat to Israeli national security and should not
trigger the kind of response Israel is making.

Today's events change all of this.

First, the United States no longer can argue that Israel should
endure the bombings. Moving forward, the domestic American
political mood simply won't tolerate such a stance.

Second, Israel now becomes, once again, an indispensable ally to
the United States. The United States is obviously going to launch
a massive covert and overt war against the international radical
Islamic movement that is assumed to be behind this attack. Not
only does this align U.S. and Israeli interests but it also makes
the United States dependent on the Israelis -- whose intelligence
capabilities in this area as well as covert operational
capabilities are clearly going to be needed.

Excuse me...big winner, intended or not?

Is this a suggestion that some Israeli faction might be involved?

Who benefits? Who pays?

I can't see this being a Palestinian operation. The last thing they want is a pissed-off US pouring more money into Israel. It might have been Bin Laden but I would've expected him to show more of a sick sense of "pride" in his handiwork. The Iraqis? maybe, but Iraq is monitored pretty closely and they know what it feels like to be on the receiving end of US ire. Answer who benefits and you might be close to uncovering the source of this wickedness.

This'll probably get modded to hell, but I don't care. Karma isn't everything.

Re:The Israel factor.

[Stonehand]

Ah, but don't forget that Saddam Hussein isn't the sort of person who seems to _mind_ being bombed -- he's decently safe himself, as long as his close associates decide not to assassinate him and his troops stick with him.

After all, there was an Iraqi plot to assassinate President Bush early during President Clinton's first term, if memory served. Trying to kill an ex-POTUS is pretty vengeful, and had it succeeded would have incurred a LOT of retalliation I'm sure.

Re:What can be done? Nothing.

[Dman33]

but if we kill terrorists, at least those we kill won't be able to do anything like this again.

Great idea, but it lacks the reality component. You see, you can kill them, kill them all. Then next year, there is another, and after him/her there is another. There will always be another. You see, terrorism will always exist as long as it is effective. As long as it spurs a reaction that may cause a nation to change.

The main objective of a terrorist is to make the civil public change their views which in turn changes public policy and the government's role. Does it always work? Not really. But it does make us think about the message. It makes us think "Why would someone be so desperate to make themselves heard that they would kill thousands of civilians as well as themselves?" That question is followed by the inevitable "...and what is that message??".

I am not saying that just ignoring this terrible attack is the way to go. I still think making whomever is responsible pay is a priority. But I think that we need to maintain our focus as a nation and to look into ways that we can make this type of terrorism ineffective and as difficult as possible to implement.

Something eery I found on Newsgroups

[Pengo]

google groups

This madman was warning people about the event before it happened! :-(

This guy seemed to be warning people on the newsgroup about the end of the world, etc etc. And that tomorrow you will understand my warnings, blah blah blah.

Maybe it's crap, but it's still fricken given me chills.

Re:Something eery I found on Newsgroups

[Hairy1]

The original threat was for the 31st however. Threats of this kind are always going on, so one within two weeks of this event wouldn't be significant.... except...

I saw a interview with the landlord of the house that the hijackers used that they originally took a lease on the house to the end of August, and had renewed the lease for only a couple more weeks.

In other words, the original date for the attack may have been the 31st of August or there abouts, but for some reason was delayed. This being the case it fits perfectly with the google posting. So in summary, I think these postings could very well have come from someone involved.

Re:Something eery I found on Newsgroups

[Lostman]

Ok.. this guy has now bothered me extremely.

Read down the page to what he wrote: He wrote (on 9/4) "Wait 7 days, and then maybe I'll answer this post. You see, I am going away
in seven days, and you will not hear from me again."

I understand completely what you said about getting chills...

Re:Something eery I found on Newsgroups

[reflector]

Will you stop posting that crap already? What's that, like the 5th time you've posted that link? And no, he didn't say anything about planes, or NYC, or the pentagon. The only thing to note here is that he wants attention and you're gullible.

NY Times front page

[sulli]

is at this location, for what it's worth.

Huge outpourings of generosity

[Mtgman]

Not only monetarially, even though my company has donated over $500,000 already, there have been many, many more stories of fantastic generosity in the face of these attacks. Allow me to share a story.

I have a story to relate about blood donating today. My wife Melissa and I went to our local donation center yesterday to try to donate blood. We picked our daughter Alexis up early from school and went to stand in line. We got there around 3 and put our names on the list. After waiting about 45 minutes or so we were told it would be at least a couple more hours, so we went home and made some sandwiches and had a light dinner, then went back around 5. Around 6:20 we were told the nurses were exhausted and wouldn't be able to get very many more people through and we were asked to make appointments for donating the next day. We made an appointment for noon the next day and left.

All of that is kind of peripheral to the story though. The real story is the vast number of other people who were there. There was a line of people out the door and halfway around the building. I'd estimate a hundred people or more. For a donation center which only services about a dozen people a day on a regular day, this was an extremely busy day. They were eliminating much of the paperwork and putting it off so they could keep up the rate at which they actually drew blood(I later found out that they had stayed past 11 to catch up on the paperwork even though they stopped drawing blood around 7). But the donors were there, and they stayed there for HOURS. There were people who were there, standing outside the doors of the donation center, from before noon until almost 6 PM. The mood was very friendly, there was not too much chatting, everything was kind of subdued, but optimistic and glad to do whatever they could to help, even though they were hundreds of miles away(the DFW area) and no one I spoke with knew anyone in those areas. They were just there because they felt it was the right thing to do. There was a little bit of grumbling when people were turned away, but most made future appointments.

Today Melissa and I went back for our noon appointment. The place was packed again. There was a line out the door AGAIN! There were donations of food and refreshments from local stores. Papa Johns pizza had a person who had come out early that morning with the back of his SUV loaded with pizza and sodas. He donated blood and then spent the rest of the day handing out pizza and drinks to any and everyone who wanted some who was waiting in line. He left a couple of times to go get more and fresh pizza for the staff and people donating. The backup and wait was large again. People were taking a number, getting a time estimate of when their number would be called then going back to work and calling in when their time was close. If they were about to be called, they left work and came back. And they REALLY DID COME BACK!

Jason's Deli dropped off several party trays of snacks and bags and bags of deli sandwiches like they would bring to a catered event. The Kroger down the street came by with supplies of bottled water and food because many people, myself included, were skipping lunch to come stand in line. Both today and last night there were several people who took the day off work/school to volunteer at the center to handle the non-medical work. They were passing out questionnaires, making sure all the donor info was filled out correctly, keeping the lines flowing smoothly and doing their best to keep the work flowing well. I estimate six or seven volunteers last night and an equal number today. Things like bringing new bags and tourniquets for the nurses, keeping the lines in order, walking up and down the lines answering questions about the wait, how long you have to wait between donations, reassuring people who were first-time donors and who were nervous.

There was a young man who skipped school today because he felt that volunteering to help the nurses at the donation center was more important. When I saw him he was helping a woman who was feeling faint after donating by keeping her company and keeping a cool, wet rag on her forehead and bringing her drinks and snacks. He was running errands for the nurses and helping patients in any way he could. He was cracking jokes and making many people feel more comfortable during what is a very nerve wracking experience for first time donors. The nurses expressed their appreciation for his efforts a couple of times in the short time I was there.

The number of people who shared their time, their money, their very lifeblood(literally!) to give aid to strangers whom they shared nothing with except the distinction of being Americans. Then the acknowledgement of the needs of the support workers who do vital things like draw blood and the outpouring of help given by volunteers and local businesses. Melissa and I were spending time re-assuring first time donors(I've donated well over a gallon and Melissa has donated several times as well) and while she was on the table(after I was done) I took the kids and went across the street and purchased several gallons of orange juice and apple juice to stock the pantry of the donation center(it is important to drink juice or water, not soda, because soda is a diuretic). I wish I could do more and so do many of the other people who were in line. America has a fantastic reputation for pulling together in a time of crisis, and I consider myself privileged to have been in the same room with so many giving, caring people yesterday and today. If any of you can, please donate blood and/or support the Red Cross.

I'm including a snippet of an email sent out to us at work with contact info for the local Red Cross and donation info. If you're not in the DFW area, please look up your local chapter and ask what they need. Typically they need money because they can't ship supplies up there due to air travel restrictions.

If you would like to donate money, you can make checks payable to Red Cross, and mail directly to:

Red Cross
4800 Harry Hines Blvd.
Dallas, TX 75235

Writing DR789 in the memo line of your check will ensure the money goes directly to the victims of the WTC and Pentagon tragedies.

Or, you can call 1-800-HELP-NOW to make a donation by phone. For more information, go to the Red Cross website at www.redcross.org. Since they are having heavy web traffic today, you may or may not be able to access the site.

Steven

Re:Huge outpourings of generosity

[Mtgman]

I wish I had thought about it when I originally posted that, but the number of people across the metroplex who have been donating blood and helping is staggering. Lest someone look at my figures of a hundred people yesterday and today and think that palty, I would remind you that there were no less than a dozen small centers like the one I was at, all at least equally busy and there were several emergency blood drives set up. The largest was at Reunion Arena in Downtown Dallas and had over 1,600 people in line to donate blood. They had 35 nurses drawing blood full-time and over a hundred assistants and the line was still just barely crawling. The estimated time for those waiting in line was over 8 hours! They had to ask all the non-O type blood donors to go home and come back tomorrow because they couldn't keep up with the sheer press of people who were there to give the gift of life in the wake of this tragedy. All in all there have been thousands and thousands of units of blood donated across the DFW area in the past 36 hours. An amazing response. And as I said in my original post, those who were sent home, even after waiting hours and hours, still CAME BACK THE NEXT DAY! They waited hours AGAIN! All to donate blood for people they don't know, and who will probably never meet. Truly a great gift in todays age of impatience and lack of leisure time.

Steven

Re:Huge outpourings of generosity

[EisPick]

Just worth noting: My local hospital here in Virginia is asking people to wait a few weeks or months to donate blood. They have more than they need now, but anticipate returning to the chronic shortage of blood they've had for years once the publicity wears off.

Don't just give blood today. Give blood regularly.

Re:Huge outpourings of generosity

[Mtgman]

Agreed. You might have noticed that I mentioned I am a gallon-plus donor myself and my wife has donated multiple times as well. Our local office said they need 12 donations a day to keep up with local demand. Usually they don't get it and have to do blood drives.

Everyone, make it a point to donate at every opportunity. Believe me, it's one of the best things you can do for your fellow human beings at ANY time.

Steven

Re:Huge outpourings of generosity

[Tadu]

to give aid to strangers whom they shared nothing with except the distinction of being Americans.

Aha[tm]. Of being Americans. Like all people in WTC where Americans as well? rrrright. :-(

Re:Huge outpourings of generosity

[Telek]

Wow, very good and touching post. Nice to know that sort of kindness still exists, nice to hear about it again and again after such a tragedy.

I just had one thing that I wanted to point out:

to give aid to strangers whom they shared nothing with except the distinction of being Americans

I would modify that last part to say "except with the distinction of being free, alive and greatful humans". I am Canadian. I donated blood for the event as I know that if the need is there, blood will be shipped from here. And besides, it's always good to do so. They actually waved (partially) the usual 56-day waiting period between donating blood to ensure that they could get what they could get. I must admit though that the lineups here weren't nearly as long, but they were definitely at capacity all day.

Re:Huge outpourings of generosity

[Mtgman]

Mea Culpa. I cut and pasted this from an email that I had sent to my family. I made some modifications because it was going out to a much larger audience who doesn't know me as well(adding qualifiers about who Melissa and Alexis are). I have been called on this point twice now, and I wish I had thought about it before I posted it. Sigh.

Steven

Re:Huge outpourings of generosity

[Telek]

Hey! That's ok!! I wasn't trying to cut you up or anything, just point out that we feel the same way too =) It was a very nice post =).

I changed my ICQ message to this today:

The normal message-of-the-day has been suspended due to unprecidented cowardly terrorist attacks in the United States. My thoughts and prayers go out to all who are victims and their of this horrible atrocity. May their passings pave the way towards a new era of peace and harmony between nations.

Hey, optimistic perhaps, but it's nice to hope. After all, hope is the only thing that so many people have left.

Re:Huge outpourings of generosity

[Telek]

Whoops, it was supposed to say "and their families of this horrible atrocity", not "and their of this".

Save some for Emergency Services :(

[JoeShmoe]

The outpouring of generousity is incredible, but let's not forget that there is going to be a fund established for the families of all the firefighters, policemen, medical workers and other who died performing their duty, trying to get civilians to safety.

At least 300 firefighters are missing and presumed dead. While I'm sure they all have nice pensions, it often isn't enough. One firefighter is reported to have 10 children and the question is raised who will take care of them with their father gone?

I myself have three friends who are firefighters (over in CA, they mourn the loss of their comrades across the country) and I hope that we all don't get lost in the moment. I'm sure the Red Cross has the resources they need right now to provide care (except for blood, which they probably still need) so try to remember there is going to be a LOT of need in the coming months.

It will be a very cold winter for many NY families.

- JoeShmoe

Mod this guy up

[Unknown Poltroon]

Im sorry to say.

AT&T donates to Red Cross... How about Bill?

[Scryber]

AT&T has donated $1 Million to the Red Cross relief effort.

Now, if Bill Gates was looking for a cause to establish himself as a humanitarian and a philanthropist, this would be it. And not just a Red Cross donation either. City equipment needs to be replaced (fire trucks for example). Streets and buildings need to be repaired. And victim's families could use all they help they could get. The list goes on.

C'mon Bill, what do you say?

Forget it, US has never held moral high ground

[Ars-Fartsica]

How absurd to hear this continued moral gesturing. The US has never held the moral high ground in the Middle East. American foreign policy has shaped the region for decades, from American support for the Shah, to the Gulf War, to support for Iraq/Iran when it is convenient, to using the Afghans to fight the Soviets, to protecting the corrupt regimes of the sheiks.

Forget about keeping the moral high ground in the Middle East because you never had it. Instead, protect your interests. Make sure you win, not them. Forget about the "good guy" winning because if you lift up the veil you may find the "good guy" is not you, or anyone else.

Turn off Javascript

[Delirium Tremens]

Try turning off Javascript. This will delegate input validation to the server, where validation rules could be more laxist. That gives you a second chance to get your Zip code accepted.

Some flamebaits from a European web surfer:

1. There's nothing like a stupid Javascript programmer to make the most casual Html FORM a nightmare...

2. There's nothing like a stupid American programmer to make the most casual ZIP, State or Phone INPUT field a nightmare... Would you, American Javascripters out there, believe that some country actually use letters in their ZIP or have more/less than 10-digit phone numbers? Grrbl!

Re:Turn off Javascript

[GigsVT]

1. There's nothing like a stupid Javascript programmer to make the most casual Html FORM a nightmare...
2. There's nothing like a stupid American programmer to make the most casual ZIP, State or Phone INPUT field a nightmare... Would you, American Javascripters out there, believe that some country actually use letters in their ZIP or have more/less than 10-digit phone numbers? Grrbl!

A lot of it has to do with what happens to your data after it gets submitted. Most sites will want to look up your ZIP+4 code for american addresses, and then print barcodes directly on the envelope, which allows for much lower postal rates.

Granted, there should be another seperate international form, or seperate fields for international addresses, or a toggle for international addresses, but there are valid reasons for tight validation.

If you've ever had to deal with a database that had data entry with little validation, you know what kind of nightmare it can be to do anything useful with it.

One approach: Undermine them

[jiheison]

Terrorist thrive on two things. The suffering of those they claim to represent, and the (however false) moral high ground that they claim by demonizing their targets.

If we reach out to the average Palestinian, Sudanese or Iraqi citizen and offer them a better life, reiterate our support of thier religious freedom and show them that we are not out to murder them and extinguish their beleifs the support and mandate that terrorism enjoys will erode. Soon they will be falling all over themselves to claim the bounty on bin Laden and his ilk.

Re:Why the Surprise?

[loosenut]

It's blind patriotism like that which prevents people from criticising the actions of the American Government which lead to terrorists going to the extremes we have witnessed. Now is precisely the time to question the behavior of our government.

I'm not saying that the terrorists were right. What they did was about as wrong as it gets. But we seriously need to ask ourselves: "what is the US Government doing to the rest of the world that would cause them to despise us so much?".

This isn't so much anti-american sentiment as it is anti-globalization sentiment. Once we determine who was responsible for the bombings, we might begin to understand their motivation. But don't let that end discussion on all the other possible reasons that anyone would have to hate the US. If we really want a safe country, one to be proud to live in, we'd ensure that our government stopped treating the rest of the world like a cornfield waiting to be harvested.

No more carry on luggage

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not think armed pilots is an appropriate measure. I do think that eliminating carry on luggage would be a giant step in securing air traffic. Annoying for passengers, yes. Annoying for would-be hijackers, most definitely.

Re:No more carry on luggage

[ellem]

This has been implemented there is also not going to be anymore curbside baggage handling. The only allowable COL will be women's handbags which will be emptied to be searched no matter what. We go this at our Travel Co today.

Statement of Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta

One of the most cherished American freedoms is the freedom of movement, the ability to move freely and safely. Today that freedom has been attacked. We will restore that freedom throughout the national transportation system as soon as possible. And we will restore the highest possible degree of safety.

These terrorist acts are designed to steal the confidence of Americans. We will restore that confidence. We have already taken some first steps. As a precaution, I have ordered the FAA to ground all commercial air traffic until at least tomorrow afternoon.

After the attacks, some of our aircraft were diverted to Canada. We owe our Canadian neighbors a debt of gratitude for helping us redirect over 120 flights and their passengers to airports in Canada.

As of 6:00 p.m., AMTRAK resumed its passenger rail service. Major railroads have taken steps to protect their assets, as well.

The United States Coast Guard is taking all necessary actions to control the movement of any vessel in any navigable water in the United States. Coast Guard helicopters have been assisting with medical and national security tasks.

We are currently looking at a wide variety of additional security measures to increase traveler security.

Travelers will see increased security measures at our airports, train stations and other key sites. There will be higher levels of surveillance, more stringent searches. Airport curbside luggage check-in will no longer be allowed. There will be more security officers, random identification checks. Travelers may experience some inconveniences. We ask for your patience. But we must do whatever it takes, with safety as our highest priority.

The Department of Transportation is working closely with the White House and appropriate federal agencies to mount a coordinated, nationwide recovery effort.

Each American must know that we will restore our national transportation system to a safe and efficient status as quickly as possible. Our system has been severely burdened by the stress of these horrendous attacks, but we will recover.

In a democracy, there is always a balance between freedom and security. Our transportation systems, reflecting the values of our society, have always operated in an open and accessible manner. And, they will again.

Please be assured that we are activating all of our resources on an emergency basis, and services will be restored as soon as possible.

Insurance

[oni]

Does anyone know if the Port Authority had an insurance policy on the complex?

I wonder what the combined cost of insurance claims for property and from the victims will be

Re:Insurance

[oni]

So the structure itself was insured + each of the tenants probably had insurance + life insurance payments + the capital the tenants will have to come up with to quickly move operations + loss of revenue resulting from inability to travel while airports are closed + loss of revenue opportunity + cleanup/repair + things I can't imagine...

Would you care to speculate as to the near-term financial consequences?

One Liberty Plaza ready to fall.

[nairnr]

I just heard on CBC coverage that One Liberty Plaza a 54 story building around the WTC complex is ready to fall. They have evacuated the area around it. It has already partially collapsed. There is now a 10 block perimeter for evacuation of emergence personnel.

Re:Why the Surprise?

[daviddennis]

Yes, I would have to agree that the terrorists practiced perhaps the ultimate act of self-sacrifice.

This is probably why I don't think much of self-sacrifice, whether on my behalf or others.

By referring to Iraq as a starving country, we ignore that Saddam Hussein is a brutal man who has knifed many of his friends and opponents over the years. He has also exacerbated his country's own situation by dragging his feet on humanitarian aid negotiations. I really need not remind you that this situation has in no way affected his lifestyle or that of his cronies.

I agree that this kind of act is not terribly surprising considering the ease with which it can be done and the notorious passions seething within the middle east. But I don't think we can prevent future attacks by lying down, putting our heads in the sand and listening to "peace activists". Negotiation works far better from strength; ask anyone on a job interview.

D

The US public

[Synn]

I'm a member of the US public and I don't want blood.

I want justice and I'm tired of this kind of behavior being tolerated in the world.

We've put up with terrorism for a solid 30 years, but have pussy footed around really doing something about it because we don't want to deal with the mess.

Well guess what? It just got real messy anyway.

useful retaliation.

[codetalker]

There are hundreds of known terrorists. I don't think that the point of this lesson is to mobilize the entire United States in the effort to wipe out one specific terrorist group. It should extend to all terrorists. The denial given out by various terrorist groups only show that they are terrorist groups. Since terrorism at any scale is reprehnsible it should not make one iota of difference if you bomb a cafe with no casualties or follow through on the recent, horrible events. You should be treated the same way.

The problem lies in the fact that there is no tangible target which to direct military force. Bombs cannot descriminate between the innocent and the guilty, soldiers can, but they have to know what to look for. Terrorists are small groups of people who plan in secret and are not very keen on announcing their intentions. The only way to detect these people is with Police and Inteligence agencies. The military can provide the force at that point.

I bet the US government will attack the Afgahn Taliban and make many arrests, to the cheers of it's citizens, but the problem of terrorism will still remain. The only way to combat this effectively is to severly restrict the freedoms and processes of society as we know it. It's analagous to network security as I'm sure many here can relate. You must constantly screen traffic and be on the look out for bad stuff. Rouge procceses and the like. This means monitoring things much more closely. You had better be prepared for greater Police power and restricted rights. Just imagine, a Police state with 'Firewall USA' installed on your borders harbours and airports. If this is becomes a reality, in an awful sort of sense, this terrorist attack will have succeeded in destroying the American way of life. We can only pray that justice is done and that power is used responsibly.

The Cato Institute on preventing terrorism

[Silmaril]

According to the Cato Handbook for the 105th Congress (1997), the U.S. government should

• avoid entanglement in regional conflicts or civil wars that do not have a direct and substantial relevance to vital American security interests;
• focus the attention and resources of the intelligence agencies on terrorism and other serious national security threats instead of phony or exaggerated problems such as economic espionage; and
• consider state-sponsored terrorist attacks against American civilians acts of war, not a law enforcement issue, and respond, in cases where there is clear and compelling evidence, with a formal declaration of war. The whole chapter is available here: http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb105-45.hml

Fear of Starbucks...

[sterno]

Perhaps what we need to do is just invest in their country. Turn it into Starbuck's land. Overwhelm them with everything they hate about our country. Drown them in VCR's and Satellite TV. Turn them into TV addled zombies like we are so that they will fear death. Hell, make them fear not being home in time to watch the new episode of Friends.

K.E. = .5 * m * v * v

[TrumpetPower!]

Something I just thought of a little while ago, to help me gain some perspective on what happened:

A Boeing 767-400ER has a maximum takeoff mass of a shade more than 200,000 kg. It has a typical cruise speed of 840 km/h.

Using our favorite formula for kinetic energy, that comes to about 5.6 billion Joules, or between one and two tons of TNT.

Or, in other words, just the force of that much mass at that speed is about the same as a WWII blockbuster bomb. Add in some twenty thousand gallons of jet fuel...and I still can't wrap my mind around that much destructive force.

And I thought cars on the freeway were deadly!

May such magnificient machines never again be used for such awful, awful purpose.

b&

Re:K.E. = .5 * m * v * v

[LinuxHam]

You really get a feel for the power of the collisions when you watch the tape at full speed. In particular the amateur video shots from "behind" the towers that caught the 2nd impact. The one that follows the plane downtown and keeps it center-frame all the way up to impact is the one that moves me the most. I have 18hrs of CNN taped and I still say "oh my God" each time an impact is shown. There's the one that accidentally caught the first impact.. and the camera-on-the-ground shot up the guy's nose as the plane passes over his head for an eighth of a second before impact is also very dramatic.

Unless you've been there, it's hard to grasp the size of that place. I grew up in NJ with the towers way off on the horizon, occasionally being lucky enough to catch a glimpse while riding with my parents. I said to my wife yesterday that I'm so happy I've been able to share with her a day on the observation deck. That was truly an incredible place.

Now I'm on standby, ready to go up there, possibly to build hundreds or thousands of servers as our customers start to rebuild and get back online.

Re:K.E. = .5 * m * v * v

[nerdguy0]

For jet A-1 fuel, the energy density is 42.8 MJ/kg (http://www.chevron.com/prodserv/fuels/bulletin/av iationfuel/3_at_fuel_specsandtest.shtm), and has a density of about 800 kg/m^3. The 767 holds 90,770 l of fuel. So using the fact that Density=mass/volume, (800 kg/m^3)*(90770 l)=72616 kg. So (42.8 MJ/kg)*(72616 kg)=3107964.8 MJ

Try the PayPal donation site

[Krimsen]

All the money from PayPal's donation page goes there also, just like the Amazon page. The site is here...

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

Re:Troll @# +1 ; Informative #@

[NTT]

Yeah,
*writing from the base of Cheyenne Mountain (AKA NORAD)* No 5th plane here. Plus, Gov. Owens has the Air National Guard patrolling the skies.

Canadian firefighters

[coyote-san]

I believe that Canada has freely shared firefighters with us when fighting wildfires, and I seem to recall other crews from as far away as Australia.

The author has some valid points, but the US usually doesn't require much outside help because few disasters affect us nationally. When we do, Canada and our other friends have always come to our aid.

Legal action, perception

[TheMCP]

Apparently, he gets lots of cash from fund-raising organizations operating in rich (read: G7) countries. Could these be found out, their efforts
proved illegal, their money confiscated?

Better: if this is the case, if they can be found out, if it can be determined that they knew what they were doing, they can be prosecuted for treason and executed.

These methods could be used against multiple targets. They seem to involve less martyr potential than nukes. Any other suggestions?

I think what we need to consider is not "what will stop these people from seeming like martyrs", but rather, "how do we stop this from happening again?". I believe just bombing people, or assasinating them, won't do enough. We prosecute people for raising the money and put them in jail, that isn't enough of a deterrant. We drop some bombs on afghanistan, they'll probably shrug and say "oh look, more bombs." They're bombing each other there already, we won't be that big a deal to them.

However, if we drop a nuke on them, that's about the most severe action we can take. How do you think any nation would feel about harboring terrorists after that? Knowing that if they get caught, we'll destroy their homes... and their children... and their whole economy... and everything and everyone they've ever known and loved? Whether or not they think the people we nuke in the first place were martyrs, I sure as hell think they wouldn't want to try it themselves.

As far as I'm concerned, as soon as we know who is reponsible for this for absolute certain, we can drop a nuke on them at once.

Re:What can be done? Nothing.

[Nail]

As long as "some" is greater than "10", I think we can call that progress.

;-)

And who knew we could absolve ourselves of any blame by using weapons made by others?!?
I say we buy a ton of Kalishnikovs and SCUDs, and blame "whatever we do with them" on the Russians!
Good plan, huh? Well, if the real world were governed by your reasoning, I guess it would be.

This madman was warning people about the event...

[Animats]

His stuff reads like he was just mouthing off. But he'll probably be interviewed by the FBI anyway.

Re:What can be done? Nothing.

[bryan1945]

What utter shit.

America is not a superpower because others don't fear death? No, we have not fought back like we should have.

The answer to terrorism- find out who did it and who harbored them, and then destroy both. Not a missle into a factory, carpet bomb the whole area.
"Oh, you bombed our embassy? Say goodbye to your entire country."

There's your answer when it comes to terrorism- reply with more terror than a bomber can imagine.

How to effectively donate to amazon/paypal.

[tcc]

Here where I work, I've sent an email to everyone saying "if you want to donate but don't want to use your credit card, come to see me to give your donation and I will issue the whole payment as 1 transaction with my credit card, if everyone could donate 5$ or 10$, it's not much, but together we can make a difference".

Some people do lunches on friday or order pizza, well maybe for juste one week they should be grateful for living and escaping that inhuman act, and bring a lunch and donate the money they'd usually spend.

Just some ideas... I'm sure some people are reading this right now and wish to pay but don't want to give their CCs because of security in electronic transactions, or go to the trouble of signing up, well now you can do a difference.

Re:300 Sun Microsystem employees killed

[catseye_95051]

How about a source?

I work for Sun and have been told by internal mail direct from the execs and our security people that all of our WTC employees got safely out.

Oh and there were only 250 total in the building.

Holding a short position on Sun stock by any chance?

In other words: war

[j7953]

In other words, NATO has agreed that the organization is in a state of war. Even if this doesn't put each individual NATO member country into a state of war, this is not good news.

I'm scared of what might happen next.

"An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind." - Mahatma Ghandi

Re:Eat my meat

[pressman]

Well, with a comment like that, it's pretty obvious that you would amount to little more than a tiny hors d'eouvre!

This comment is so callous and so cynical it's almost hard to believe. You may have problems with our government and our foreign policy, but leave us, the working stiffs, students etc. the hell alone while we grieve for the thousands of innocent people who just lost their lives in a very senseless attack.

Wired News Story about Mirrors and Pers Accounts

[Bonker]

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,46766,00. html

It's pretty damn nice to see that *someone* recognizes that the value of the internet in such a horrendous crisis doesn't come from one or two companies posting information, but from hundreds and thousands of... dare I say it... heroic individuals who do their little insignifcant part to take care of people.

Kudos to sites like Slashdot and ESPN. Super Kudos to all the individuals with webcams and mirror sites. You guys did the country and world an invaluable service yesterday. As someone who is separated by thousands of miles from the horror, I thank you for giving us a information line into what really happened.

Re:Friday's "Worldwide Caution" from Dept. of Stat

[NetJunkie]

Those bulletins go out all the time. Never seen those signs at the airport warning about certain destinations?

Terrorists aren't stupid.

[Nonesuch]

They may be fanatics, but they aren't idiots.

It is highly unlikely that the Internet was used in any way to organize, plan, target, or launch these attacks. Chances are that none of the 20+ terrorists involved even had an email account, and if they did, it was a hotmail account used as a cover, with a subscription to a couple pro-Israel mailing lists, and a web browser history showing a few visits to flight booking sites and a bit of porn browsing on the weekends.

The Internet is monitored, logged, and data-mined like no other communications medium. It is undependable, insecure, and would not be used by terrorists for the same reasons that it is not used by the US government to plan our reprisals.

The Internet isn't good for anything much more important than Quake.

They were NOT designed to take an aircraft impact.

[sudog]

The architect of the buildings themselves gave an interview that specifically said that the building were over-engineered for NATURAL disasters, not aircraft crashes. He said they did withstand the impacts but the explosive forces of the impacts probably stripped the fire-proofing from the steel supports, which then probably melted in the jet-fuel heat.

He said that the sprinkler systems were designed for paper, cardboard, and desk fire loads--jet fuel doesn't respond so well to water sprinklers, that's why the aviation buildings he designed have foam fire extinguisher systems--NOT water.

Once again, the architect of the trade towers themselves insisted that the buildings were prepared for any natural disaster, but that disasters like this could obviously *not* be prepared for.

He also said he didn't even know whether or not the sprinkler systems were activated, let alone helping or hindering matters any.

He said that the heat from the jet fuel melted the steel supports and that probably only a single floor gave way--but that the momentum from the drop (with all the floors above it) was enough to overload the supports below, and the supports below that, and so on right down to ground floor.

So please make the correction--they weren't designed to withstand jet impact. Maybe a propellor airplane, maybe not--I have no idea where you got that info from. Doesn't matter.

-sudog

"Blow Them All Up" or "Don't Punch Back"

[Josuah]

A lot of people want to hit back at whoever did this and hit them hard. I saw suggested on the news last night that if we can prove that Bin Laden and the Taliban (indirectly as keepers of Bin Laden) can be definitively connected to this event, that we should blow up their entire government.

And, unfortunately, I think that's about the only violent way to solve this problem. Violence does solve problems, as history has shown, and contrary to school teachers. But the problem here is the bully in this schoolyard is driven by hatred. And everyone knows that punching back at someone who hates you is only going to make them hate you more. The only solutions to hatred are to defuse the hatred, or completely destroy it. You can't punch back and say "you hurt me, I hurt you back, now you shouldn't hurt me anymore because I showed you that I can hurt you a lot too."

The problem is that last approach of punching back is just about the only response which politics and the American public will accept. The people and the U.S. government won't accept an all out bomb-them-to-hell approach because that would be deemed morally unacceptable. Likewise, they won't accept an approach which attempts to defuse the hatred because that will be seen as a weak position.

As a result, we'll see some military strikes that really just amount to a few punches in the face, making the hatred grow. Unless something happens which enables the U.S. government to assasinate Bin Laden and cover it up. I doubt the other nations would allow a justification for his assasination to fly.

I think the sensible solution is to try and defuse the hatred. But, of course, people will see that as caving in to terrorist demands. But that is why we have diplomats. Diplomats are in charge of getting both parties to agree on a compromise that doesn't make either party feel like they have caved in to the demands of the other party.

And before any Americans start yelling about how we're the good guys, they're the bad guys, and their hatred is all wrong and bad, I'm telling you all to shut up because you've got hatred for those terrorists yourself. Learn to Grok, and understand that "Thou art God!"

The ultimate chutzpah!

[Ryu2]

right after the WTC went down, the Petrona towers announced the message "Attention, the Petronas Towers are now the tallest buildings in the world." Or soemthing along those lines, i'm not kidding, my local news station reported that.

Re:The ultimate chutzpah!

[Darth]

i seriously doubt that happened considering the Petrona towers were already the tallest buildings in the world. (they were 30+ feet taller than the world trade center towers)

Re:The ultimate chutzpah!

[LinuxHam]

as the other replyer already said, the petronas towers have already been the tallest towers in the world for quite some time.

what you probably heard, as I have a number of times was the just-as-creepy report, "the Empire State Building is once again the tallest building in New York City".

or, you heard what you say you heard, and the reporter simply didn't know they already were..

Re:The ultimate chutzpah!

[niloroth]

well, they were already the tallest, so this is a bit hard to believe.

However, they were evacuated, since a threat was made shortly after the WTC buildings went down.

Justin

Re:The ultimate chutzpah!

[zulux]

The Petrona towers were a taller *structure* than the WTC, but not taller *buildings*. The highest place you could stand on the WTC is 75 feet taller than the highest place you can stand on the Petronas. The Petronas are cool, but the top bit of them is just a decorative spire.

Re:Why the Surprise?

[frknfrk]

i agree, but I would rephrase to say that this IS a good time to question the PAST behavior of our government, while SUPPORTING the government as a unified nation as it goes forward.

for more on this topic, read my earlier reply.

-sam

Predictions For Possible Retaliation

[Foggymyst]

By Steve from www.Foggymyst.com So here we are. Areas of New York have been declared a major disaster area. The military is at Defcon 2. Thousands are feared dead. The stock market and air travel have completly shut down. America has stopped dead in the water and we dont know what to do next. What can we expect? It would be foolish to expect the apocalypse but it would be equally foolish to expect nothing. I have spent all day contemplating this as I watch horrid videos of airliners peircing through buildings. It is useless to keep these thoughts and predictions to myself, so I have detailed them out on this page for your speculation. Please note that I dont consider myself an expert by any means, but I do know that world history is one of my strengths and as an avid news watcher I consider myself versed in current happenings. Here is what we know: Two large airliners were hijacked and intentionally crashed into the World Trade Center leveling both towers and subsequentlly destroying a smaller, but still sizable, third tower. One airliner was hijacked with the intention of crashing into the Whitehouse but was seen making radical manuevers as it changed course for the Pentagon. It crashed into the Pentagon. Another airliner was hijacked but crashed outside of Pittsburgh. The president stated he will hold the terrorists and the nation harboring the terrorists equally responsible. Here is my educated guesses as to what will occur next: There will be further attacks, their magnitude is beyond me. The US will attempt to identify the organization behind this attack and any following attack. If the organization is found to be Osma Bin Laden, the following is my best guess as to what will happen- I am fairly confident that the US has a good idea where Osama Bin Laden is located. They may claim not too, but I am sure they have a good idea. Already rocket attacks are reported in Kabul. I have little doubt this is due to American influence, particulary the CIA's. The CIA is notorious for influencing various foreign activities, most notably coups and wars and due to the Afghanistan/Russian was we already have a good share of influence there. The first objective will be to destroy Osama Bin Laden and his "army". Unfortunatley Afghanistan is not located in an ideal geographic location (surrounded by Iran, Pakistan and other such nations) for a military campaign. Also, this is not the friendliest of countries. "Afghanistan was invaded and occupied by the Soviet Union in 1979. The USSR was forced to withdraw 10 years later by anti-communist mujahidin forces supplied and trained by the US, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and others. Fighting subsequently continued among the various mujahidin factions, but the fundamentalist Islamic Taliban movement has been able to seize most of the country. In addition to the continuing civil strife, the country suffers from enormous poverty, a crumbling infrastructure, and widespread live mines. " However, as you can see America already has some friendly forces (the mujahidin) in the area. Again, do you think its coincedence that Kabul was attacked this afternoon? I digress. Osama Bin Laden will most likely be hiding in a bunker built somewhere in Afghanistan. If the location of this bunker is know it will surely fall prey to a wide assortment of American missles. However, again, Afghanistans geographic location creates problmes that would hinder extended attacks. Bombs designed to destroy hardened bunkers, "bunker busters",must be delived via jet. To get to Afghanistan the US aircraft and missles must cross through Pakistanian airspace. During the 1998 missle attacks by the United States against Osama Bin Laden, 70 to 80 cruise missle made their way across Pakistanian airspace leading Pakistan to file a complaint to the UN. While this complaint did not lead to anything significant, an extended campaign in this area could cause major issues. Along with Osama Bin Laden, the US will strike at Afghanistan for sponsoring such activities. Potential targets include weapons factories, military installations (notably SAM and radar sites), fuel depots, bridges, etc. The objective would be to cripple terrorist activities in Afghanistan and to generally dent the economy of the nation. I have no doubt there is a list of potential targets being generated as I write this. Once the list of targets and objectives had been generated the attack would be launched and most likely would be over in a period of hours, possibly days but not extending into more than a week. The attack would probly consist of Tomahawk cruise missles laden with conventional warheads striking various targets spread throughout the area. For reasons mentioned above, an extended campaign would be very tricky and would be the most likely canidate for causing an escalation in hostilities. I predict that any attack by the US against Afghanistan will be extremely swift and will last but hours. Surrounding nations will object, but no official action from any such nations will occur. Finally, I predict that US sponsored guerilla activities will heighten in the region. We will see an increase in violence in Afghanistan as things progress. Attacking Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan is a tactical and political issue that could reach potentially deadly levels. I am very interested to see what happens if Afghanistan is indeed held responsible. Unfortunatley the result of any action by the US will be further terrorist attacks. This is almost a given. Also, any attack we make will not make up for what occured this morning. Nothing aside from a full scale retaliation can appease the anger that has filled America. That is my speculation for now. I am way to tired to continue so I will stop here. There is more, but I will save my insight for later. Until later. ------------- Last night I spent rougly an hour drafting the predictions I posted to my website below. I had more theories that were based off of the terrorist group not being related to Afghanistan but I reached a point where I was so tired I could barely keep writing, so I stopped. I will now continue, however I will continue with the assumption that the terrorist organization responsible for yesterday's attacks is Afghan. Yesterday I stated that a US strike against Afghanistan would have two goals: Destroy the terrorist leader Usman Bin Laden and cripple Afghanistan's military/terrorist activities. If the strike were to be along the same magnitude as the previous strikes against Afghanistan I predicted we would see a short offensive consisting almost entirely of cruise missles. I also predicted that this retaliation would fall very short of what Americans would consider ample punishment. Any offensive would undoubtley result in heightened tensions in the Middle East, price hikes at the gas pump and further terrorist attacks. Today I will focus on the possibility that the US will retaliate with a much harsher, colder offensive- which as events unfold is becoming more plausible. A large scale retaliatory attack would have the same goals as the aforementioned attack: Destroy the terrorist leader Usman Bin Laden and cripple Afghanistan's military/terrorist activities. The difference would be the extent to which this objective is carried out and an extended effort to remove the Taliban goverment (which is apparently sympathetic with terroists). My previous prediction may temporarily stun or slow terrorism but it would surely not stop it. In fact it may provide more fuel for the fire. A larger scale attack would involve severley damaging the Afghan goverment and its military as well as areas of finical importance. This may slow terrorism, or it may increase it. I dont know. Unfortunatley, no allied nations border Afghanistan. Due to this we are nearly guarenteed an air war which depends wholely on our ability to defeat the Afghan air defenses. In order to carry out air attacks, coalition aircraft must tresspass through another country's airspace, either Pakistan or Iran. In this case it would most likely be safer to go through Pakistan as we have done before, but Pakistan could become hostile-- although I doubt this will occur. Keep in mind that Pakistan is the only goverment that recognizes the Taliban goverment in control of Afganistan so one could easily deduct they are near allies. To what extent Pakistan would defend its airspace, to what extent it would aid Afghanistan and to what extent the United States would violate it Pakistani airspace is anyones guess. I can imagine the Afghan goverment demanding the Pakistani goverment shoot down American craft. I can also imagine a potential political and possible physical conflict developing over this issue. A ground war is almost totally out of the picture. Again, to get troops into Afghanistan would require penetrating another country's air space. Furthermore, a ground war would be dangerous at best as Afghanistan has already been host to a 10 year war meaning veteran guerillas are in abundance and worse still is the area littered with mines. So in summary, an extended campaign against Afghanistan would surely be air based. It would bring up many issues for Pakistan and their relations with Afghanistan and would surely make the area "hot" as things became hostile. Ground assault is almost completley out of the question. However, other nations siding with Afghanistan could complicate the issue beyond all reason and lead to a greater conflict that could dwarf previous conflicts in the Middle East. I guess we'll see what happens.

Re:Censored Photos or Video?

[NetJunkie]

If that was your wife, mother, or child on that plane that went down would you want to see the uncensored video? I really don't think that's the last image you'd want to have of your loved ones.

An article from a Canadian Journalist.

[Mtgman]

I was sent this via email, I apologize if it has been posted before. With the large volume of comments which have been made, I simply can't read them all before I post.

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 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."

"Stand proud, America!"

And a link to an image I found on another message board which pretty much sums up my feelings about the matter.

http://www.bailbondsupplies.com/chris_only/home_ pa ge/home_p1.jpg

Steven

Re:An article from a Canadian Journalist.

[OuiPapa]

Could you people stop posting this!

Gord Sinclair is loved in the US for this highly-selective and melodramatic piece -- referred to as 'The Americans'. It's just the kind of stuff Americans love to hear about themselves.

Unfortunately, however, reality is much harsher than that. As many knowledgable Americans admit (and many visitors discover by themselves), Americans know very little about anything outside their borders. To me this is the first obstacle to the solution of the current problems. You must first understand your enemy/neighbour. But so long as public media are profit-motivated, the sheltering and the babying will continue.

Re:An article from a Canadian Journalist.

[OuiPapa]

BTW, this is an article from 1973. Gord Sinclair died in 1984!

Re:An article from a Canadian Journalist.

[aallan]

This, from a Canadian newspaper, is worth sharing...

Written in 1973, not exactly breaking news, and not exactly accurate, even at the time.

Al.

Face Recognition Software

[AndroidCat]

Does anyone have any objection to facial recognition systems at customs? And a database of people who should either be checked out carefully, bounced, or arrested on the spot?

Didn't think so.

Re:Face Recognition Software

[Elxmon]

Does anyone have any objection to facial recognition systems at customs? And a database of people who should either be checked out carefully, bounced, or arrested on the spot? Didn't think so
I spoke of just such things to my coworkers last night. I worried that people would be jumping on the bandwagon for things like Facial Recognition Cameras at airports. This is not the answer. Who is to say that these people who committed this terrible act have ever been arrested for anything in this nation before, or whatever would have put them on the list of "people who should be checked out carefully"? And who is going to write this software? Will it unfairly discriminate against people with Arabic genetics? I worry enough about those with Arab families recieving an unwanted backlash.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning yesterday's attack any more than the next guy. I was horrified when my roomate's dad called at 730am (when NO ONE ever calls my house) and told me to turn on the news and wake his son up. I went through most of yesterday in shock. And all the news continues to shock me.

But, my point is, let us not let this tragedy spur us into action that would take away the freedoms that make the United States what it is. The posts someone has posted about the Canadian giving American its due (sorry too lazy to link) sum up some of my feelings. But I'll bet most anyone here that legislation goes through pushing things like Carnivore and Facial Recognition Software in public places that will do more harm than good.

Re:Face Recognition Software

[AndroidCat]

As a Canadian, I don't like the idea that these people were able to enter Canada, then cross over the relatively soft U.S./Canada border. (If this turns out to be true.)

We put people on watch-lists now, but if they use fake ID, they can bypass the system. Facial recognition at customs (not airports per se, note!) could at least bounce them out of the express lane: "Citizenship?" "Canadian" "Purpose of visit?" "Weekend trip to Niagra Falls" "Anything to declare?" "Nope" "Right, off you go."

Your worries about "discriminate against people with Arabic genetics" is a strawman argument. Who said anything about that?

I don't see any problem with convicted criminals going in the database (depending on the government that did the convicting) or someone spotted in a terrorist training camp. Just so long as they can't ooze through borders, or claim to be a "poor wittle wefugue" without some checking.

Note also that at the Portland ferry U.S. customs, many people are let through without any challenge at all. A facial scanning system could also vett frequent Okay vistors: "Mrs. Smith, visits her daughter every Thursday, mostly harmless."

Your civil rights at the border/customs are perhaps much less than you think. Try insisting on your lawyer when asked for a full cavity search.

Re:Face Recognition Software

[Elxmon]

As an American, I don't like the idea that there are people (I just saw a report on ESPN about safety at sporting events) who are already planning to install cameras and a system similar to what was used at the Super Bowl last year.

Who is to say what use this database will go to? Will wearing anti-George W. T-shirts put me in the database? If we start to let these camera's be put up in airports, what is to stop them from being put on street corners?

As to my worries of discrimination, within an hour of the news breaking there were already claims that this was a Palestinian or Arab group. Much in the same fashion as occured after the Oklahoma City Bombing. And we all know that it was no Arabs, just two white boys who pulled off that bombing. I would not be surprised to see a further emphasis on Arab people in such a database since stereotypically they are the ones doing most of these kinds of attacks.

I know that border security is lax in many places along the US/Canada border, but I doubt this will stay true for very much longer. Facial recognition can be fooled as well though. If anyone caught the TLC special with John Cleese they showed some ways to do this. Again though, what if it is a relatively unknown, never before criminally seen person? Cameras are useless in that case.

What can be done about terrorism

[atathert]

The planes diverted from their courses and the air traffic controllers could see the planes, but not do anything about the fact that they were travelling out of their approved flight paths. They even knew about the hijackings in the case of the plane that crashed in PA.

One thing that I have never seen mentioned anywhere that could definitely prevent this sort of disaster from happening again is to implement a remote control system for all passenger airliners. In the situation of a hijacking, either the pilots, or ground staff (air traffic controller) switch the plane over to remote operations. At this point, the pilots cannot regain control of the plane until it is landed and reset by the FAA. There are already sizable planes that are remote controlled, and owned by the military. With todays flight control systems, I don't think it would be too difficult as they are all controlled by wire, and communicate extensively with ground operations somewhere anyways.

Just a thought, but it would definitely be nice. Perhaps deter a few terrorists, if they knew that they could not maintain flight control of an aircraft.

sticks and stones

[torpor]

so, the world trade center is burned to the ground like a bundle of sticks.

(literally - from an engineering standpoint, the 'bundle of sticks tied together' that was the WTC infrastructure was undone with a simple burn)

and all that's left is stones.

oh, and a whole lotta name calling ...

You couldn't be more wrong.

[trcooper]

Not all terrorists do not fear death. Bin Laden for instance does. He's not the one who's performing the suicide attacks, his minions are. The Taliban, who are harboring Bin Laden, also fear death.

Sure, as I understand it, their belief is that dying for their cause is a straight ticket to heaven, but that doesn't mean they don't fear death. Christians also believe that they will be sent to heaven at their death, but that doesn't erase the fear of death in all of us. And obviously whoever is behind this, fears death, because they haven't taken accountability for it. These people aren't fearless, they're cowards.

The reason that these terrorists are willing to die isn't common to their culture. It's common to any military establishment. The purpose of training soldiers is to get them to do things rational people would not normally do. We train our soldiers this way, and every army in history had to lead men, who had a better chance of dying than surviving into a battle. In war there is an expected loss of life on all sides, everyone involved is aware of this.

Making these terrorists out to be somehow braver than Americans is simply false. Up to 300 firefighters risked and lost their lives trying to save people at the WTC. They knew they were at risk, and put their lives in harms way to help someone else. This is bravery on a national scale. A few terrorists lost their lives, to perform a dispicable and cowardly act, this is not bravery.

These terrorists do not have the tools or the resolution to win. We can, should and will fight them. America has the resources, resolution, and unity to do this, the commitment from our allies only makes us stronger. These terrorists are weak, and they are cowards. They will fall quickly, and those who have harbored them in the past will be afraid to harbor them in the future.

Re:You couldn't be more wrong.

[Pig Hogger]

Sure, as I understand it, their belief is that dying for their cause is a straight ticket to heaven, but that doesn't mean they don't fear death. Christians also believe that they will be sent to heaven at their death, but that doesn't erase the fear of death in all of us. And obviously whoever is behind this, fears death, because they haven't taken accountability for it. These people aren't fearless, they're cowards.

And Roosevelt was a coward by sending all those boys to their death in Okinara, Tarawa, Midway, etc. without getting hurt in the safety of the White House...

Re:You couldn't be more wrong.

[Ondo]

And obviously whoever is behind this, fears death, because they haven't taken accountability for it. These people aren't fearless, they're cowards.

Bullshit. They obviously don't have a deathwish, as they haven't taken accountability for it. They are significantly more likely to die now then they were a few days ago, and they knew that would happen. Cowards wouldn't have done this.

Making these terrorists out to be somehow braver than Americans is simply false. Up to 300 firefighters risked and lost their lives trying to save people at the WTC. They knew they were at risk, and put their lives in harms way to help someone else. This is bravery on a national scale. A few terrorists lost their lives, to perform a dispicable and cowardly act, this is not bravery.

The firefighters risked a chance at dying, knowing that even if they did they could almost certaintly save people. The terrorists *planned* to die in order to accomplish their mission, and must have known there was a chance of dying without accomplishing the mission. That is bravery of the very highest level. Yes, their act was despicable, but being evil is not the same thing as being cowardly, and being brave is not the same thing as being good.

Re:You couldn't be more wrong.

[trcooper]

The firefighters risked a chance at dying, knowing that even if they did they could almost certaintly save people. The terrorists *planned* to die in order to accomplish their mission, and must have known there was a chance of dying without accomplishing the mission. That is bravery of the very highest level. Yes, their act was despicable, but being evil is not the same thing as being cowardly, and being brave is not the same thing as being good.


What a load of shit. First, the rescue workers knew that the building could colapse at anytime, and there was no garuantee that they could save anyone. Second, these terrorists knew that no matter the outcome they'd be dead, and suffer no (earthly) consequences. This is not the highest act of bravery.

Suicide is not brave. Certainly not if you don't fear death. These terrorists were brainwashed fools, plain and simple. To insist that they were in anyway more brave than the rescue workers is just naive.

Re:You couldn't be more wrong.

[trcooper]

Obviously you don't know what it's like to be an American. Your views are jaded, and you underestimate us. Good.

Re:Insurance - acts of God and acts of war

[ParrotDroppings]

It was said on CNN that all insurances would be paid.
Limitations applying to this would be lifted.

Arming Pilots and other Security Measures

[cvanaver]

I have a couple of points to make:

First, though I'm not neccesarily advocating the arming of pilots in cockpits, cabin de-pressurization is not that bad of a thing when compared to many alternatives. If a cabin becomes de-pressurized in flight due to a puncture in the fuselage, about the worse thing that would happen is the plane would drop a few thousand feet in order to move to a higher pressurized atomosphere. The plane would not become unflyable. Drop down masks would come down so people can breathe and the plane could be diverted to an immediate landing strip, assuming the emergency situation (terrorists) was brought under control. We all remember stories in the past about parts of planes falling off. We all remember when a huge part of the fuselage popped off a plane and people were sucked out. Even that plane landed successfully, and that is far worse than a 9mm hole in the side of the plane.

Second, air marshals were commonplace on commercial flights in the US in the 60's. Israel has been using them for many years. As a note, Israel, a country more affected by terrorism than any other nation on Earth, has never had a civilian airliner hiijacked. Granted, that is, in large part, due to more than just air marshals, but they are a key part of the security plan that Israel implements.

Personally, I think separating the cabin is a better solution. It would not stop hiijackers (because of the hostage situations which the pilots would have to deal with), but would prevent the kind of suicide attacks we saw yesterday.

However, separating the pilot cabin would require a replacement or significant structural changes to exisiting air fleets, which cannot happen in a very timely fashion. This is part of a long-term approach, but should be coupled with some short term measures including the presence of air marshals on flights and the de-privitization of airport security. Trained police and/or military personnel should be used to ensure airport security. The under $10/hour rent-a-cops should be sent back to the shopping malls.

By the way, I just heard on the news that the FAA has re-instated the sky marshal policy.

What can we learn from history?

[claes]

Terror and terror attacks is nothing new. There are conflicts all over the world, people have been fighting and killing each other for generations in similar suicide attacks. We see there what happens when every answer to an attack is raging retaliation. We just have to look at Israel the past months to see people killing themselves over and over again in order to get revenge.

People that were not involved before become involved. Innocent people are suddenly victims, and soon enough they are fighting back to the best of their ability. I think we all can agree that this is a vicious circle.

Many wise people have said this before, but I will say it again: PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE: Let the retaliation that will come only involve people that were directly responsible for this attack. Not only the US, but the world at large must agree that the retaliation hit only the people that deserved it. Otherwise this is just the first turn of a wheel that will turn over and over and over again.....

Re:Analyze..

[NetJunkie]

Talking with pilots, they say learning to fly a 767 on MS Flight Sim is laughable, even when you don't have to take off and land.

i got the videos

[crazyprogrammer]

I now have the first and second plane crash videos
on my site:

http://24.36.34.43/wtcattack/index.html

please make mirrors of this so I don't get /.ed

Proper weapoin wont puncture the Aircraft

[catseye_95051]

As it happens the Israelies have solved this one.
They have a gun (special bullet i believe) tht has a large bullet and low muzzle velocity. Will put down a human, wont go through steel.

But secondly, to be honest, in a hijacking ill take my chances with depressurization. If the hijacker is put down there are always the breathing masks for the passengers.

Re:Proper weapoin wont puncture the Aircraft

[henley]

But secondly, to be honest, in a hijacking ill take my chances with depressurization. If the hijacker is put down there are always the breathing masks for the passengers.

Up until yesterday you'd have been a fool to take that risk. By sitting still and doing exactly as the hijacker said you'd have stood an excellent chance of making it out alive and unharmed.

What happened yesterday is totally without precedent and it would be unwise to make such a drastic policy and procedural change [carrying guns on commercial flights] without considering first what other measures might be more appropriate and secondly whether the additional risks incurred [of carrying weapons] are matched by a corresponding increase of overall safety.

Sadly I have no idea of a feasible means of measuring such an impact without waiting for it to happen again and plotting statistical graphs. How very depressing.

Re:Proper weapoin wont puncture the Aircraft

[ansible]

The only problem with those "special guns that won't puncture steel" is that aircraft are mostly made out of aluminum these days. Better off with tazers, beanbags and such. Pepper spray would suck in such an enclosed environment.

As for hijackers intentionally crashing the plane they've taken over, it is perhaps not totally without precedent.

There was a hijacking of an aircraft out of India a few years ago. The guys were idiots, and forced the pilot to keep flying until the plane ran out of fuel.

Fortunately, the plane had just crossed over the shore, and the pilot tried to ditch in the ocean. Unfortunately, one of the hijackers grapped the flight yoke at the last second, and prevented the pilot from making a smooth water landing.

It probably didn't make as much news because only 1/3 of the people died.

At any rate, it won't as easy to do what they did again. I know that if I see someone trying to take over the plane I'm in, I'll do my best to immediately stop it. I'm not much of a fighter, but I'd rather take my chances with being shot a point blank range than having the plane I'm in crash into a building. At least I'll use up a bullet, and maybe give the guy behind me a chance...

The world got a lot colder and meaner Tuesday.

Re:Proper weapoin wont puncture the Aircraft

[badzilla]

The puncturing and depressurisation is not that important anyway. The real danger is that the bullet will hit something vital such as a piece of wiring loom or hydraulic line.

Re:Proper weapoin wont puncture the Aircraft

[Pig Hogger]

They have a gun (special bullet i believe) tht has a large bullet and low muzzle velocity. Will put down a human, wont go through steel.

It is actually a small plastic bag filled with lead shot. When it goes through the gun muzzle, the spirals give it a swift rotation, which flattens the bag into a disk which is too blunt to puncture the aircraft skin, whilst still being energetic enough to knock off whoever is hit by it.

What's good is that it doesn't kill, so you don't end up killing innocents as shooting in cramped quarters is kinda hard.

Re:Proper weapoin wont puncture the Aircraft

[ChuyMatt]

> The world got a lot colder and meaner Tuesday.
I'm sorry. This is not true. Most of the sheltered Americans have finally had their eyes opened to what is going on in the world. We paid in spades for no recognizing the reality of our age, not in casualties (they were horrific by any standard) but in our mutual psyche. Now we have to face the world with eyes wide open, seeing that we are never as safe as we think we are. Ask anyone who lives in California around the time Home Invasion fad that terrorized at least the Central Valley area. As this last decade has shown, we are not special in the world. We are not a perfect society with everything in control. There are, and have been, forces at work that are not out for anyone's good, and to sit back and say "it can't happen here, to me, to my family" is just plain foolish and dangerous. Take measures, change something, don't just be passive and let things happen to you. It is your life.

"No man is an island..."

Re:Proper weapoin wont puncture the Aircraft

[theheadandfriends]

explosive decompression. do you remember what happened to payne stuart? the airplane went straight into the ground because there wasn't anyone left alive on board to fly it. you have maybe 5-10 seconds to react to the decompression and get your mask on before you're out. and not all of those seconds are ones where you're thinking clearly.

Re:Proper weapoin wont puncture the Aircraft

[henley]

I thought it only fair to respond to the many replies to my message above.

Most of these responses have focussed on technical means to prevent a repetition. Needless to say I have my doubts about the feasibility and suitability of most of these but that's irrelevent.

I should have originally stated this more clearly rather than reacting, but it is my firm belief that the solutions to these issues lies overwhelmingly in the human domain, not the technical domain.

I'd love to live in a world where geeks don't even need to devote their prodigious problem-solving skills to issues of this kind, and the only way to bring that about is consideration from the ground-up of the human issues here.

From organisational and chain-of-command matters through to foreign policy and human rights: This atrocity was NOT caused by guns, knifes, cost-cutting by aircraft manufacturers or lack of available technolog. And it will not be resolved through those means.

Flame away.

Re:Proper weapoin wont puncture the Aircraft

[David Ishee]

They have a gun (special bullet i believe) tht has a large bullet and low muzzle velocity. Will put down a human, wont go through steel.

Airplanes are made of Aluminum. Try again.

Re:Why the Surprise?

[LinuxParanoid]

It's a little more complicated in that Saddam didn't mind getting aid passed to the people of Iraq, as long as *he* controlled the distribution of it. The US and various aid organizations, having witnessed past aid in Ethiopia and other countries get diverted to soldiers and withheld from ordinary citizens said "no thanks". But yeah, I basically agree with you; I don't think the "US sanctions have killed hundreds of thousands" held much water when Saddam, having refused aid, was using his spare cash to build more palaces (and weapons).

Re:Why the Surprise?

[loosenut]

Here are a few things that you might want to look at:

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/index.cfm

http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/Iraq/IraqCrisi s. htm

Sweat shops suck because a lot of times the workers have no right to organize into unions, and working conditions are less than humane. So why don't they just quit? I don't know. Maybe the deals that the foreign governments make with the IMF require them to somehow encourage their citizens to work or get thrown in jail. That's a good point, though. I'll have to research it more.

No

[NetJunkie]

A friend at Sun claims everyone got out OK. They were on floors 23 and 24 in building 2.

Ground War in Afghanistan

[bwt]

Obviously we are going to have to seal off Afghanistan, invade it with ground troops, section it up and dismantle the sections.

The key diplomatic question is what kind of support or opposition we will get from neighboring countries. If none of them are willing to be the base of our invasion, it may be necessary to begin the invasion in another neighboring country. I'd guess that Iran may provide this avenue if we need it.

The big question mark is Pakistan. They have nuclear weapons (but not missles, I'm told). They are one of the few countries that have recognized the Taliban diplomatically. Pakistan will be a critical player in this conflict.

I don't know much about the former soviet republics to the north of Afghanistan. The ones that touch Afg are Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikstan. Here's a ethnic map of Afghanistan. If I recall, the forces that launched the rocket attacks were the "Northern rebels". I think their attack was a PR stunt looking for allies. Maybe we can find allies to the north?

China also touches a very small piece of Afg, but the tip of Afghanistan that touches China is very sparsely populated (I think its basically the Himalayas). We want to keep this as far from China as possible.

Basically there are three possiblities I see: (1) Get Pakistan on board, like we did Saudi Arabia in the Gulf war, (2) Get one or more soviet republics on our side (3) Move east through Iran, with or without them joining the cause.

Strategically, these aren't mutually exclusive, either. Option 3 seems like the most ambitious. If Pakistan will cooperate with (1), then it's probably the simplest. Doing option (3) without Iran could easily lead us into a much larger scale mideast conflict I can't imagine Iraq staying out of a conflict so close to them.

I don't see calling this World War 3. Maybe it's "World War T", though.

Re:Ground War in Afghanistan

[metachimp]

Obviously we are going to have to seal off Afghanistan, invade it with ground troops, section it up and dismantle the sections.

That's not at all 'obvious'. Even if Bin Laden is directly responsible, it is conceivable that the Taliban had no knowledge of his activities. This remains to be seen, but it is a possibility.

Bin Laden runs a very strange operation. It seems that he and his people run a series of training and support organizations throughout the world. Indeed, what if the entire plot was hatched and planned from within Canada or the US?

If you'll think back about 20 years, you may recall the Soviet Union tried to occupy Afghanistan. Despite superior firepower and manpower, it proved to be their 'Vietnam'.

Also, if Pakistan doesn't cooperate, then we could be facing tactical nuclear weapons. If that happens, India and China could get dragged in, not to mention the Russians.

Occupying Afghanistan would only punish the people of Afghanistan, who probably would like not to be bombed into the stone age because their government, which took over by force, allowed Bin Laden to live in their country.

I think these considerations make it considerably less 'obvious'.

Re:Ground War in Afghanistan

[SuiteSisterMary]

The big question mark is Pakistan. They have nuclear weapons (but not missles, I'm told). They are one of the few countries that have recognized the Taliban diplomatically. Pakistan will be a critical player in this conflict.

Pakistan is already urging the Taliban to play ball. I think they realize that while they might be able to carve the heart out of a city or two, their country would be turned into a parking lot in retaliation. The US has NEVER pussyfooted around with weapons of mass destruction.

Re:Ground War in Afghanistan

[q-soe]

Let me get this straight

No proof of aghanistani imnovlvement at all
No proof it even was Bin Laden
No proof of any muslim complicity

Yet you suggest a ground war in a soveriegn nation ruled by an Islamic government ?

Geez thats a great idea, lets unite the muslim world against us and have a Jihad declared so they can kill as many people as they can,

and how hard would it be to win in Afghanistan - i mean the russians had so much luck didnt they !

Moron

Get pakistan onboard ? a muslim ruled country is going to support military action against a neighbour carried out by a major ally of their sworn enemy (India)

The sobiet republics count for shit anyway - have a think about the chinese reaction for a second - yeah they COULD win a world war against the us !

Move through IRAN ? Are you fucking mad ? IRan are playing nice and all but christ invade the country ? Let me see now - why DO you think Saddam Hussein is alive ? if the US wants him dead then he would be but they cannot as the power vaccum and implications of killing him would be huge.

Lets recap the likely and possible consequences of an invasion of Afganistan.
1. the muslim world declares a Jihad on the US and her allies
2. Saudi Arabis kicks all US troops out of the country
3. Ditto Jordan.
4. Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Libya form a coalition of forces and move in support of the US
5. Pakistan sends troops over their border
7. The chinese make VERY VERY clear that the usage of any non conventional weapons will be unacceptable (and they will)

Suddenly the US are at war with the entire muslim world whilst they are cut off from oil supplies and the already weakened economoy collapses.

You sir habe not even though beyond the kille em all basis

Re:Ground War in Afghanistan

[reflector]

China also touches a very small piece of Afg, but the tip of Afghanistan that touches China is very sparsely populated (I think its basically the Himalayas). We want to keep this as far from China as possible.

China? More Likely that's Tibet. Please don't encourage the murder, rape, torture, and genocide commited by the Chinese government against the sovereign nation of Tibet by saying it's part of China. It is not, unless you believe that government by whomever has the largest army is a valid form of government.

Re:Ground War in Afghanistan

[kin_korn_karn]

Pakistan has nukes but a) India is just itching for a chance to nuke them and b) Pakistan can't threaten North America. They have the ability to build a fission warhead but not the capability to get it here. No suitcase nukes, either, fission warheads are big, bulky, and dirty.

Here are the options:

• Commando action - I'm sure they're already on the ground over there (Seals, Rangers, SpecForce, Recon, whatever), waiting for the go-ahead to start blowing shit up. The problem is that politically that would be a waste of effort since the American people are calling for blood, and surgical action doesn't look bloody.
• Ground invasion, old school: Russia would let us stage there and they could browbeat the former republics into letting us through them. They're on board. This might also let Russia talk Brussels into letting them join NATO.
• Ground invasion, new school: Marines fly into Afghanistan from Indian Ocean over southern Iran. Establish airbase. Fly in the rest of NATO. Attack at will. Threaten surrounding nations with attack if we are shot at over their airspace.
• Air attack - Carrier-based strikes from the ocean, or land-based from Russia. Kazakhstan isn't going to care about us flying over. B-52s, B-1Bs, B-2s carpet bomb Kabul into so much dust.
• Missile attack, conventional - every ship and sub in the Navy that can carry Tomahawks bombs every city in Afghanistan around the clock. B-52s carry ALCMs, the big brother of the Tomahawk, which is built to haul a nuclear warhead - adds up to, IIRC, 2 tons of TNT. The Tomahawk carries a 1000-lb conventional warhead.
• Nuclear - take your pick of ICBM, SLBM, or bomber. Myself, I like the symbolism of a wing of Stealth bombers dropping nuclear bombs in broad daylight, but the symbolism is all I like about it.

My guess is that, if we respond conventionally, we'll do much like Desert Storm. Bomb them until nothing's moving, then send in the ground troops to clean up the mess. If we respond with nuclear weapons, we'll all die so it'll be a moot point.

- Josh (IANAGeneral)

Re:Ground War in Afghanistan

[Pig Hogger]

The sobiet republics count for shit anyway - have a think about the chinese reaction for a second - yeah they COULD win a world war against the us

Ha! That's a funny one!!! China is not even able to invade tiny Taïwan!!!

Re:Ground War in Afghanistan

[bwt]

No proof of aghanistani imnovlvement at all
No proof it even was Bin Laden
No proof of any muslim complicity

You seem to be in denial. Wake up.

We are war in a global war against radical militant islamic terrorism. Frankly these people have been at war with us for a long time, but now we are joining the fight.

I expect moderate islamic forces like the Saudi's and Jordanians to support us. In Saddam Hussein's twisted mind there is one muslim people, but the real world just isn't so.

Re:Ground War in Afghanistan

[q-soe]

China chooses not to invade Taiwan

Dont mistake a decision not to act with the inability to act - do a bit of research

World largest army
Worlds largest airforce
2nd largest navy
largest nuclear arsenal

all modern and highly trained

The US is not invincible

Re:Ground War in Afghanistan

[q-soe]

The saudis would require PROOF of aghani government involvement (as would the international courts) and that means GOVERNMENT documents linking the government to the plot

they wont find it and they wont support a full scale invasion of Afghanistan.

ALSO SHOW ME THE PROOF IT WAS ARABS - So far its speculation - and if arabs they could be egyptian, palestinian, libyan, yemeni, iranian, iraqi etc

Do we kill everyone in the world whos not an american ?

Tell me whats the weather like on your planet ?

Re:Ground War in Afghanistan

[mpe]

Bin Laden runs a very strange operation. It seems that he and his people run a series of training and support organizations throughout the world. Indeed, what if the entire
plot was hatched and planned from within Canada or the US?

How is this a "strange" organisation? It dosn 't sound that different from the way in which the CIA operated in training Bin Laden in the first place...

Re:Ground War in Afghanistan

[Steve B]

The saudis would require PROOF of aghani government involvement (as would the international courts) and that means GOVERNMENT documents linking the government to the plot

Nope. Unless some surprising (i.e. pointing anywhere except straight at Osama bin Laden) evidence surfaces, then the Afghani regime either hands him over or they've got themselves a war. The stated policy of the US, which is clearly backed by the civilized world, is that no distinction will be made between the perpetrators and those who harbor them.

The difference

[Synn]

The difference is when the FBI comes after you the ISP doesn't try to hide your records.

When he says that these countries "harbor" the terrorists, he's talking about how they keep them safe from justice.

Weblog with links to photos, video, personal tales

[MoNickels]

For the last 36 hours, I've been keeping a weblog of the events in New York and DC, largely from the perspective of amateur vidoe and still photographers, keeps of weblogs and journals.

World New York.

Re:Arm Pilots -- Pressurization issue

[catseye_95051]

Im going to answer this in one place-- here.

I considerd this, there are two answers:

(1) The Isrealies have already solved this problem. They have a gun that shoots a large bullet with low muzzle velocity. Will put down a human but wont go through even the thin steel of an airplane.

(2) Frankly in a hiucjackign ill take my chances with depressurization. If the hijcakers are put down tehr are always the breathing masks for the passengers.

Oh and finally, in re trianing. As i mentioend in the original post, almost all if not all US comemrical airline pilosta re retired airforce pilots. (its abotu the only way an individual cna get Jet training in the US.) So actually they have already BEEN trained in the ahndling of a firearm.

Re:Why the Surprise?

[loosenut]

I'd support them if they were acting as a unified nation. Retaliation might be one of those actions. But continued rampant globalization in the interest of the plutocratic elite don't represent a unified nation.

Re:They were NOT designed to take an aircraft impa

[gurulegend]

For an interesting look at exactly why the WTC towers collapsed, look at
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.htm

This was posted earlier by another /.er.

Re:What can be done? Nothing.

[Mahonrimoriancumer]

I personally like carryon luggage as I usually pack light and don't want to wait for it at the luggage claim. I agree with you you on all other aspects. I don't mind checking my stuff if it helps prevent another problem like this.

Is Carnivore our friend now?

[cd_Csc]

It has been said the the government will be investigating suspicious cell phones calls made during yesterday's events in hopes of finding a conversation between terrorists. This is the first time Carnivore is being used in a well publicized situation - and despite my desire for the protection of free speach, I can't bring myself to flame the government for using it under these circumstances. Is Carnivore now our friend? What distinguishes when it should and should not be used?

Air control

[Decimal]

I suspect that commercial Airports will be moved farther away from important government and economic sites. Any plane that goes out into the restricted areas will be shot down.

And I expect this whole event will gain Bush support for his Missle Defense plan.

*shudders*

So what else is new?

[BOredAtWork]

Those have been coming out weekly or so since the USS Cole was bombed, possibly longer. Ask anyone working on a military base. Most of the time, the Washington Post doesn't even pick up on them anymore.

Re:What can be done? Nothing.

[SimonK]

One of the characteristics of resistance groups - and make no mistake that is how these people see themselves - is that if you start out with 100 revolutionaries and execute 90, when you're finished you don't have 10, or even 100, but 10,000, or even more.

Xinoehpoel

[idonotexist]

What do others think of this guy's messages?
This one is erie (see message subject and date of message) and others he has posted.

Re:Xinoehpoel

[idonotexist]

The thread of the discussion may be found here.
In addition to his post on 8/31 of 911, he posted:
From: Xinoehpoel (tesnal@psl.moc)
Subject: Re: 911
Newsgroups: alt.prophecies.nostradamus
View this article only
Date: 2001-09-04 12:40:28 PST

Wait 7 days, and then maybe I'll answer this post.
You see, I am going away in seven days, and you will not hear from me again.

X

FedEx hijacking

[Animats]

FedEx had a hijacking in 1994, by a disgruntled employee who had just been fired. His objective was to crash the plane in to FedEx HQ in Memphis. The pilot and copilot fought him off, suffering serious injuries. The plane (a Boeing 747) plunged into a vertical dive.

The two pilots struggled to subdue the hijacker. They were able to hold him down enough that one pilot was able to take back the aircraft controls and pull the plane out of the dive. The plane exceeded Mach I during the dive, the pull-out stresses warped parts of the aircraft, and counterbalance weights in the tail were torn off. But the plane held together.

The plane was landed intact at Memphis, the hijacker was arrested, convicted, and is in prison, and one of the pilots was too injured to fly again. The plane itself was repaired and returned to service.

Re:FedEx hijacking

[Greenisus]

I code for FedEx, and grew up in Memphis (home of FedEx hub and headquarters). I remember, when I was younger, that a FedEx plane had been hijacked by terrorists, and that a lot of people here were going crazy about it. I even know the Supreme Court judge that presided over the case.

I've been looking for the story at the Commercial Appeal's website, but I can't seem to find it, since it happened long before they had a website.

I've been on a FedEx plane during a hub tour, but I wasn't looking for security holes. I guess all I'm saying is that it has happened before.

Re:FedEx hijacking

[reflector]

Interesting, but unfortunately the link from that page is no good anymore.

Re:FedEx hijacking

[Polo]

Worked just fine for me:

http://www.airlinepilots.com/Safety/FedExFlt705.pd f

amazing.

Re:FedEx hijacking

[reflector]

You're right, it is working now.

Re:pentagon attack

[metachimp]

Well, if you fly over DC, the White House is pretty small in comparison to the Pentagon or the Capitol Building. Hell, the Smithsonian or the Watergate Hotel is probably easier to hit with an airliner at 400 knots. My guess is that they were gunning for the White House, but couldn't get on target, so rather than risk looping around for another pass, they continued on to the next target of opportunity.

To hell with you.

[grepnyc]

You can shove your arrogance straight up your ass . If not, perhaps you'd like to your kneecaps to meet my baseball bat.

Keep watching your TV dumbass. You have no idea what it's really like in NYC right now..... what the cameras don't show you. The body parts... the airplane parts... the firetrucks buried beneath rubble... firehoses snaking from trucks, to someplace under the rubble. There is death here. Maybe someone like you needs to see it up close and personal before you truly understand the scope of the tragedy.

As far as the terrorists not fearing death, then perhaps they should start to worry about fearing for the lives of THEIR mothers, daughters & children. Payback is coming.

They may not fear death, but they can't fly planes into buildings if they're dead to begin with.

Am I angry? Sure I fucking am. I had to step over body parts to get to my apartment yesterday. Yeah, americans like to prolong the inevitable. We, like all other normal people prefer not to die. You'd have to be a fucking madman to want to kill yourself.

Re:To hell with you.

[joss]

Fine, but when you're done bombing "THEIR mothers, daughters and children", don't be surprised when the one's you miss come back to show their appreciation.

You probably have more in common with the people who carried out this attack than you realize. It seems unlikely that they came to be the way they are/were without stepping over a few body parts. I guess they were angry too, and I guess they figured their anger justified bombing innocent men and women too.

People say "I don't understand how anyone could do such a thing - killing innocent civilians", then they say, "we must have revenge, even if this involves killing innocent civilians". You understand them all too well.

Re:Why the Surprise?

[frknfrk]

maybe if you read my earlier reply which i linked to you would have seen that i agree with you, and, given the choice, i believe that the american people would agree as well.

Re:His name was Timothy McViegh!

[Nater]

I didn't know that McViegh was a suicide bomber.

He's dead, ain't he?

NATO Approves Retaliation

[kin_korn_karn]

NATO voted to invoke Article 5.

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.

I just hope they don't go nuclear.

Re:Blame Bush, and Religons

[lukeman13]

i'm new here. please excuse me if i sound like a know it all. i have been around the block a few times. in the first 34 years of my life. i served in the navy, twice. i also sold kirby sweepers for 2 years. and i've had my share of "ground level" jobs...ie, jobs with sucky paychecks. so i have experienced enough to know a few things. who is NOT to blame: the current president. he has not been in ofice long enough to fix whatever clinton screwed up. and clinton screwed a lot of things up. religion. even organized religion. yes, their are people being brainwashed, everywhere, to believe certain "fringy" type things. but ultimatly, people need to take responsiblity for their own actions. arabs and moslems in this country. i point this out, because of what happened to japanes people, italians, and germans in this country, shortly after the pearl harbor attack. don't go off half cocked towards any one group of people. there are good and bad people everywhere. the important thing is, can we comer to together as one nation (under god) to stick up for one another, and all who love freedom? i believe we can. sane people do not plan, much less carry out, mass murder. that may not make you feel any better right now. but in the long run, if we all keep that in mind, keep a level head and support our neighbors and friends, we will all be better off. i say this to everyone, not just you. steve, pittsburgh, pa

Trent Lott: Retaliation plans

[cvanaver]

I just heard this on MSNBC (TV). Sorry I wasn't able to find mention of this on any website and I'm having to paraphrase this from memory so please excuse any inacacurracies (if someone can correct me, I'd appreaciate it) :

Congressman Trent Lott, following a meeting i the White House, has hinted at potential retaliatory plans as being massive and surprising/unconventional (or something to that extent). The idea here, that the news journalists were keying on, was the suprising or unconventional.

What could this mean? Are we secretly working with the Taliban and they are just going to turn the guy over? Are we gonna have a Navy Seal put a bullet in bin Laden's head on CNN? Are we going to torture the bastard until he renounces Allah? Are Afghan rebels rounding up the guy for us? Are Israeli Sepcial Forces going to move on Afghanistan? I have no idea.

Re:Trent Lott: Retaliation plans

[Skyshadow]

> Are we gonna have a Navy Seal put a bullet in bin Laden's head on CNN?

Of course not. A Navy Seal would use a (decidedly metallic) knife.

Re:Trent Lott: Retaliation plans

[HerrNewton]

Unconventional could mean ' tactical nuclear strike'.

Re:Trent Lott: Retaliation plans

[cvanaver]

I feel it is doubtful that Congressman Lott would phrase his hints in this manner if 'tactical nuclear strike' was a viable solution that was being seriously debated. That would be a very damning political move. I have a feeling, if the actions he alluded to are enacted, they will present an unexpected, but potentially ingenious solution to a very tricky problem. One that minmizes civilian casulties and collateral damage, but makes retribution for this act relatively satisfying.

Re:Why the Surprise?

[frknfrk]

i actually hadn't considered that, a very good point. but obviously their own food, medicine, etc, producers are not doing well as it is widely believe that the Iraqi people are generally very underfed and generally without medical care?

Re:Wired News Story about Mirrors and Pers Account

[ASIO]

Damm right. Specially when you can find out that this has occured some 2-3 mins after the 2nd plane hits. #CNN on Dalnet at one stage had 3000 users. Everyone pulling info from wherever they could, and letting everybody know. Big congrats to everyone who provided info in one way or another.

Bully politics

[Synn]

I think all terrorist organizations need to be taken out.

If any government gets in the way, it should also be eliminated.

Then we work with other NATO allies to ensure that any future terrorist groups are treated the same way.

Or in your schoolyard terms:

The bully punched us.
We pulled out our .357 and shot the bully.

The world needs to be taught that all the civilized countries will no longer tolerate terrorism as an acceptable form of "protesting".

Re:Bully politics

[Josuah]

You know what the problem with that is? The problem is that we're the bully, we punched them, and they shot back with a few airplanes. You think they attacked the U.S. because we're the weakest one with the easy lunch money? They attacked the U.S. because we're the leader of the jocks who are telling everyone else that they have to live by the jocks' rules.

Re:Bully politics

[mimbleton]

So we should just roll over and play dead hoping that nobody will attack bunch of pussies ?

How the fuck do you reason with people who are willing to die for the cause ?
You can't , the only thing you can do is kill them before they have chance to do anything.

Umm, yeah, but...

[ferkelparade]

...there is still a slight difference between the criminal himself and someone helping a criminal - and criminal law fully recognizes that difference: the murderer gets the chair (at least in your civilized country, over here, he'll have to settle for lifelong imprisonment), the guy who hides him gets away with maybe a couple of years.

And, by the way, killing innocent people was acceptable in WW2 and should be equally acceptable now? Did it ever occur to you that that was propably exactly what those suicide pilots were thinking?

Re:Umm, yeah, but...

[Desert Raven]

there is still a slight difference between the criminal himself and someone helping a criminal - and criminal law fully recognizes that difference: the murderer gets the chair (at least in your civilized country, over here, he'll have to settle for lifelong imprisonment), the guy who hides him gets away with maybe a couple of years.

Wrong. Any member of a conspiracy is liable for any crime commited by any member of the conspiracy. The driver of the getaway car can get the death penalty if one of the gunmen kills someone.

how about

[Big Toe]

we don't allow carry on baggage? That would certainly take away the security checkpoints being a weak point in our airports.

Plus it would make boarding and getting off the plane SOOOOOO much faster and safer (no more shifting items in overhead compartments!).

Personally I think this is a great idea, but it could really begin to suck on a 15 hour flight where you have nothing to do but twiddle your thumbs or enjoy that horrible music selection on planes.

Re:how about

[simetra]

Combine this with sleeping pills, and you have a winner.

Re:how about

[metachimp]

Take a few pot brownies with you on the plane. You may still be twiddling your thumbs, but at least it will be amusing...

Re:What can be done? Nothing.

[rhizome]

The answer to terrorism- find out who did it and who harbored them, and then destroy both. Not a missle into a factory, carpet bomb the whole area.
"Oh, you bombed our embassy? Say goodbye to your entire country."

Thanks for the input, Al Bundy.

There's your answer when it comes to terrorism- reply with more terror than a bomber can imagine.

The point of terrorism is to terrify the target. The news media is sure doing everything it can do to publicize the acts of terrorism and keep people freaked out, do you think we should give in? Innocent people being killed does not mean it's open season on brown people (though those days are shortly coming, no doubt). In response to the horror of killing so many innocent people, its ironic that people suggest the exact same in retribution. Let resentment rule!

I fear most of all the US reaction to this, because the US will experience the effects of this reaction for years to come. I can imagine the difficulty of these decisions when people are so shrill in their exhortations to quickly shape public opinion and to shoot from the hip.

World Trade Center Business List

[smoondog]

Here is a list of world trade center resident businesses. An interesting read:

http://www.onisland.com/wtc/bizdir/index.html

-Sean

Re:What can be done? Nothing.

[zachemlamka]

Good point; let's legalize murder, too. That way, people will realize that it's an empty gesture and just give up on it.

While this approach worked for civil rights in the US, is the proportional number of abuses and casualties acceptable? Perhaps, in the long run it would end terrorism, however, that end will be the generation of nations that follows ours, which would be buried as surely as Rome was sacked.

Another point. You would have the elected representatives of the United States defect against what seems to be the will of the people. This itself is an affront to civil liberty, a turn towards dictatorship.

There is no static response. Business as usual is an affront to the government by representation. The only solution would be for Americans to decide by majority that no retaliation was necessary - I'm not going to bother trying to guess the odds on that one.

Ground assault

[Synn]

Ground assault out of the question? I don't think so.

I know for damn sure I'd volunteer to go over and land on their shore(and yes, I am fucking dead serious about that, I can even bring my own guns).

Heavy losses to our troops?

When the body count in New York is done I'd guess this "war" will have already claimed 10k+ lives.

It's too late to not have heavy losses.

If Pakistan objects, I'm sure we can divert the troops to their shores first.

Re:Ground assault

[metachimp]

Both countries are landlocked, so landing on their 'shores' will be rather difficult.

I know for damn sure I'd volunteer to go over and land on their shore(and yes, I am fucking dead serious about that, I can even bring my own guns).

Only someone who has never been a member of the military would display such a bloodthirsty attitude.

look above

[eAndroid]

I think an important thing to note here is that this article was written nearly 30 years ago. The facts that you accurately pointed out as false were very true when this article was written.

questions and answers

[dotslashdotdot]

I have to ask myself what I would ask of those responsible for the events that have taken place.
Those who have lost loved ones have many questions.
They should be given the opportunity to pose these questions to those responsible, and receive answers.
This could take a very, very long time.
Hopefully, some insight could be derived from this procedure.
I have only thought about this for a short time, but it seems just.

eigenstates

It was a ploy

[horza]

(disclaimer) From news sources (/disclaimer) I read that those in one jet were encouraged to phone loved ones to tell them they were going to die by flying into the White House. This plane then flew into the Pentagon instead. Hence raising the White House as a target was merely a distraction from the REAL target. I've heard nothing about Airforce One from any source and it sounds incredibly improbable. I think you've made a mistake.

Phillip.

Re:It was a ploy

[bnenning]

I've heard from muliple news reports that officials had credible evidence that Air Force One was a target. I don't know how such an attack could have taken place, but the Secret Service took it seriously enough to have it fly via undisclosed routes with fighter escorts at an unusally high altitude. There has also been speculation that the terrorists had trouble locating the White House from the air, so they instead went for the Pentagon which was a much easier target to hit.

Fix the cars, too?

[j7953]

I guess you also perfer to drive a car where a computer takes over when you break the speed limit?

(Sorry for posting two replies, this one came to my mind just after I posted the first one.)

WTC floor plan directory

[LinuxParanoid]

The Washington Post has two webpages showing a listing of all the businesses in the World Trade Center, sorted by name, but also showing which floor each business was on, both Tower 1 and Tower 2. Interesting to see the non-US companies listed there, but more grimly relevant for gauging survival probabilities of friends/acquaintances/loved ones.

--LP

Thank you

[Synn]

Thank you for interjecting a little reality into this moron's "give peace a chance" crap.

I'm sure he'd find it kind of hard to turn a blind eye to terrorism if he lived in your apartment complex.

What is the policy on hijacking?

[cnaumann]

I believe that passenger safety is the #1 concern of the flight crew. Passenger safety should no longer be the #1 concern of the flight crew. The #1 concern of the flight crew should be maintaining control of the airplane, even if it means sacrificing the plane, crew and passengers. Up until now, going along with a hijacker's demands seemed to be the best policy to minimize the loss of life. We no this is no longer the case.

Higher bigger flight attendants maybe? Drop the maximum weight limit. A 100 pound flight attendant is not going to stop anybody.

We also do not know what weapons were used in the hijacking. The reports of plastic knives and box cutters are not reliable.

I can see it clearly...

[Theodore Logan]

Overheard somewhere in the Middle East, ten days from now:

Muslim boy: "Ma, you know that stinking Osama Bin-Ladin is hiding somewhere in our beautiful country since that awful terror attack in the US, right?"

Muslin mom: "Yes my son, why?"

Muslim boy: "Well, I just intercepted some secure CIA communication channel. Seems like there are a bunch of MIG 29 coming in shortly to nuke our village."

Muslim mom: "Ok, let me just get the chopper up and going. Tell your brother Mustafa we're leaving in five minutes."

Muslim boy: "Sure. Should I tell the Mohammuds and the Achmeds too before we leave?"

Muslim mom: "Naah.. no time. But nevermind them, if they are stupid enough sitting on their porch in the middle of a war zone they have themselves to blame. Sheesh"

Seriously though, that was probably the most clueless comment yet.

Deeply flawed logic alert...

[OSgod]

We will be attacked because we are big.
We will be attacked because we are tolerant.
Get used to it. We have meddled in the past and been attacked. We have tried not to meddle (isolationism) and saw the world blow up in our faces, we were attacked there as well.
We need not start any war. We will committ to finishing that which has been started.
This is not a case of right, wrong or moral high ground. This is a case of simple economics. The cost to attack the institution we call the US, to kill US citizens should and will be dear. What we do next may not be right. It needs to be final.

Re:Deeply flawed logic alert...

[jiheison]

What we do next may not be right. It needs to be final.

Problem is, such finality is unattainable as long as we continue to cultivate the same conditions that produced this hatred in the first place.

Big talk about our military might and ruthlessness is a pitiful conceit. There is no answer to an attack like this. There is no way to make the few fanatics who perpetrated this pay a price high enough to atone, and there is no way to prevent the next group from causing equal or greater damage.

Re:Deeply flawed logic alert...

[JatTDB]

Well gee...if we DON'T do anything about (insert latest world crisis/whatever here), the rest of the world looks at us and says, "Well? When are you going to get off your ass and do something?" Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

Re:Deeply flawed logic alert...

[plague3106]

Maybe we should grow out of this macho jock attitude, and ignore what the world thinks and do whats right: find those responsible and punish them (ie, justice), without harming innocents.

Re:Why the Surprise?

[JohnG]

If the world hates us so much why have the Canadians, Russians, British, and even the Palestinian leaders all expressed their sorrow and sent their sympathies? Why has NATO offered full use of it's military resources.
Everyone keeps talking about how we should look at how hated the US is, why because some third world countries aren't to keen on our actions? I for one am taking a different approach, I am very proud to see the worlds powers standing by us in support in this hard time.
It's ashame that some Americans such as yourself care less about the country than Russians.

Amen

[part!cle]

In the world of Fox News and a big red "ATTACK ON AMERICA" branded on every other channel, Its good to know some people still think straight. Thank you.

Re:Amen

[mimbleton]

It was fucking attack on America.
NYC official estimates are around 20 000 dead.
What the fuck is this if not attack on our country ?
I mean, do you people truly belive that one can "wait out" or reason with criminals who are willing to die to inflict this kind of carnage ?
We don't have a choice but to be as ruthless as they are.

Re:Amen

[part!cle]

man shut up and go hyperventilate somewhere else. I am not saying this is not an attack on our coountry, nor am i saying that we reason with criminals, nor am i saying we should not be ruthless to them. that does not mean going on a which hunt and slinging bombs aroungd the world when we dont know who is even responsible yet.

Re:Amen

[part!cle]

Ok im sorry if i was a bit caustic. This has me pissed off as everyone else.
let me rephrase my statement.
I thought that CNN and FOX were triviolizing and cheapening the horrendous deaths and destrution by asking victims if they saw anyone die and how did the blood make them feel. If i had just come out of the WTC i guess they would like to share their awful experiences with the world but i kept on getting the feeling that FOX could not give a damn and would have shown anything to keep their ratings high. I also saw that big red banner "attack on america" and emotional background music a way of getting your attention more and trying to whore more of an audience without regard to the devistation actually going on. I am open to criticism about this but I may sometimes get defensive because this is such a huge deal that i cant see straight. I was not saying that this was not an attack on america. I am also advising the brutal and slow deaths of those responsibe. I just do not want to see us bomb the crap out of a forign nation nd find out that it was not them. That would be as tragic as what happened in new york. I was in New York 2 days before the crashes staring at the twin towers as masterpieces of mankind. My mom is a AA attendant supposed to be flying over NY very shortly after the attack. There is no way i would reason with the criminals, and I am sorry if you took my statement to think that we should give these bastards a "chance"or anything. My heart goes out to all those who were affected in this attack and my hatred goes to those responsible.

Airport security and non-metallic handguns

[SysKoll]

Maybe Israel will reconsider its policy in the Middle-East. Maybe they'll allow a Palestinian state to be created. Maybe they'll reconsider a policy of targeted elimination that has been creating martyrs and orphans willing to die by the truckload.

Or maybe they'll decide to solve the Palestinian problem the way the early Americans solved the Ameridian problem.

Maybe we'll all get along together some day.

Maybe.

Meanwhile, we'll need to secure our airports. It means that we'll need to prevent weapons from being smuggled on-board and be used by terrorists.

Now, I have read reports saying that the terrorists threatened pilots with knives. It seems a pretty unreliable means to curb pilots and attendants into submission. Assume the knife reports are true. It is then likely that the terrorists threatened only one person at a time and prevented the other flight personnels to attack them by pretending they would detonate explosives.

So Western airports still need to insure that firearms and explosives cannot be sneaked into planes. That's very hard with current X-Ray and magnetic detection technology.

Handguns made mostly out of non-metallic synthetic materials are now available (I checked the Heckler und Koch web site but couldn't find a link to their rumored plastic HK-9). The only metallic part is the recoil spring. Even bullets can be made of hard plastic and still be lethal even if they have no great penetration power.

But the one thing that cannot be replaced is the nitrogen-based propulsive powder in the cartridges. The same is true for explosives: barring exotic, unstable compounds, all military and construction explosives use nitrogen-based molecules. The three bondings of nitrogen release a high energy when broken and are the staple of explosives.

That's where detection methods offer hope. Various technologies (neutrography and variants of MRI) could be used to build machines that detect 100% of known explosives in all luggage, as well as explosives and ammo carried or swallowed by passengers.

The real problems would be the following:

• Would passengers freely submit to a "virtual frisk", i.e., being scanned by a machine as intrusive as X-Rays?
• Would passengers or taxpayers accept to bear the cost of equipping all airports with these multiple copies of these new detectors costing several million dollars a pop (even after factoring cost reduction effects of large series)?
• Would the same passengers cheerfully accept the inevitable false alarms triggered by sensitive equipment with low detection thresholds?

If the answer to a single one of these question is no, then forget all pretense of ever securing airports. Be ready to install anti-aircraft batteries around each city and accept the occasional accidental shooting of a misguided aircraft...

-- SysKoll

Re:Airport security and non-metallic handguns

[Steve B]

Maybe Israel will reconsider its policy in the Middle-East. Maybe they'll allow a Palestinian state to be created. Maybe they'll reconsider a policy of targeted elimination that has been creating martyrs and orphans willing to die by the truckload.

Maybe monkeys will fly out of my butt. Israel just got a stack of Get Out Of Jail Free cards on these issues.

Now, I have read reports saying that the terrorists threatened pilots with knives. It seems a pretty unreliable means to curb pilots and attendants into submission.

Knives are sufficient to control people who assume that their best option is to co-operate and wait it out. That has been the case with the traditional "fly this plane to Point X and have $10,000,000 and a getaway car waiting there" hijackings.

Even if the passengers do decide to fight it out against knife-armed hijackers (much more likely now -- the default assumption has shifted to "you're going to die anyway unless somebody does something"), it can still be done if enough terrorists can get aboard.

The more workable solutions I've seen proposed are:

1. Armed protectors (add some Sky Marshalls and/or allow passengers with CCW permits to carry on board).

This has the obvious advantage of making it easier to overpower hijackers, and the obvious risk that the hijackers might identify and overpower the armed protector and take his gun for their own use.

2. Strict separation of the cockpit from the cabin.

This prevents hijackers from gaining control of the plane and using it as a missile. It requires some redesign (a tougher inside door or two separate outside doors, separate galley and restroom facilities, cockpit seats for the backup crew on long flights).

3. "Panic Button" lockout of the controls, followed by a landing under autopilot or remote control.

Is autopilot up to the task of safely landing a passenger jet? (I rather doubt it, but am not an expert in the area.) A remote control would introduce a risk that it could be hacked and used to crash a plane without the need to get on board or commit suicide (this could be countered by hard-wired insurance that the remote control could not be activated from anywhere but the cockpit).

Alternatively, a lockout might be of limited scope (i.e. automatically proceed to the nearest airport and circle, not descending below a certain altitude without a proper external confirmation signal).

Re:Monetary support for

[metachimp]

The hard-earned money of those who died should NOT go to those who celebrated their deaths.

This would be funny if it weren't such an idiotic thing to say. The governments of Egypt and Jordan and others have offered their sincere condolences to us, they decry the acts, and renounce the ones that did it. It's not as if Hosni Mubarak (the president of Egypt, I'm sure I have to clarify this since you probably don't know who he is) got on Egyptian TV and gloated over it. Even Arafat has denounced the act. We're talking about the opinions of a vocal minority, here, not official statements from countries that, by the way, have very cozy relationships with us, and have helped us in our counter-terrorist activities over the years.

This won't be Vietnam

[Synn]

The full support of the population will be behind the invasion.

I can assure you that with that kind of backing this won't turn into a Vietnam.

Re:This won't be Vietnam

[metachimp]

Not the full support of the entire population. I, for one, would not support an operation of this nature, and I don't think it would be a good use of our military to try and do so.

Tell me, how many Afghanis would have to die in order for us to feel better? How many to serve justice for the attack? How many Afghanis who have no idea who Osama Bin Laden is would have to die so we can satisfy our craving for revenge? The minute Bin Laden gets word that we're invading, he'll be out of there through a remote mountain pass. I guess then we'll have to invade Kazakhstan or Pakistan as well.

Invading Afghanistan makes no sense, politically or militarily.

Re:This won't be Vietnam

[OSgod]

Sounds like a simple solution then -- they just need to gift wrap him and leave him on their border and we'll take it from their.

Re:This won't be Vietnam

[RavensDark]

The Mujahideen had the complete support of the population when they were fighting to drive Russia out of Afghanistan in the first place.

As the President said "We will make no distinction between the terrorists and those who harbour them"

Normally I wouldn't agree with this but as long as we sit on our hands and preach love, peace and happiness to the people who are willing to die in order to kill as many Americans as possible then it will continue to happen.

We must do, what we must do in order to stop the religious nuts from killing more people because some-one thought god would like it if they killed as many people as possible who didn't agree with their point of view.

Re:This won't be Vietnam

[gimple]

I wish this were true. I just heard some knuckleheads on the radio protesting the upcoming retaliation.

Re:This won't be Vietnam

[bwt]

how many Afghanis would have to die in order for us to feel better?

All of the ones that support terrorism.

This isn't a game of Civ

[Glowing Fish]

If this was a game of Civ, that might be what I would do.

This isn't a game of Civ.

Re:Airport Security... Simple Idea

[WayneGayle]

OK, fine, I don't like the idea of cameras watching me at all times either. But i'm talking about airliners and airports, places where security is important. When you walk from the parking lot(click!) to the airport concourse(click!) to the gate(click!) you can bet you've been on several cameras already. Big Brother scares the hell outta me, but not when i'm at 10,000 feet.

links from the other side

[frknfrk]

the discussions on these pages has been eye opening. i hope that if anything i have learned to trust even less the american media and the actions of our government. from responses of anonymous cowards (no disrespect intended) to my own searches for information, i compiled this short list of links detailing some of the things our government does which gets VERY little attention by our media.

the effects of the iraqi embargo

two page bio of bin Laden from pbs.org

one discussion thread on this page discussing increasing American globalization

another thread on this page discussing US export of arms

please note i in no way whatsoever condone these attacks or terrorist acts of any kind. i just hope americans can wake up to the wool over their eyes when in comes to our foreign policies.

-sam

It is economics...

[OSgod]

and perhaps the answer is upstream of those doing the killing.

Anyone who hosts a terrorist is and should be counted as guilty as they are.

Step carefully, measure twice, strike once.

Tragedy Spam

[whizzird]

I just an email at work about tomorrow officially being "US Pride Day", because of the attacks. Of course it asked me to forward it to everybody I know to spread the word.

It's sad how low spammers will sink.

I think the spammer who initiated this should make up for it by giving blood. 8 pints should do it...

Article V phrasing

[jabber]

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. [Emphasis mine]

What this says is that the members of NATO agree to do whatever they want. The real meaning of Article V is in the second paragraph:

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security (1). [Emphasis mine]

The point of Article V is not mutual defense, it is disclosure of actions and the termination of activity once the Security Council says so.

Article V is not about standing up for each other. It's a safety measure to make sure no member of NATO obliterates an enemy. It's to keep NATO functioning militarily as a unit, to prevent drawn out international conflict.

Re:Article V phrasing

[Compulawyer]

Shake your head - I want to make sure nothing is in there. This is the most twisted and convoluted reading of a piece of text I have ever seen.

Despite your comments, Article V is the HEART of the NATO treaty - it is the mutual aid and cooperation agreement of the member countries. The details are spelled out in other documents.

The second paragraph is not the "real" meaning - it is merely the mechanics of informing our allies of an attack and starting the mutual assistance procedures.

Don't forget -- this treaty was created in 1949 -- in the days before 24 hour instantaneous information access.

Spiderman trailer pulled

[maclay01]

It's interesting to note that the Spiderman movie site has a "will return soon..." message and that quicktime, who housed the trailer, has pulled it. The climax of the trailer was a shot of a helicopter full of bank robbers caught in a giant web between the two towers of the WTC.

Please donate. It'll increase your stake in this mess.

Re:What can be done? Nothing.

[timster]

I think you're mistaken. Terrorism is not "to cause change" and these attacks were not designed to cause the US to retaliate.

These people's lives are based on hatred. The purpose of the attacks is simply to hurt people; specifically, to hurt Americans. We have no choice but to destroy such minds. Left alive they will continue to act the same way no matter what our reaction is. That's why it's flawed to ask what the US should be doing differently to demotivate these people. That's like suggesting that there is something a black man could do to avoid the KKK. These terrorists live for hatred, and there is nothing that will change that.

Heros on the Penn. plane?

[KoshClassic]

This link at the Washington Post relates the story of two people on the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania conveying to loved ones that they intended to try and overpower the hijackers before they were able to carry out their plans. If these people even tried what they were talking about, even if it wasn't the cause of the apparently pre-mature crash, IMHO they are true heros.

Bleed the air out

[Belly of the Beast]

All the Pilot has to to is open the valve and everyone is going to be teather to the air masks. And the O2 generators are only good for a few minutes to get the plane down below 10K ft. If the pilot stays high every ony is going to go to sleep very quickly. I assume that the pilots have larger O2 bottles?

Re:geopolitics

[metachimp]

You might want to re-think that Raytheon buy. Their GM was aboard one of the planes... Although it might make sense in a twisted way, if the government decides to award a few contracts to them out of sympathy...

Re:Airport Security... Simple Idea

[WayneGayle]

I'm not very technical when it comes to these things. Why are sat feeds hard? It's not like it's a problem if it's not a continual feed, in my opinion. I can understand the pilot's union's concern, though. Maybe it can be a thing that the pilot(or stewards) can turn on during an emergency..

Re: What can be done about terrorism? - 1st Sam 15

[Inthewire]

Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

And Saul gathered the people together, and numbered them in Telaim, two hundred thousand footmen, and ten thousand men of Judah.

And Saul came to a city of Amalek, and laid wait in the valley.

And Saul said unto the Kenites, Go, depart, get you down from among the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them: for ye shewed kindness to all the children of Israel, when they came up out of Egypt. So the Kenites departed from among the Amalekites.

And Saul smote the Amalekites from Havilah until thou comest to Shur, that is over against Egypt.

And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword.

But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them: but every thing that was vile and refuse, that they destroyed utterly.

Re:How about the IRA

[TWR]

Just how many MILLIONS of dollars was raised by irish pubs, clubs chairty etc and sent to buy guns and explosives to kill british civilians

Do I hold all Americans responsible for this?

No, but you should hold the Irish-Americans who support the IRA responsible. It's disgusting that they support the IRA, and Britian should be charging them as criminals.

I don't hold ALL Muslims and Arabs responsible. But those who have stood by and silently encouraged terrorism should be ashamed and disgusted with what has been done with their help and in their name. If they aren't, they should be exterminated.

Better than anyone else, they know the names and the trails. It's their responsibility to turn in the murderers. If they continue to stand by silently, they should be exterminated.

-jon

We're already *in* hell.

[torpor]

It is your arrogance that assumes that death has not been presented to me in the same way that you are facing. I have faced death, in ways I hope you can only ever imagine.

Attack me personally, if you wish - but ignore the understanding of the world that lays behind my commentary at your own peril.

I can understand you're upset. You've never had to deal with something like this before, in the safety and comfort of your metropolis. I'm sure your daily runs to Starbucks will resume, once it's all cleaned up for you. Perhaps, over the next cup o' bean, you'll give pause to think about just what sort of charade it is you're living, and what it takes to keep it there.

You think you're the first person on the planet to have to walk across body parts to get to sanctity? What, exactly, do you think the American war machine produces, exactly?

Fried chicken?

Its denizens must realize that the way of life outside the gates of The New Babylon is a *very* different way indeed. A very different way.

Mark my words, America is the New Babylon, and its towers are falling ... the only way to keep them up is to tackle the real problem at hand: your fear of their fall.

Re:We're already *in* hell.

[grepnyc]

>>I can understand you're upset. You've never had to deal with something like this before, in the safety and comfort of your metropolis. I'm sure your daily runs to Starbucks will resume, once it's all cleaned up for you. Perhaps, over the next cup o' bean, you'll give pause to think about just what sort of charade it is you're living, and what it takes to keep it there.

Fuck you.

The charade that I'm living? What frigging charade? Freedom? Peace? A place to raise my daughter?

It's not only Americans that live this so called charade of yours. How many other nations share our views, and quality of life? How many up and coming nations are trying to be like the USA? MANY.

If you think real hard about it, you might realize that the bastards that burn our flags and kill our civilians are plain old jealous of how we live. They'd live this life if they could. But they can't. So they hate us for having it.

If it's such a terrible place, aka, charade, aka, satanic place, then maybe all the people from all those poor backwards third world countries should stop coming here.

People immigrate here for a better life. Oh, I know, it's a charade.

And yes, I will continue to go to starbucks, and post to slashdot and spend money on CD's. But I will never, ever forget what happened here yesterday. Nor will anyone else. Americans aren't as dumb and lazy as you think. We're just happy. Or should I say that we WERE happy.

Now we're pissed off.

Changes are coming. Fucking count on it.

>>It is your arrogance that assumes that death has not been presented to me in the same way that you are facing. I have faced death, in ways I hope you can only ever imagine.

No dumbass. What you read in my post was my anger at my homeland being attacked. I assume nothing about you and your experiences. But that does not change my view that you are wrong for trivializing what happened here. If anything, if you were the least bit human, you show some sympathy, having "been through it".

At least that's what I'd do. And will do in the future.

Learn this. (Some)Americans may be soft. But we love our country. And we will fight to the death in the streets, if need be, for it.

Re:We're already *in* hell.

[torpor]

The charade that I'm living? What frigging charade? Freedom? Peace? A place to raise my daughter?

This so-called Peace and Freedom you cling to takes an *extremely* big machine to maintain.

That paper cup you use for 10 minutes before casting to the winds took a *lot* of industry to find its way into your hands. A *LOT*. The kind of machine that allows that sort of wanton waste, is a very, very inefficient and deadly machine in and of itself.

That machine steals freedom and peace, and redistributes it elsewhere (to its own people), in order to perpetuate the charade that "modern western America is the place to live".

American corporations, together with its government, have all-too-often raped and pillaged other nations in order to serve the interests of "American People", and it's time that stopped.

You *CAN* live the life you want to live, but you're going to have to be a lot more responsible for the people you've trampled along the way, first.

Take more tangible responsibility for the crimes of your nation. Don't resort to backlash, anger, and more violence.

I don't advocate terrorism as a means of bringing this issue to the limelight, but I do advocate the notion that 'normal Americans' need to have a good, close, honest look at what exactly it is about America that would bring someone to commit this attrocious act.

On the one hand, you can glibly say that it's "evil" that brought those planes and the buildings together in final, firey, destructive passion.

That'd certainly justify any knee-jerk action - everyone knows that anything 'evil' is bad and must be destroyed.

But this sort of response, borne from anger, that most Americans seem to have a passion for right now, is the true evil. Consider the *whole*, not just your own side of it.

You could also take the view that what happened in New York could also have been done out of frustration over what America represents to a goodly portion of the world: an imperialist machine which uses *force* (and the threat of force) as a means to govern in regions where it has no right to meddle at all.

America has *no right* to meddle in the lives of the members of other countries, yet for it's own interests it does - on a daily, calculated, statistically traceable and viewable basis. The utmost arrogance of all, is that of an American citizen, living a cushy life, with *no* tangible concept of just how expensive that life is to other nations ...

Think about it before you call for more blood, angry American. To not consider this, would be an act of sheer stupidity.

Blood is blood, wherever it came from, and more need not be spilled for the sake of your own stupidity.

Re:We're already *in* hell.

[IronChef]

Sounds like sour grapes to me. I'm going to Starbucks now. Continue with your hand-wringing, you poor thing.

Re:We're already *in* hell.

[Anthony Boyd]

But this sort of response, borne from anger, that most Americans seem to have a passion for right now, is the true evil. Consider the *whole*, not just your own side of it.

I'm going to get modded down (ouch), but I'm going to have to say, "no thanks" here. Why would I say no to your entirely reasonable (sounding) request to consider both sides? Well, even if these murderers have a point, they haven't stated it in the wake of the bombing, so all we can do is guess. And I'm not interested in guessing. In addition, while killing my family will get my attention, I will not give those killers the attention they desire. Even if they have a legitimate point, they made their point by slaughtering innocent people. Therefore, my deliberate choice is to give them enough attention to see them bombed or jailed, and no more. I don't care what their point might be, based on our speculation or even their plainly stated comments. They killed people. Their comments are now lost on me.

Is that closed-minded? Well, you're free to view it however you wish. But people who slaughter the people I love don't get to "open a dialogue" with me. I won't reward that behavior by giving them what they want. I have seen in my lifetime a living example of how to cause change on a massive scale, in the life of Martin Luther King. I've seen non-violence work. That is what I support, that is what I listen to. These thugs deserve zero consideration from me.

Re:We're already *in* hell.

[1010011010]

How did the "world's only super power" become so isolated and fearful?

The "Wolfowitz Doctrine"

http://english.pravda.ru/usa/2001/08/24/13230.html

Re:We're already *in* hell.

[Drazi100]

" have seen in my lifetime a living example of how to cause change on a massive scale, in the life of Martin LutherKing"
indeed Martin luther King and Gandhi brought about change without firing a shot.

Re:We're already *in* hell.

[bonius_rex]

Initiate Karma burn:
This so-called Peace and Freedom you cling to takes an *extremely* big machine to maintain

Yep. We live well because wealth from other countries is redistributed here. We are not all naive here. I know that my quality of life comes at the expense of others. Guess what? I couldn't care less. I look forward to the day that fossil fuels are obsoleted and the middle east returns to its rightful irrelevance.
I am a rich fat, american. If you are a poor, thin herdsman from some place I've never heard of, rest assured that I am enjoying the fruits of your labors, and smiling.
For those of you not paying attention, America (and her allies) control of this planet. We allow the rest of you to exist because you provide us with some useful service (mainly petroleum and cheap labor).
I have never in my life seen so many of my countrymen SO PISSED OFF.

Right or wrong (if there is such a thing), whoever did this is going to suffer immensely. Yes, there will be innocents slaughtered. (pray to allah/god/jesus/chullu/etc if it makes you feel better).

The blood of the innocent will flow simply because we want to watch it on CNN. and we will.

Yep, I'm a madman, and I am an american citizen.
Fear me, for I vote.

Re:We're already *in* hell.

[teatime]

I have a couple of things you can read. Not on the same exact subject but interesting nonetheless
Sense and nonsense about 9.11
Death Downtown

Re:We're already *in* hell.

[Water Paradox]

Torpor:

With an ear that hears the crunching of bones in the footsteps you have tread, I respond:

The American "right" to meddle as you stated is no right, and we would do well to retreat to our own borders, which is where we were for well over a century. If you recall, we were 'isolationist' and reluctant to meddle in world affairs until World War One brought us out. It was difficult to retreat to our borders thereafter, but we did fairly well. Then World War II came, and we again reluctantly joined. I am not concerned with the secret plots which drew us into both wars, I am explaining why we are where we are in more general terms.

We Americans learned from the first war that, left to their own devices, the Europeans would start another war in a few years, and thus was born the Marshall Plan, one of the most brilliant strategies of all time; help rebuild even our enemies, and we can retreat back to our borders. Dispensing with the forces of paranoia released from Czarist Russia in 1918 took us another half-century beginning in 1950, but that has ended well. We are all a little more paranoid than before, but at least we get along with the Russians, thank God. Now, where were those Chinese folks we were chatting with before the wars began? Oh, there they are. Hmph. They're mad at us for some reason. Musta been all that opium...

Frankly, your typical American is similar to your typical Russian in that he has no interest in "meddling" with the affairs of other countries. These acts of meddling come about by the actions of influential minorities, which carry grudges and agendas that extend back far older than the United States. I seek not to join with them, and so when you accuse me along with them, I stand and deliver my dissenting opinion.

My point is that Americans are historically not meddlers; our history demonstrates that, from inception until recently, Americans sought actual justice, liberty, and a high standard of morality in all pursuits, mostly internally-designed, relying little upon the world around us. As that erodes because the world has drawn us into its agendas, our newborn innocence is dimmed, and our hope is blemished, but meddlers or not it still strides far ahead of the rest of the world. The Statue of Liberty, a gift from our brothers in France, is corroded, but not gone.

America is still the Standard Nation, and we did not come out of our quiet isolation specifically to cause trouble, but we were drawn out, carefully, calculatingly, by interests whose purpose was betrayal at the deepest levels of humanity. You know who they are, or you would not be so gentle in your speech. Blaming Americans for meddling is like blaming rattlesnake for biting you; what, did you not hear the rattle? It is like blaming child for making mistake; what, did you not teach me correctly? The United States was founded by people seeking a better way, who believed that God would provide, and he did. Now how can you move the nation off her foundation? You cannot but she will return.

We are not innocent, but neither are we inclined to meddle of our own nature. We Americans are curious.

What happens when you create a nation out of people who leave their homeland for something better? You create a nation of people who CANNOT TOLERATE a sad ending to a movie. Of the three hundred movies I saw in the past decade, I would estimate five or six had sad endings, and most of those were European imports. Two hundred ninety four had happy endings. The good guys won. And most often, the bad guys got blowed up but good in the course of things, but only after it was amply demonstrated they had plenty of time to mend their ways, and amply demonstrated that they were more evil than we realized at first.

Americans love happy endings; hold with us to the end, and you will see a happy ending.

And you folks all over the world who wish we would stop meddling... stop hating each other. Migrate to America, where the worst we do is meddle...

I love America, and I am so deeply American that I cannot comprehend any other way; I am eager to know what the rest of the world is doing, but all I see is people who prefer to stay in the dark ages. Give us more Gandhis. Quit boasting all the time; we're weary of your poseurs like Michel Fucoult, pretending to be sophisticated with stockings that match, when we can see your stockings don't match your honesty.

Show me how you are not uglier than the ugly American, and I will learn. Don't blame me for being spoiled by natural resources; come play in them with me. The invitation is open to you as it was to your ancestors, our brothers whom we left behind in search of something better. Accusing me of meddling just makes me neurotic, and having graduated from neurosis, I am seeking what of substance you have to bring.

Me, I bring curiousity. Mostly, I want to know what the Australians are doing, are you being responsible with the land you took from the Aborigines? We're just now figuring that one out...

-Jared

Re:One approach: Undermine them

[zachemlamka]

I do really like this as an approach, but the way these things seem to work, here's how I read the response:

"The devils of the west are trying their best to seduce God's people from the true path. Those who succumb are heretics, and enemies of God."

Add a bit of infighting, and the U.S. looks more "evil" for it's "deviousness"

All of that aside, it'd be tough to convince investors that subsidizing the citizens of Iraq et al. is the way to go (never mind the problem of sending aid; Somalia is a good example of how foreign aid is distributed)

Re:What can be done? Nothing.

[Guil Rarey]

Killing terrorists in retaliation won't work - they've already demonstrated they're not
afraid of death - something that most
americans can not truly admit.

Excuse me? Won't work at what? If they're dead, they are not going to be bombing our cities. What else should I be concerned about?

Re: What can be done about terrorism? - 1st Sam 15

[suprslackr420]

This is exactly why I can't stand Christians.

New York to Terrorists: That All Ya Got?!?

[tenzig_112]

New Yorkers are the toughest people on the planet- kind of like the Superman of cities. What we all saw yesterday only makes me admire them more.

I humbly submit a link to a respectful and funny story about the resiliency of New Yorkers in the light of yesterday's tragedy.

http://www.ridiculopathy.com/news_detail.php?displ ay=20010913

Downloading Media Files

[beefdart]

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...

Except the thread named is 911

[Pengo]

sept 11?

Re:Except the thread named is 911

[reflector]

Nice try, but the thread was named 911 on Aug 31, when he wrote that something was to happen the following day. If he really was part of a conspiracy that had anything to do with the hijacking, and knew that the date was set for 9/11, and wanted to mouth off about it, why would he say something will happen tomorrow?

Cockpit fortress?

[Anonymous Coward]

Would it not help if airplane cockpits were heavily secured with locks and armour, and pilots were not allowed to leave the cockpit?

Re:Why the Surprise?

[frknfrk]

but the problem is that hundreds of thousands HAVE died, and regardless of who brought this on the people (Saddam) obviously our sanctions are NOT having the right effect.

how bad have the sanctions been? read this from a seattle news source.

yes the government of Iraq should suffer, but the people should NOT, and right now they ARE SUFFERING. we need to do SOMETHING.

A potential hijacking solution...

[chhamilton]

All the news out there has been hinting that the hijackers got control of the aircraft by luring the pilots out of the locked cockpit by killing passengers/flight attendants, and threatening to kill more. Typical company policy says that they are not to do that, despite it seeming like the right thing to do at the time.

Why not physically seperate the cockpit from the rest of the aircraft? Currently, regulations and company policy make it so that their should be a door between the cockpit and passenger cabin, and that door is normally locked. However, if the pilots had a seperate external entrance to the cockpit, it would make it pretty much impossible for the hijackers to threaten the pilots directly, or attempt to take over the controls.

Not to say this would prevent all hiijacks (you can still threaten the entire plane with a bomb or kill passengers to persuade the pilots), but it would prevent aircraft from being physically controlled by hijackers, and used as flying bombs.

Just a thought...

Re:Friday's "Worldwide Caution" from Dept. of Stat

[nmos]

I was surprised at how much more serious our local airport (a small regional one) was about security the last time I was there. The were manually searching many (maybe 1 in 4) bags and even made me demonstrate that my cell phone worked. In the past they've always been pretty layed back.

--
Ray

Somewhat Ironic

[Empty Sands]

There seems to be clear evidence that the middle east and parts of the culture that exist in that region are and will continue to be the breeding grounds for attacks such as these.

Its undoubtable in my mind that regardless of final judgment and due justice that a war has been declared on both sides. A war between a state and a regional gorilla organization. An organization that now has the knowledge of what is possible might up the ante. The victim of this will of course be our everyday life and the comfort of being able to move though this world without fear.

It is somewhat ironic that the wealth created in the Middle East regional which ultimately is the main source of funding for this/these organizations is mainly derive from the increasing demand for oil generated in its perceived target.

A war of bullets is likely only to create martas, merely pushing the next event of hate to a later time. It seems then that the best way to attack your attackers is to remove their strengths with your weaknesses.

An effort to removed the dependancy of the western world on oil would likely go long way to making these terror organizations impotent.

Re:Somewhat Ironic

[metachimp]

A war between a state and a regional gorilla organization.

Let's remember folks:

gorilla: peaceful, vegetarian african ape

guerilla: irregular soldier, revolutionary, insurgent

While gorillas and guerillas can be found in similar climates, and may at times share habitats, gorillas are becoming fewer and fewer as time goes by. With guerillas, it's the opposite. I, for one, wish it was the other way around.

Re:Somewhat Ironic

[Modular]

An effort to removed the dependancy of the western world on oil would likely go long way to making these terror organizations impotent.

Good point.

I hope this doesn't get overshadowed by everything else. The gas crisis was in 1972 and I can't say that we've made much progress since then.

saw a comment before

[unformed]

that said why not keep an armed guard in plainclothes on every plane. The cost per ticket wouldn't be much increased, whereas the safety would definitely increase. And I'm almost willing to bet most passengers (especially now) would be willing to pitch in an extra dollar for the safety precautions.

Re: What can be done about terrorism? - 1st Sam 15

[TWR]

I don't have a Bible in front of me so I can't quote it completely, but you are missing what Samuel did when he found out Saul had kept Agag alive. Samuel slew Agag himself and chastised Saul for not following the word of the Lord.

The sad news is the the spiritual kin of Amalek rise in every generation, and it is our responsiblity to destroy them.

-jon

Back to the simple economic model...

[OSgod]

and the jihad member doesn't understand economics -- that they will pay the highest price possible. Their host country may.

Re:Back to the simple economic model...

[plague3106]

They harmed innocent people, women and children (a thing not to be done)

Its quite possible they see ALL americans as non-innocents. Just as many people here are now blaming all arabs/arab countries.

Kind of ironic, if you think about it. Its of little comfort that most americans seem to be more then willing to sink to the level of the terrorists.

Re:Back to the simple economic model...

[DeePCedure]

It is not that difficult to understand that EVERY religious group has its extremists that are horribly degrading to everyone related to them.

Too true. If the roles the G7 and the Arab nations were reversed, bin Laden, Qaddahfi, and Hussein would be in mainstream politics; and Pat Buchanan, Orel Roberts, and Louis Farrakahn would be leading rogue nations or terrorist organizations. The distinction is not one of religion, creed, or even culture; but of majority extremism vs. minority extremism.

Some disturbing perspectives

[devastopol]

Based on a lot of observing, conversations, & thinking since yesterday, I couldn't help but speculate on these disturbing perspectives:

all the hijackers -- feeling an air of invincibility about them, fearing nothing since they've reconciled their fates:
our brave actions will change the course of humanity forever.. our lives will be well spent in further realizing our worthy cause!

passengers at initial moment of hijacking:
oh my god.. oh my god.. i can't believe this is happening.. i'm going to be sick to my stomach.. oh my god..

scared passengers on both flights looking out windows, dawning on a terrifying realization:
they're not diverting us to another country? where are we going?! why are we flying so low?? no! no! no!!

office workers turning towards approaching jet engine noise:
OH S***!

pushed to the edge in desperation & panic.. some trapped people fall & jump from the towers:
better a quick death than being burned alive.. [stomachs clenched, eyes closed, overwhelmed by the effects of g-force and the tremendous rush of air]

hijackers in the 2nd plane, in visual range of target, given a morale boost:
look! our compatriots successfully carried out their attack! we must not fail in ours! let us gloriously complete this! [bank the wings 45 degrees for maximum structural damage spread..] no pain, no time for pain.. this will be over in the blink of an eye

executives and staff on top floors of both towers, who likely had numerous advantages in life going for them:
oh my god.. oh my god.. this can't be happening, it can't end like this! not now.. oh please god, let me get out of this alive..

various observers, remarking on further ramifications:
I wonder how much asbestos is in that air..

better load up on gas.. stock up on everything..

what's going to happen to my investments?

how can I profit from this? I wonder what plays I should make in the market when it reopens..

thanks to the criminal jerks of the world here comes the further erosion of our personal liberties.. from no longer being able to leave your bikes on your lawns and having not to lock up everything 20 years ago and being free to light fireworks in every city.. to ever-tightening gun control laws.. and now this.. this inevitable approach of the police state

the end times are closer than ever.. Revelations..

===

[Finally, I'd like to offer my own analysis on this event.]

In the big picture this is just another evolution in human society. Two forces collide, neither willing to back down. This will escalate in fits and starts until an equilibrium point is established through a war of attrition, and even before then humanity will characteristically be well into its next point of conflict.

Repeat this process until a workable common ground is roughly pounded out for all, at least until evolutionary drifts once again create too much disparity for peace to bear.

History/Evolution is an enormously multi-factored process. No individual or mere group of individuals can bear 100% of whatever is to be blamed. Every individual automatically tries their personal best within the seen & unseen boundaries of their circumstances, contributing to matching societal forces accordingly. If we wish to effect change for the better, we are already doing it, or else our circumstances do not permit us to.

Re:Why the Surprise?

[cbogart]

IMO they don't quit because the conditions
don't seem so bad in the context of really
messed-up third world economic conditions.
The reason Nike et al go to these
places to set up factories is that even
a pittance is enough to attract workers
the workers. Of course Nike's doing it out of
pure greed, but ironically they're bringing
jobs to the places on earth where they're most
desparately needed.

Personally I think that locally owned
industry would be a much better development
path, but if that's not happening for whatever
reason (maybe local corruption, lack of
education, etc) at least maquilladoras are
better than starvation. At least the workers
there seem to think so, and their opinions
ought to matter.

Re:What can be done? Nothing.

[spagma]

Yeah, by planning to do absolutly nothing, you have immediatly done exactly what you planned to do. Sounds stupid to me. If you get stung by a bee, do you just let it sit there, no you slap the hell out of it. If you get stung by 10 bee's, you get to a safe place, and then come back and destroy all the bee's and the nests in the area. Sure, some will come back, it is inevitable, but it keeps them from building up. We cannot just ignore the problem and keep getting stung!

The World is going to change

[DumbSwede]

The World is going to change.

In light of the horrific events of September 11, 2001, the World has to change, and it falls to the United States to be the instrument of that change.

With the fall of the Soviet Union, the most immediate and powerful threat to western interests and ideals, America had expected the world to become a safer and saner place. This regrettably is not the case. The irrational acts of fanatical, misguided, and just plain evil men, show that we cannot just leave the world to sort out its problems for itself. I had once been one to criticize the U.S. in the past for its tendency toward unilateral action on the world stage, but it now seems the world stage is a farce and a facade. The U.N. has been hijacked by angry, petty nations who are too myopic to see all their fundamental problems stem from denial of basic freedoms to their people. Name one truly democratic nation with a free press that feels oppressed by the other democratic nations of the world. I surely can't. The oppression perceived by undemocratic nations and the people that live in them is an imaginary construct. The control of information within these societies in effect creates a brainwashed populace, all too eager to blame external forces for their plight, rather than place the blame where deserved, their own cynical, self serving leadership.

Does the United States or some other democratic nation ever exploit or take advantage of countries less blessed with wealth and freedom? Yes. Does this make democracy or freedom evil? No. Such exploitation would not occur if the nations that perceived this abuse were fair brokers themselves. If you want true free trade with the civilized world, this includes the free trade of information and ideas. Enough carping, complaining and finger pointing about injustices of the past. Look within the borders of those doing the finger pointing. How could you not recognize that half their population, the female half, are not just second class citizens, but slaves? Their legal justice systems a joke. Torture and murder common and condoned for ancient and petty reasons. Fanaticism exalted and idealized.

There is a politically correct notion that all cultures are unique, and therefor need to be preserved in present form. I say there are cultures that suffer a cancer of intolerance and oppression. It is not intolerance and oppression to excise these elements from nations, societies and cultures, that have demonstrated they cannot do so for themselves, and to place within these states, institutions to ensure the rights of their citizenry. Look to Japan if you think this cannot be done.

America has again and again expressed exasperation at the lack of restraint other countries have exercised in dealing with external and terrorist threats. Our own restraint has bought us nothing. Certainly not the respect of those who see our restraint as weakness.

While our actions must be just, they must also to an extent be preemptive. Criminal and terrorist elements must not be allowed to consolidate power, wealth and influence. Once we have dispatched those who have quickly brought us harm, we must turn our eyes to those that slowly suck the soul of our nation, and corrupt the nations they operate from. I speak of course of the drug trade. Whether you favor the decriminalization of drugs or not, there is no reason to allow those who break our laws and violate our borders to evade consequences, while we at the same time incarcerate our own citizens who are in effect their victims. This network of crime, corruption and influence no doubt further diminishes our stature in the eyes of those that would do us harm, and emboldens them by our inability to deal certain justice to this undeniably evil and strictly self serving cabal of dealers in human misery.

As Pearl Harbor was a call to action in 1941, the current action of these terrorists is the same. To those that say these circumstances are different, the world more complex, the evil more hidden, I say do not look for shades of gray where there are none. While we may not know for certain all individuals involved, and the exact involvement of each individual, we know, or will know shortly with great certainty, the major players involved. And unlike their operatives who lash out at total innocents, we can and should surgically remove them like the cancer they are.

Unlike the `50s, `60s and `70s super powers' brinkmanship, there remains no reason to support the regimes of nations that fall short of realizing democratic ideals. Notice should be served to one and all, friend and foe, that only those nations who struggle to advance the freedoms and well being of their populations will be considered allies.

If America has fallen short in any of its ideals, now is a time to recapture their true essence: the responsible, fair and just wielding of power and influence to improve the condition of humanity as a whole. Implicit in this, the assumption that the condition of humanity is diminished by allowing evil, wherever it is, to flourish.

To those that hate America, I say you engage in a form of self hatred, as America is a mirror of the world. Its diverse citizenry, all of whom have a democratic say in its actions, include those who share your race, your religion, your culture. America will include their outrage, their sense of betrayal, in its retaliation for transgressions transcendent.

Re:The World is going to change

[sphere]

If you are saying that unilateral and overwhelming US military action is going to stop these terrorists, I'd say you're wrong.

The type of terrorism that we face is a global ecosystem, not a country. Try to stomp on them and the organization will break apart, fade, and reappear with greater force as hordes of disgruntled locals--who naturally don't appreciate overwhelming US force in their country--rally to their cause.

I agree that military force is needed but we will have to learn how to track and kill terrorist organizations subtly, silently, and with a minimum of fuss. Perhaps such a network could be fought by combining superior tactics, a horde of newly trained infiltration-oriented antiterrorist units (in the tradition of the Rangers, Green Berets, and the SEALs), and top-notch human and electronic intelligence.

But will we actually fight terrorism? Or will we instinctively stomp on anyone who looks like a terrorist and create a whole new generation of fanatical terrorists who resent US even more and are willing to cause even more damage?

We will see.

yrs,

sphere

Re:The World is going to change

[nfras]

Whose ideals do you base this on? The US President? The US Congress? The US Senate? The US people, have a referendum? The people of the UK? The peoples of the security council? The people of France? What you are proposing that the US impose its ideals on the world and that anyone who fails to agree with or meet those ideals should be cast aside.

What would you do with countries like Russia, who because of the Cold War are now run by gangsters? The Russian government is trying to rid itself of the corruption of the Russian Mafia but because of the power that money wields, are unable to.
What about the Sultan of Brunei? He gives his people free educatio, free health care, no taxes but he is not democratically elected? The American presidential election was decided not by the will of the people, or even by its representatives, but by judges. Do you fail your own criteria?

What of the drug trade? The majority of drug traders in South East Asia were encouraged by the CIA as they opposed the Communists in the 60s and 70s. The same can be said of the South American trade.

To say that Israel is the only true democracy in the Middle East is bullshit. This is a nation which practices extra judicial killings as a policy. It is persecuting a poor and displaced people and would happily make war on all of their neighbours.

To appoint the worldwide benchmark would indeed be a sad day for all.

Re:The World is going to change

[kabloie]

I was going along reading this, thinking you were making some good points. But, why on Earth do you think we need to switch back to the "War" on unnamed "Drugs" ASAP?!

Whether u favor the decriminalization of drugs or not ...

Well if drugs are decriminalized, I certainly expect a drug trade to exist, except in a less bestial manner. I don't expect we will have to bomb sovereign states if 3 junkies OD off some bad heroin. And you guys who put all drugs in the same basket need to lighten the hell up.

kabloie

Re:The World is going to change

[DumbSwede]

Don't confuse my targeting of those that ply the drug trade, as condoning our policies on drug arrests and prosecution. I have never used drugs of any sort, but believe they should be decriminalized. This will not happen anytime soon, and while drugs are illegal, we have vicious criminals penetrating our borders. There is no doubt involvement between them and terrorists groups that see this as a way to help us poison our selves. Use the repelling of drugs from our borders as a bellwether of how well we are protecting our borders.

Re:The World is going to change

[DumbSwede]

Your comments smack of "We has met the enemy, and they is us". This is the real bullshit. I stand by my statement that the only countries that can get along on the face of this planet are true democracies with true free presses. Perhaps what is really needed is a U.D.N. United Democratic Nations. While there may be isolated good in countries that are not democratic, and isolated bad in counties that are, I think the overall score is clear on how well these systems serve their people.

Re:The World is going to change

[DumbSwede]

I disagree most strongly. Had Osama bin Laden been removed from the world scene years ago, then the tragidies we have witnessed most likely would never have occurred, and he is only one man. You say a dozen will take his place perhaps? I say no, not if you not only rid the world of Osama bin Laden, but every viscous, fanatical killer you can identify. Perhaps we did not have the moral authority to do this before, but we have it now. Many Arabs that could not possible voice support for my statements, would none the less probably breath easier if the more volatile, extremist elements from there society where removed. To not find and bring those responsible to justice will be the trigger to escalation.

Re:The World is going to change

[kabloie]

I think there is a certain contradiction between legalizing cocaine, for instance, and shooting down with missiles anyone in a small plane carrying any into our country. It is an inconsistent policy. Protecting our borders from Islamic extremists is going to be hard enough.

I agree though that you could use the entry of drugs as a gauge. And with billions of dollars down the drain with cheap heroin and cocaine still available in the US, one should really start to worry.

It is the transport of humans which we can still probably approach. The only thing the terrorists had as a weapon were their well-trained selves. Cocaine doesn't need food, water, and shelter.

Anyway, I do appreciate your comments.

kabloie

Re:The World is going to change

[circletimessquare]

while with pearl harbor, america was brought out of its isolationist stupor and joined world war ii, we had an identifieable enemy: rah, rah rah, let's fight japan and germany, rah, rah rah... and some decades later the japanese and americans and germans are great friends.

but how do you fight this? how cut and dry is our enemy? how black and white are the frontlines of this war? the front line is everywhere, kudos to rage against the machine.

a couple of hundred madmen running around in caves in afghanistan? is that our enemy? and like water seeping into a sieve in a sink, there is a reservoir of people who will rush to take the place of osama bin laden should we catch him... while the governments of algeria, iran, sudan, etc. express shock, outrage, some of their people dance in the streets over this. not all of the islamic world. only the MILITANT islamic world. that is our enemy. most of the people in the islamic world share most of our interests. but a clearly identifieable subculture most definitely does not. we are dealing with the mad top of a pyramid with a base of tens of thousands of supporters and sympathizers. an underground subculture of hatred towards the usa throughout the mideast that will only be renewed by this assault: an enemy crystallized in the minds eye to fight, a weakness to latch onto. our response to this militaristically, of course, will only bolster and increase their resolve against us. the propaganda machines are in full effect, there is no cause and effect, only the beginning of a great new cycle of violence between us and "them". whoever they are!

how to think about the problem, how to identify an enemy and pose a solution, the only allegory i can think of is the new york city of the 1980s versus the new york city of the 1990s. i'm talking about the anarchy and the crime and the decay and bernard getz of the 80s versus the renewed vibrancy and times square disneyfication and real estate growth of the 90s. driven by the increase in police and harsher penalties. sure there were police abuses: amadou dialo, abner loima... but these were at the tail end of the pendulum swing in the late 90s. preceding that, new york city really was cleaned up: and the solution was called the broken window syndrome.

the idea said that ignoring little petty crimes led to the growth of greater cancers in a neighborhood. fight every little crime with harsh punishment and you actually begin to fight a seemingly impossible war. sure it was a brutal idea: a petty drug crime and you were jailed for years. the growth of the prison system implying a cynical view that america was jailing it's problems rather than facing them. but IT WORKED. those grafitti-filled subway cars are a distant memory. new york really was cleaned up! and people thought the decay was permanent!

you can guess my allegory. but do we want to police the middle east? do we want to be the world's policeman? i think the american people want an immediate response, they want blood. but they are not going to get it. there is no one to fight. only a shadowy idea. only a subculture of violence in a distant part of the world. they will get itchy and gw bush will go down in the polls in a few months as we won't feel "satiated." our cry for blood will not be answered as there is no one to fight! only a slow steady seepage of angry people to catch in a giant net we must still weave, catching them in over the years, one by one.

but still, right now, at this very moment, there is an endless of supply of eager volunteers to take a plane with a knife and pilot it into the houston astrodome, the seattle space needle, the chicago sears tower, whatever. we can't identify an enemy, but we can feel it's outline: a nameless faceless unknown suicide walking into san francisco with a suitcase full of dynamite and plutonium (just to make the area radioactive). or anthrax released from a canister in downtown denver. or some sarin in los angeles. take your pick. the attack was devastating genius, i mean really!

billions for a missile defense shield? how high tech is that? good for us, we're so smart we can build that... WHO CARES! how about suicidal madmen with box cutters on a plane to pilot an airplane fuel bomb into the world trade center! who thought of it! who here was thinking about that! and how much do we spend on the cia? i'm so disappointed in our "intelligence." we have none. we were just lucky until now, and our luck has run out, that is it.

you can't fight the timothy mcveighs, you just can't. a lone madman, a theodore kzynsciez. what does that teach us? that some of our fear, at this moment, is the "ceiling falling in" syndrome. you're not going to get out of bed this morning because the ceiling might fall on you? sure, it's remotely possible, just like a lone crazed terrorist. so you go about your life anyway, regardless of that vague possibility, because it's like winning lotto. but there's the other lesson too: we are talking about a LONE crazed terrorist. these people were most definitely NOT alone.

the world has clearly changed. monday seems like a distant memory to me, a hundred years ago.

i worked at 5 world trade center. i left late monday night at 9 pm and remember strolling through the plaza looking off towards the fountain and abstract spherical statue in the middle and the lonely guitarist strumming away. and that glance at the towers was the last i ever saw of them. my friends who worked at morgan stanley, some of whom i haven't located yet. the next day waking up late, getting ready to get in by 9:30, turning on the news... 10:30, on the phone with a coworker at chase, hiding under her desk, she talking about god and the meaning of life, clearly losing it, so shell shocked she was at the carnage she saw from her office and fear for her own life, until security came and took her away. the dozens of friends who called to check up on me. the coworkers i endlessly hugged and the tears. the posttraumatic stress i am dealing with right now, crying and praying in st. patrick's cathedral for hours today and yesterday. the searing memory of the little kids out walking from the nursery from the base of the tower last week. are they still alive? and if they are, are their parents?

it is a different world. the pacific and atlantic do not protect us anymore. we clearly can not contract and become fortress america. we have to do the exact opposite. get more deeply involved. MUCH more deeply involved. for our own good. we were warned. osama bin laden's african diplomacy campaign was our warning. the uss cole was our warning. we must be WAY more proactive. it will be ugly, it will be long, it will be expensive. it will not be immediate gratification. oh yawn, the taliban, somalia, anywhere in the world where people are in horrific conditions and have no freedom... oh yawn, so far away... no more.

i think we have to police the whole middle east. and punish every petty little crime. harshly. the broken window syndrome. writ large against downtown manhattan. that is what i think we must do.

will we only aggrevate those who hate us even more? and make them act more? and start world war iii? i am simply proposing action of a police sort. what is the alternative? certainly not inaction. maybe action of a different sort, but action of any sort poses the problem of aggrevation. but there just is no other way.

Re:The World is going to change

[nfras]

If you want to stand by what you said, defend it. Answer my questions. What you are saying is that democracy=good, nondemocracy=bad. You would condemn people because of their government system? I would contend that the vast majority of people are good. Find me a country where there is only isolated good. Just because someone is elected doesn't mean that they are good. A king may be good, a king may be bad. A president may be good, a president may be bad. The difference is that it usually takes less to get rid of a bad president. Hitler was democratically elected by the people of Germany, and in has been argued that he enjoyed the support of most Germans up until troops marched into Germany. Whereas Gerald Ford, a president of the United States was never elected at all. His name did not appear on any presidential ballot.
How well do the different systens serve their people? Less than half of those eligible to vote in the US did so. That would seem to indicate that the majority of the population is not happy with the system. In over 200 years of the United States find me a single president who was not male, not white, not Christian. I am not saying that democracy is wrong, just that your blinkered view of it as the be all and end all of right and wrong is at best naive.
If you think what I am saying is bullshit, then argue that, don't just say it. Add to the discussion, don't just dismiss it or you may turn into a troll.

Re:The World is going to change

[kstumpf]

I entirely agree. We need to do something proactive, and fast. Count how many times in our past encounters with terrorists and affiliated states that we've actually "finished the job". These acts demand consequence.

To those claiming you can't defeat terrorist groups, I say bullshit. As we've heard again and again, terrorist attacks such as yesterday's happenings took significant money and planning. Eliminate the people and resources at behind these activities and anyone giving them any form of aid. If a country harbors a known terrorist, then they are also an enemy of the free world, and should be attacked.

You think retaliation is not in order? Then you make me sick, and I think you take alot of things for granted. Fighting does not make us terrorists. America was founded by fighters, and we have every right to defend our interests at any cost. Bomb the hell out of these people, whomever they are. If you don't like that, then maybe you need to spend some time in one of these countries instead of sitting on your queen-sized bed eating doritos and preaching pacificism on an internet forum.

Go ahead and mark this as flamebait, its just karma.

Re:The World is going to change

[DumbSwede]

To quote Winston Churchill, "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." And I truly believe this. One only has to look at Africa's various dictatorships warring with another. The Middle East's Arab nations warring with one another (when not allied to fight Israel). Or the old Soviet Union and Chinese communist regimes on verge of nuclear conflict with one another to support the statement that is seems only democracies can get along. While Hitler may have been elected, Germany was by no measure a democracy with a free press during WWII. The very fact that you can freely express your opinions is clear sign of the freedom we enjoy. Other systems of government seem obliged to deny their citizens this kind of freedom of expression, the true fount of a free press, for fear of the societal changes it will lead to -- most likely democracy. I do not condemn the people that live under other systems, I condemn the systems and their leaders. With out access to unfiltered information or any real ability to affect their Nations course of action could the people be to blame?

Re:The World is going to change

[lisp-hacker]

Sorry to post unpopular stuff:

I never commit violence in any form, so this terror shocked me too and made me sad.

But it is the bill for decades of american foreign politics! No doubt about that.
I know the story at least since the Shah in Iran . There was again and again an installment of
some leaders and the feeding of wars in that region by the US. There were open war attacks "in the name of Freedom". And a lot of moslems are just pissed now. And some of them meet now and fight in this sense.

Your opinion here was once again the missionairing of "freedom in the western sense".
But these people there have a culture and religion where this kind of freedom is worthless!
And no one will be able to change that. And the opinion that this culture is worthless because they are just all oppressed is just bullshit. They don't think so. They are different.

And for the case of revenge 2 points:

1. Remember the beginning of WW 1 and 2 and think about the yesterday NATO Meeting. A lot
   of europeans were completely against Gulf War, but were not asked. Now they should march with you? For me: No way.
   
   
2. Nobody learned about Vietnam, Afghanistan etc. You can not kill a country. And for one bomb into a moslem village you have a hundred of personally motivated "freedom fighters" or "terrorists", spreading to the west, making fire. You don't need much money and stuff to make a suicide attack in a train or so. Look to Israel.
   

Don't try to make war, try to make good politics!
It is impossible to win this game with commiting once again just brute force. Even if this would be typical american.

Re:The World is going to change

[DumbSwede]

Their culture is not just different, it is misguided and wrong, because as I have replied over and over, they are denied the benefit of building a society based on the free exchange of ideas. I do not believe in revenge or the taking of innocent life. I advocate finding those responsible and deal to them the fates they deserve, not to unnecessarily inflict suffering and death upon the powerless populace they claim to represent. If the leaders of your misunderstood and supposedly outwardly oppressed countries had at their disposal the power America has, is there any doubt that we would all be the enforced worshipers of the Islamic faith? I do not rail against Islam, but I rail against Islamic leaders who have no respect for religions and ways of life different than their own. If Islamic countries had the same freedoms we have, they would probably find our support of Israel is not has solid as they assume.

There is such a thing as right and wrong. Enough of the politically correct excusing of "just different."

Re:The World is going to change

[lisp-hacker]

Their culture is not just different, it is misguided and wrong, because as I have replied over and over, they are denied the benefit of building a ...

Simply another example of you as a missionaire,
You KNOW(?) absolutely what is right and what is wrong, what is the truth and who should not live.

Islamic leaders were the first that respected other religions in their own country. But they experienced politics of force installment of the US (for Oil, jews in Israel whatsoever). The fundamentalists have support, since this happened. You don't respect their culture, now they don't respect yours. The difference is only, that you are the only superforce. They can't beat you in conventional warfare, but what about tuesday.

But I repeat it: You CAN'T win this. You will never kill every relative of the "terrorist" and they will come and kill you. This revenge thought is even in their religion.
They don't deserve honour in their society, if they don't revenge... I hope you see, where this leads you.

And at last: I'm never politically correct (a US Invention), but I see more than american news...

Re:The World is going to change

[DumbSwede]

So we are in the wrong here. We cannot win. And we must remain cowed by every little nation with a grudge that would resort to terrorism. I do not accept this. I repeat my claim that the undemocratic nations you defend has "just different" have an inferior system of government. Inferior because in the long run they will fail to elevate the condition and freedoms of their people.

Re:The World is going to change

[DumbSwede]

I voted for Gore (and no, I don't see a vast conspiracy in the result). To disagree about the price of bananas with a trade partner would hard refute my claim about that democratic partner feeling "oppressed." Please provide more relevant examples.

Re:What can be done? Nothing.

[JesseL]

You see, terrorism will always exist as long as it is effective.

Nope, terrorism will exist as long as terrorists can convince themselves that it will be effective.These people aren't necessarily rational.

And what makes you think you can win?

[vb.warrior]

The reality of Afghanistan is that its people have a fearsome reputation for beating back massive organised armies. Even before they managed to drive the Russian army out, in the 1800's and early 1900's they beat several large British armies.

Quite simply, these people's have known nothing but war for hundred's of years and are not afraid to die for their beliefs and their country. You may be able to take the cities quite easily but what happens when day after day hundreds of american troops are killed in action? This is what happened to the soviets, hundreds of little skirmishes made the army pull out to stop the draining dry of its army.

And of course if you invade Afghanistan you're going to get every stupid fanatic with a grudge joining them in driving out the invaders. The Russians probably wont have to worry about the Chechyen rebels because they will be fighting alongside the Taliban.

I'm not going to compare this to Vietnam, the US army performed well in that war, what I do warn is not to expect some Desert Storm style conflict. You will lose TENS OF THOUSANDS of soldiers if you invade Afghanistan as well as cause the death of hundreds of thousands of civilians.

Is revenge worth that?

Jon

Re:And what makes you think you can win?

[mimbleton]

"the Chechyen rebels because they will be fighting alongside the Taliban"

Your reasoning is way off target.
They already offered help in this regard because they have very similar problems with their own Muslim fundamentalist.

"Is revenge worth that? "

This is how great countries collapse.
Not by external intervention but by internal weakening.
Hell, one could raise the very same objections 50 years ago when we were fighting Nazis and Japanese.
Do you really, truly believe that it will serve our cause to do NOTHING despite the fact that we have (as reported by NYC officials ) around 20 000+ dead ?

Fuck this but if we don't do anything ( and I don't mean couple of missiles here and there) we will be asking to be a perfect target for various terrorist sensing our lack of commitment.
It simply cannot happen.
Fuck, even if this turned out to be China it is our duty to fight these motherfuckers.
They killed tens of thousands of our civilians.
It was an act of war !

The Tip of the Iceberg

[Stickster]

To those who think this is an isolated incident, let me point out that this enormous tragedy is only one attempt to disrupt, destroy, and devalue American lives. You are of course not hearing about the ninety-nine others in the past several years which failed.

The fact that this hasn't happened until now is due in large part to the tireless and heroic actions of the same government agencies -- military, Federal, state, and local -- that some of you ./ers love to deride, slander, and vilify without any firsthand knowledge whatsoever. (I encourage you to infer the obvious from the last few words.) These are the people who were the first to the sites when the attacks happened, the people who were crushed as the towers came down, those who went to work in a still-burning building because they knew that not to do so was allowing terrorist factions an unearned victory.

Returning to normal life shows that we will not be cowed by cowardly attacks on innocent civilians. It just so happens that by simply returning to their normal lives, these people are trying to keep us safe from the next attack... tomorrow, next week, next month, next year.

Please remember that before you hit your next "Submit" button.

Re:Blame Bush, and Religons

[niloroth]

Well, if you are going to pin this on Clinton, can we also crucify Carter for pissing off the Muslum world with the Camp David accord? Or how about Reagan for sending arms and support to the Iraqis? Or Bush for doing that whole Gulf war thing?

Look, no one person or administration can be blamed for this. No one even can be blamed for this. And most likely no one person or country can be blamed for this. I would love to say that the only reason that this happened is because of Bush (who I really don't like, didn't vote for, and don't think should rightfully be president)and the fact that we continue to suport Isreal even when it is clearly in the wrong. (Which is not all the time, but it does happen.)

But I can't, it goes deeper than that. The actions yesterday were the culmination of to many factors to list. Instead of infighting, we need to figure out who is responsable for this, and to destroy them. Then we have to figure out what we can do to make sure this never happens again, by both increasing our security, and by thinking about how maybe we can not piss so many other people off.

Justin

MOD PARENT UP PLEASE!

[unformed]

Thanks for the story, now it's clear why the Pittsburg plane crashed...and some more info on the actual occurences...

and here's a nontracked and clickable link

unfortunately, that *is* mass murder

[fish8719]

Destroying people's homes and sources of food and water *is* tantamount to mass murder...just the slow way. It's not like they can just drive to Canada.

Besides, what gives us any right to destroy innocent people's property?

Re:Donate directly to the Red Cross (avoid Amazon)

[cvanaver]

Amazon.com as removed their normal fee for transactions in this case. Red Cross' web servers cannot handle the load that Amazon has already borne the brunt of. Their (Amazon.com) actions are noble and respectable. They are reaching out to the American people in this time of need by by donating their substantial infrastructure. We should not call their intentions into question, but be thankful that the resources are there to help us support those who have been afflicted by this horror. Now is not the time for petty grievances about spam and privacy. Now is the time when all of us should ban together and do what we can. Stand by your fellow Americans, whether they be private citizens, government entities or corporations. Now is not the time for dissent.

Sources for unbiased articles?

[Montag2k]

I have been reading a lot of comments from Slashdotters about how the American Mainstream Media doesn't report all of the facts, doesn't tell the whole truth, and doesn't let us know the real story about what is happening from all of this.

Are there any suggestions about where to look for accurate reporting about these incidents and the events surrounding the attack (i.e. the history of bin Laden and the CIA and reasons these fanatics would attack us)?

I know about the BBC but thats pretty much the only other place I can think of to look for news - besides other "mainstream" news agencies. I would like to hear about both foreign and domestic sources. Lets hear everybody's opinion on this.

Re:Sources for unbiased articles?

[quintesson]

Everything is biased, but: Indymedia and Z Magazine are better than some.

Re:Sources for unbiased articles?

[yum_icecream]

This site contains Intelligence type reviews of economic impact, alternatives open to US, etc.

Provides lots of good insight

Someone posted this site on /. yesterday which is how I found it.

Re:Sources for unbiased articles?

[Montag2k]

I found this one after posting:
http://www.alternet.org

I haven't seen this on /. yet

[Ridge]

At least not to where it passes my comment threshold, so I'll post a bit here.

Someone posting in usenet newsgroup alt.prophecies.nostradamus some, well, seemingly informed messages, concerning the events of yesterday, these postings coming days in advance of the event, see this link:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Xinoehpoel&sta rt =20&hl=en&rnum=23&selm=3b9ea07d%40news.vogel.pl

I'm sure the proper authorities are aware of this, as someone has posted they forwarded this information to said authorities.

I don't want to comment on the typical traffic this particular newsgroup would see on a typical day outside of this tragedy, but these particular postings, while vague, do seem to be either somewhat informed or extremely cooincidental. It raises the question of how much could've been known or exposed via the internet before and after such events take place...

Re:I haven't seen this on /. yet

[mgblst]

This is ridiculous. Some guy says "something will happen tomorrow"
Then, when nothing happens, he say, something will happen within a week, and i will be going away.
If you want to read something into this, then go right ahead, but check your horoscopes first.
This is a waste of everybodies time.

Lopsided Comments

[ElDuque]

Why is it that all accusations towards Bin Laden are (fairly) disputed by many, yet there are eqaully many undisputed posts that essentially "claim responsibilty" by defending the arab states and our treatment of that area etc. etc.?

Re:Lopsided Comments

[Synn]

Whatever injustices these people felt they were being subjected to by supposed "evil" US policies, terrorism is not an acceptable form of protest.

Re:Lopsided Comments

[mimbleton]

Yeah.
We definitely should first establish who is responsible for this attack and what other countries/organizations were involved.
After we do that we simply move in and annihilate without regard to any other humanitarian issues.
We should not go out of our way to hurt civilians but if hurting them cannot be avoided then so be it.
You cannot eradicate this kind of brutality without being even more ruthless and more determined.

under-$10/hr x-ray techs

[Preposterous Coward]

The WSJ today mentioned an airport where the security-screening folks make $6.25 or $6.50 an hour to start.

The fast-food restaurants in the same airport pay workers $7 an hour to start.

Perhaps this says something about our priorities?

Re:Eat my meat

[pressman]

I don't have to give any credit to anyone for this attack. I mean, this was a vicious job. They attacked the infrastructure and psyche of this country.
br>
I'm part of the conscience of this country. I protested against the Gulf War, I tried to stop looters and rioters during the Rodney King riots. I've spent much time going door to door and phone canvassing for environmental and campaign reform concerns. I'm not one of the heartless bastards out beating up Indians, and Arabs and Persians today just for simple revenge, no matter how misplaced that desire.

I'm no fan of my government's foreign policy, but you know what, neither I or anyone I know and care about deserves to be insulted by juvenile anonymous posters on /. !

Some of the posters on the site over the last 36 hours have been very conscientious and informative. Many others have just been awful, attaking individual Americans or condemning us as a whole. It's just juvenile and serves no point. And only serves to enflame the emotions of people who are already grieving.

I have never in my life ever felt joy at a terrorist attack on another country or taken any real pride in military actions my government has taken part in during my lifetime and I can't understand how callous someone would have to be to take joy in the massive loss of life that just happemed.

That is truly the sign of a sick mind. Seek help gutless anonymous poster!

Images of the smoke plume from the ISS

[_Bunny]

NASA has put some photos of the smoke plume on their website.

They can be seen at http://www.nasa.gov/newsinfo/WTCplume.html. Very interesting!

Re:What can be done? Nothing.

[Chris-en-topper]

"The answer to terrorism- find out who did it and who harbored them, and then destroy both. Not a missle into a factory, carpet bomb the whole area. "

A scorched Earth policy obviously doesn't work in this situation, you might as well hand out box knives to every child in the Middle East. Assuming this is bin Laden, you deliver an ultimatum and deadline for turning him over. Give them a few weeks to comply while we mobilize and prepare. If they hand him over, we do the same thing with Osama that we did with McVeigh: try him, convict him, and execute him like a common criminal, NOT A *MILITARY* TARGET! That would be more unbearable to him than any physical torture you can possibly think of.

If they don't hand him over, that's when we start invading people....and remember you *ALWAYS* treat your enemy the way we treated Japan after WWII: you help them rebuild so that they don't grow up wanting to kill you.

Israeli/Palestinian conflict cannot be solved

[joneshenry]

I have read too many claims that if the US were to "moderate" its support of Israel and pressure Israel to sign a treaty with the Palestinians the conflict could be brought to a peaceful end.

In fact such a peace treaty is simply impossible. The Palestinians will never compromise on their demand for the right of return for the Palestinian refugees created in past wars. That demand is what sunk any hope of a deal even with Barak, who was willing to compromise on just about everything else. On the other hand, Israel can never accept such a demand, because to give in would mean instant demographic suicide, the end of Israel's being a Jewish state. (As it is, within 20 years Israel might have more Palestinians than Jews.)

What seems inevitable is that Israel will decide to create even more Palestinian refugees in a desperate effort to physically partition the nation with a defensible perimeter. On that day the other Middle Eastern nations will have to decide whether or not to start an all-out, possible nuclear, war with Israel. I'm not sure how US disengagement from the Arab governments surrounding Israel would help to prevent this war.

The US public wants the taste of blood.

[Zaitzev]

The public wants blood, that has been made clear to me on many fronts (http://elcochino6.tripod.com/laden.htm). The attitude I have seen pervade is that of righteous outrage - and a powerful drive to even the score at minimum. The general feeling I get from watching all newsfeeds, and most of the other outlets I am keeping an eye on, is that all eyes are looking at what actions will be taken to retaliate. There is comparatively little media coverage of the situations leading up to this, and that is a grave mistake. The people that pulled this off were obviously motivated to take these measures, and I don't think that millitary action is going to dissuade them. If anything it will strengthen their resolve.

then again...

[Preposterous Coward]

I've been learning to fly general-aviation aircraft (Cessna 172R/S "Skyhawk") and recently ended up sitting next to a female United pilot who was deadheading on a flight into JFK. We got to talking and she tried quite earnestly to convince me that flying a 757 (what she does) is pretty much just like flying a Skyhawk. I was skeptical but it made for a fun conversation :-)

Re:Press conference -- no one arrested in conjunct

[irksome]

If you don't have a balcony you can hang a flag from, I have designed a version that fits into an AIM profile. Just look at the profile for SyracuseWolvrine and copy the flag.

(note: I realize this is not a perfect copy of a US flag, but it's the thought that counts.)

-

Off-topic, but hey

[deblau]

Is anyone else creeped out by Andrea Thompson (aka Talia Winters) giving CNN updates? I mean, I always knew the PsyCorps would eventually take over our news media, but it seems they've stepped up their timetable...

She even asked a terrorism expert whether we would be giving up personal liberties for security. Creeeeeeepy.

Re:party

[metachimp]

Perhaps they were gathered there in order to reassure each other and provide support for one another. Maybe they met there because they were afraid of boneheads like you who assume the worst about a group a of much-maligned Americans who want nothing more than get on with their lives instead of having to worry about idiots assaulting them and theirs because of their religion.

I walked by a church last night, and I heard music playing and singing. I heard cheering, I thought they were watching old "Diff'rent Strokes" re-runs on Nick at Nite, but it turns out that the pastor was giving a rousing sermon about how we should stick together and not give in to terrorist attempts to demoralize us.

Tell me, who are you to say what they were doing?

Idiot.

Re:His name was Timothy McViegh!

[yesthatguy]

He didn't commit suicide, and didn't die in the bomb blast. But yes, he is dead.

Re:What can be done? Nothing.

[linzeal]

THE US GIVES THEM TO PEOPLE IN CONFLICT THEY ARE NOT SOLD!!!! People that give weapons to a country at war with other countries are reponsible for how those weapons are used. What if israel gets hit with a bio weapon and launches a nuke at bagdhad, or cairo, or kabul???? THE US GAVE THEM THE NUKE

Progress is not measured in bodies at the end of the conflict but the people alive you can (in a generation) regret together what caused you kill each other in the first place.

Someone already quoted this numerous times but "An eye for an eye scaled to the whole world would leave the whole world blind" Ghandi paraphrased

Re:Keep Bombing

[loosenut]

Like it or not, US "acts of aggression" are largly responsible for building the country you live in. You use gas, right? Imagine $5/gal permenantly. Food, close, electronics, everything we have is a result of "US extortion." It may be cold, but most of us aren't willing to give that up.

You're right. That's why I ride my bike to work 3 out 5 days, why I try to buy locally grown food (or grow my own), and why I try to support my local economy in general. It's hard, and there is no way I can completely avoid supporting corporations that take advantage of third world countries (or stop paying taxes!), but I make an effort.

Definitely

[sulli]

Either plainclothes or uniformed. I believe they did this for a while during the "skyjacking" crisis of the early 1970s, before airport security was established.

Re:Definitely

[Trepidity]

And Israel's been doing it for years, and still does it. That's why of the four hijack attempts during that "skyjacking" crisis, only three succeeded - one was an El Al flight, which as a matter of policy has armed plainclothed anti-terrorist agents. The would-be hijacker was captured alive, while the other three planes were successfully hijacked.

"Racism" the word we're looking for here.

[Fesh]

Straight on. After I calmed down, I realized that not only is blaming all Arabs for this racist, but the terrorists committed an inherently racist act. I can only assume that their attitude is/was "All Americans are evil devils, and deserve to die." This is a generalization, and a racist one to boot.

I, for one, have become more and more disapproving of Isreal's behavior over the past few months. If they and the Palestinians have gotten us into a war because of their personal squabbles, I'd plainly support turning the area into a DMZ. Obviously the Palestinians and the Israelis can't keep off each other's backs by themselves... If this horror is a result of that, I guess somebody's gonna have to do it for them.

Re:"Racism" the word we're looking for here.

[Fesh]

Should have thought about that a bit more... The second paragraph is a bit of a non-sequitur. The connecting point is that if I disagree strongly with Israel's behavior and the United States' unconditional support of Israel is what the terrorists are so pissed off about, doesn't the presence of at least one American who does not feel that the Israeli government can do no wrong mean that not all Americans are evil?

Re:"Racism" the word we're looking for here.

[Steeltoe]

I, for one, have become more and more disapproving of Isreal's behavior over the past few months. If they and the Palestinians have gotten us into a war because of their personal squabbles, I'd plainly support turning the area into a DMZ. Obviously the Palestinians and the Israelis can't keep off each other's backs by themselves... If this horror is a result of that, I guess somebody's gonna have to do it for them.

How would you feel if Saddam Hussein had forcibly turned USA into a DMZ, telling you to stop your petty bickering with the terrorists and praise Allah for being rescued and finally having peace? I don't think you would take it pretty well, especially if your cousins got blown up in a helicopter-attack against a military base. If USA continues to use destruction to solve problems, USA will cease to exist as it is in the future. That is just a natural law. Study kids for example. When the kids mature up, the violent kids are ignored and lose all their power. Suddenly they are all alone with no friends.

And no, I don't blame USA for all the problems in the world. In fact, USA is no better or worse than most other countries. The only different is between individual people. Either you're part of the problem, with hate and rage in your heart, or you're part of the solution. Now is the time to choose.

- Steeltoe

NATO

[chazR]

The *entire* NATO doctrine (well, apparently Article 5) is that an attack on one is an attack on all.

A NATO member has been *viciously* attacked.

During many crises, America has been there for it's allies.

We're there for you now. Whatever you need, you can have it.

Why do we need a *meeting* to discuss what we have always promised?

You have never let us down. We won't let you down. Ever.

(signed)
A UK Citizen, who grieves with you.

Re:NATO

[cornjones]

well said and thank you

Re:NATO

[Str8Dog]

Yes thank you for your support.

Re:NATO

[DataCannibal]

I'm a UK citizen as well and I don't ever recall voting for you to speak for me

Re:NATO

[Cederic]

Then how come the US never assisted the UK against the Irish terrorists? Instead of helping fund them, as they continue to do.

I'm sorry, but I have no regrets about this attack on the US, and I hope it matures the attitudes of the American people. Alas, I suspect it wont.

We don't know who did this attack, and until we do, there's no point pledging support. If it turns out to be disaffected US citizens that performed this attack, are we going to help the US bomb Dallas, Philadelphia, LA?

~Cederic

Re:NATO

[Des Herriott]

Then how come the US never assisted the UK against the Irish terrorists? Instead of helping fund them, as they continue to do.

The majority of "Irish" terrorists are in fact UK citizens, living in Northern Ireland. The government of the Republic of Ireland has never supported or condoned terrorism against the UK - even if some IRA/INLA/CIRA/RIRA members may be Irish citizens. (Admittedly, the Irish constitution used to make a territorial claim on Northern Ireland, but of course that was never enforced, and was recently dropped from the consitution).

That makes it an internal conflict, not an international war.

Where's your evidence that the US continue to fund terrorism in Northern Ireland?

I'm sorry, but I have no regrets about this attack on the US, and I hope it matures the attitudes of the American people.

Then you're somewhat less than human.

Re:NATO

[Cederic]

I never claimed that Irish terrorists were not UK citizens.

Also, so far (early on Thursday 13th Sept) there is nothing to indicate that the terrorism against the US is anything other than an internal conflict, rather than an international war.

>> Then you're somewhat less than human.

ooh, getting personal.

I can only assume you also think the terrorists were also less than human? You think the palestinian children dancing in the streets in celebration of these attacks are less than human?

Being human means more than feeling sad that a bunch of people you don't know and don't care about just died. It means doing what you believe in, even if others don't share those beliefs. It means struggling to survive, against the odds. It means finding humour in even the darkest of situations (want me to share some WTC jokes?)

Just because I personally feel the US just got a good solid kick in the teeth that will hopefully give its citizens a strong dose of reality doesn't make me less than human. It means I'm just not falling into the of emotional despair that I'm currently finding so comical when listening to the media right now.

When you live in a country that has seen too many attacks already, you lose sensitivity to the human drama of it all. Maybe that's a sad thing. But right now, I'm personally feeling glad that they hit the US and not the UK.

~Cederic

Re:NATO

[Des Herriott]

Perhaps that was below the belt, and if so I apologise, but a statement like "I have no regrets about this attack" is pretty callous, wouldn't you say?

BTW, I too live in the UK, and I'm part Irish. So I'm quite aware of the effects of terrorism, but I hope I haven't lost any sensitivity to the effects.

Re:NATO

[Cederic]

In fairness, having no regrets doesn't mean I don't have some sympathy for those involved. Certainly some of the personal stories are pretty harsh. And I might never forget the Times' photo of someone leaping from the building.

Thanks

[brook]

I know that this will be swamped by many other replies, but I hope some one who keeps Slashdot up and running reads this. Thank you so very much for working so hard to act as a conduit for info, and for keeping us informed. I first found out about the tragedy on Slashdot, and most of the major developments I found out about on Slashdot first. You've done us all a great service, and I just wanted to express my thanks.

Brook

Re:What can be done? Nothing.

[crucini]

Even if by some miracle you killed only those involved in the attacks, you'd still leave behind brothers, sons and friends who are now pushed closer to the terrorist thinking.

Please.

[jiheison]

Much like the 'war on drugs', this 'war' is a rhetorical construct.

And that's just as well. With no defined enemeny, no understanding of its motives or objectives, and no idea where to strike back, this is a war we are bound to lose.

Do us a favor and put your head back in your ass.

These people knew what they were doing

[myov]

In order to pull this off, the terrorists would have needed to:

• Have civil engineering knowledge to know how the building was constructed and how to bring it down. It wasn't the impact, as the buildings remained up after the collision - it was the massive fire weakening the structural steel along the load bearing walls. Besides, many people would assume that you would need to weaken the base of the tower to bring it down - how many people even knew it was possible to destroy a building by flying a plane into it?
• Know what planes to pick. All the planes were long flights and had full fuel tanks, creating the massive fire, in addition to the initial impact.
• Know how to get by security in order to hijack the planes
• Know how to fly these planes, as the crews were most likely killed immediately.
• Necessary co-ordination, training, etc, in order to hijack *4* planes

As well, one report indicated the radar transponders were disabled, making it harder for ground control to figure out what was happening.

Re:These people knew what they were doing

[mpe]

anyone who has ever watched the news about an emergency airline landing immediately following departure knows the planes always circle for hours buring fuel before
they land.

Planes also have the ability the dump fuel through the tail. In an emergency the last thigh you may want is to have to remain in the air for hours.

here is no special skill in sterring an airplane through the air. any pilot will tell you that the only real challenges are during the landing phase and/or an emergency (no
engine, no electrical, loss of flight control, etc.). as far as the transponder, it looks like a radio with a four digit display and a knob with four modes (off, standby, altitude,
and test). no special skill to operate it. they say these guys went to flight school in the US. all you need is money to get into flight school. for enough cash, you can even
buy time in a full blown sim.

A Sky News reporter demonstrated crashing MS Flight Sim into both WTC tower 2 and The Pentagon.
Civil aircraft come with manuals which would tell anyone who can read where the transponder controls are also IIRC the CVR on US aircraft is through microphones on instrament panels, again trivial to disable once you know where they are.

Support for Israel is the right thing to do

[Ars-Fartsica]

As you pointed out, Israel is the only nation in the Middle East that is not an effective dictatorship. That includes Kuwait, which is an oppresive monarchist dictatorship, Saudi Arabia, another monarchist dictatorship, and other states that the US has propped up and supported from time to time.

Make no mistake about the politics of the Middle East - if they weren't fighting Israel they would be fighting each other. The theocracies (Afghanistan) despise the monarchies. The autocracies (Iraq) despise the theocracies. None of these states has any respect for individual rights. Afghanistan recently forbid education for women.

Sure this sounds like race baiting, but it isn't. Arabs can live peacefully and respectfully, but it isn't going to happen while Islam is part of the ruling regime's rulebook.

At some point in the future the West is simply going to have to come to grips with a fact that many foreign policy thinkers have known for decades - democracies and Islamic regimes cannot coexist.

Re:Support for Israel is the right thing to do

[Planesdragon]

Please don't forget that ISLAM does not equal terrorism, any more than christianity equals intolerance or judaism equals money-grubbing.

It's a much more basic fact, and one that we knew for years before the cold war messed it all up.

Democracies Good.

Tyranny Bad.

Democracy and Tyrrany cannot coexist.

Earthlink and Carnivore

[Zaitzev]

Earlier today, in an internal company question forum, the following question was posed to the "suits":

As result of the Sept. 11 incedent, will EarthLink be pressured or even forced to take on the Carnivore technology? Will EarthLink accept the technology for the sake of national security? If not, than will Earthlink take alternative actions of its own?

The answer came as:
We have alternative methods to Carnivore to comply with legal requests for information that will provide the information requested and not compromise all of our other customers' privacy.

If anyone remembers, Earthlink refused to install Carnivore in July (Slashdot article). On local news in Atlanta, the building housing Earthlink's data center was being shown in conjunction with the investigation, I didn't see the broadcast myself, so I don't know exactly what was said, but I am being told that Earthlink records are currently under investigation.

Rumors abound though, and I have even heard mentioned that one account in particluar was suspect, and that it had been closed earlier in the year for non-payment.

I'm not suprised to hear Earthlink's response to these privacy issues, if for no other reason then because of the ad slogans "You are not for sale" and "Advocate anonymity" all over Atlanta on huge orange billboards.

BETTER A FIGHTING CHANCE THAN NONE.

[Artifex]

I'm sorry, but faced with a possible problem to the aircraft caused by someone defending my life, or having a hijacker take control and likely kill us all, I'd much rather take my risks with someone on my side!

We must broaden the air marshals pogram immediately.

Today's events

[velocipenguin]

Recent events have served as reminders that those who do not live in Washington or New York are still linked to and affected by them somehow.

Boston received its reminder in the form of several arrests at a local hotel, and a bomb scare that resulted in a portion of the city being closed by police.

People in the seemingly distant city of Portland, Maine have had to watch as the FBI searched through their city in search of leads.

Canadian cities were terrified by a KAL jet with an operating emergency transponder (which turned out to have been triggered by a low fuel warning.)

I have seen many people in the past couple of days who are deeply affected by this tragedy. I have seen many who simply don't seem to give a damn. I hope this serves as a reminder that *nobody* should be apathetic about these events - they affect us all.

Re:How about the IRA

[Fesh]

That's a good point. When we say "War on Terrorism", we'd better mean all terrorism, whether it be by Arabs, Irish, Indonesians, Central American Drug Lords... Even those in America responsible for enabling these people to continue to operate.

To do any less would show us to be the hypocrites that those who dislike us seem to believe.

a robust source of news... ClariNet

[doom]

If you happen to get the clarinet newsgroups in your newsfeed, I would suggest looking at some things like: clari.news.conflict.misc

The funny thing about nntp is that it doesn't get slashdotted. Too bad it's so old fashioned and out-of-date, huh? More about ClariNet itself: www.clarinet.com.

I was particularly interested in the story The four main radical islamic groups, which begins

NICOSIA, Sept 11 (AFP) - There are four main radical Islamic

movements -- two Palestinian, one pro-Iranian Lebanese group and a fourth created by the sought-after Saudi-born alleged terrorist Osama bin Laden.

No they didnt need much resources

[phocuz]

Getting say, 30 lunatics together might not be easy, but once you have them, this kind of thing wouldnt be too hard to plan.

US domestic flighst doesnt have that high security, and once you have a couple of knives aboard, not much is left but to crash the plane into your choice of building. Steering modern airplanes isnt that difficult, they wouldnt have needed the pilots for the last part, ie crashing into wtc.

And on the part of them having found arabian men in a van with a bomb and flightinstruction manuals just sounds like something from a bad actionmovie. It sounds like a bad framing of someone. Why in hell should they be driving around with flight instructions if they were to suicide bomb?

It just sounds too good to be true. The US had it coming, they have been acting like idiots in foreign affairs for a long time, there are many many groups around the world who dislike us fascist methods in other countries.

IF palestine terrorists did it, i can kindof understand them. The us supports isreal in its attacks against the palestine people. If one crazy guy blows up a bus in israel, they will respond by annihlating a village or two. Of course people will get mad when the "democratic" us supports this behaviour. It doesnt justify, but it explains it..

Bytw, sorry fpr spelling, im not very sober

Re:Iran? Not a Chance

[AugstWest]

Yes, Iran is currently pro-US. Once upon a time, so was Iraq. And so was Afghanistan, apparently. Is there a better way to deal with them than switching sides every decade or so?

Gatorman: you need Monty Python

[leonbrooks]

I've seen it jump $100,000 in an hour (thanks to my $10 I'm sure) with over 25,000 donations so far, very promising. No where else on Earth could you find support like this.

Monty Python's The Meaning of Life has the Grim Reaper claiming this:

You ####ing Americans are all the ###ing same - it's listen-to-me this and let-me-tell-you that...

Here in Perth, Western Australia, our annual charity Telethon regularly collects significantly more than is pledged. Western Australia sent firefighters East on ASh Wednesday. Australia sent many firefighters to the USA to help with the last lot of big fires. We even help people like Indonesia, who aren't exactly reknowned for returning the favour.

Yes, America is powerful and often helpful. But the arrogance in assuming that `we are the best in the world at XXX' for practically everything is one of the factors which allows the USA to continue to fiddle with the politics of other countries, and occasionally to inflict damage on them beside which WTC looks like an act of street vandalism. Pull your head in. All of you.

The other risk in being `the best' is that you stop trying to be the best (`I have arrived') and you stop checking that you're doing The Right Thing(tm) (`I can do no wrong').

For the record, Texas fits many times into Western Australia, the shire of Meekatharra is bigger than Texas, and so are several of our cattle stations. America may build big planes like C5A Starlifters, but Australia's Jindalee OTH radar can see them taking off and landing from here and Russia builds bigger helicopters than you. China can see your `stealth' planes OTH as well. For $Oz2M, Australia developed the HoveRoc, a missile which hovers and pretends to be a destroyer, and produced four of them. It was so good from Day One that the USA (in exercises) had to fly over and look to see which was the real destroyer! For $70M, the USA got one prototype tethered rocket to hover. And so on.

The USA is not the biggest, it is not the best, and it is not the most charitable. It is big, it is often good, and it is generous, and it is welcome to take a place among the nations on those terms. Just don't give everyone else this `best in the world' drivel.

PS: Gatorman, it's not you alone, you were just the last straw on this camel's back.

Re:Gatorman: you need Monty Python

[The_dev0]

the only reason you (or any other "first world" nation) doesn't (apparently) "meddle" in the affairs of other nations is because you know you have the u.s. to do it for you. ahh... no, what usually happens is america TELLS its little friends to meddle on its behalf. Otherwise the UN would be ALL american citizens. I know, i am in Air Force Defence here in oz. I have been on 9 international missions in my career, EVERY SINGLE ONE being directed by the states, who wont use their own staff because they are not as well trained. (as they have explained to the oz military on numerous occasions.) Hey, dont get me wrong, you may have the planes but china would eat you alive if it came down to soldier vs. soldier. You also said the states doesnt invole itself willy nilly in other peoples affairs..um what planet are you living on? who else acts as global policeman? oh, and when you say: 'ahem,allies..' just remember who fought for your ass in YOUR vietnam, who supplied soldiers to YOUR gulf war, and has been doin dirty work for the states as long as we have had the ANZUS treaty. um... what have you done for us, lately? you havent heard as calling you to help bail us out of a war yet have you? Thought not. We dont pick fights that we cant finish without help.

Re:Bill Gates donates $25K!

[gurulegend]

Please say you are joking because this is pathetic.

Kevlar

[Anonymous Coward]

I recently did some video work in a court room - one thing we needed to do was cut several holes in the judges bench.

Surprise! it was line with grenade proof epoxy impregnate kevlar and man was that though stuff. This material took HOURS to cut through and with a re-enforce frame around the doors would make the cockpit a fortress.

Why can't we install 2 new bulkheads of this material, one between the cockpit and food prep area and one between the food prep area and cabin? This way if and when some one needed to enter/exit the cockpit the people in the cabin area could be locked out.

Cameras in the cabin area with display in the cockpit, why not?

Some where I remember hearing a pilot talk about getting everyone to sleep by lowering the cabin pressure. Why not have a system to lockout the emergency O2 and dump the cabin atmosphere untill everyones out, sure some will suffer but....

Re:Religion

[Phroggy]

It's high time to call for an end to all religion. Atheists value human life most highly, no matter what christian/muslims/jews/ whatever say.

Don't forget that the belief that God doesn't exist is a belief held solely on faith, since it cannot be proven.

As an atheist, I believe that we've only got one shot at life, that placing our trust in any "power higher than ourselves" is idiotic. We make our own destiny.

As a Christian, I also believe that we've only got one shot at life on this Earth, whatever may lie ahead. Placing your trust in a higher power is idiotic for anyone who doesn't believe in the existance of a higher power, but for those of us who believe God is very real and has the ability to protect us, it's not such a bad idea.

We make our own destiny? Tell that to the people who were working in the WTC towers yesterday morning, or to the passengers and crew on the four hijacked planes.

DOWN WITH RELIGON! I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR IMAGINARY FRIENDS, ALLAH or JEHOVAH, NEITHER EXIST.

And I don't care that you don't believe in them. That is your right in this country, protected by the First Ammendment to the United States Constitution, and I fully support your right to believe what you want.

The terrorist's actions are all the worse, becuase they're fighting for an incredibly stupid cause - they misguidedly beleive (like many americans) in some "higher power".

We're not even sure who the terrorists are, let alone what their motivations were. Please don't jump to conclusions prematurely.

Risk Reduction

[geolane]

Your comments are valid, and hints at statements made by a number of security analysts- not enough resources are devoted to human intel- people that can be integrated into the groups, and serve reduce the threat, once the group acts.

Here is a story from salon: Terriorist made, not born

Amid his denial of involvement, and the cheering in Iraq, there is plausibility that Saddam used some more of our funding and training to think of one of the few attacks no one anticipated or planned for (because it is so unbelievable).

The best visual metaphor I can muster is from The Matrix when the two protagonists go to free Morphius, the dialogue between Neo and Trinity goes T: No one has tried anything like this before N: That's why it's going to work.

What is discussed around more than once is risk- there comes a point where the amount of resources devoted to reducing risk become too large.

There are a number of solutions to reducing risk, so that incidents like this are minimized. Prevention is not possible, in this case, because the cost of not flying is too high.

Here are some options for improving security in airports:

• only one hand carried carry on (purses count as a carryon). None of those roller contraptions. Only soft objects (determined by opening EVERYTHING) allowed on the plane. Paper clothes are distributed to all passengers to be worn on the flight.
• Two plain clothed marshals on every domestic flight. International flights would consist of one from each nation. (Only required for departing or arriving within US). They could wear tazers, rather than worry about pressure loss.
• More physical space between the cockpit and the passengers.

  Well, I've run short on time. The suggestions are just an example of ways to reduce risk and the potential for danger.

  Just wanted to comment that my heart goes out to the victims (all victims), peace be with all of us in the days and weeks to come.

The US created Saddam and created the Taliban

[Ars-Fartsica]

The US bankrolled the Hussein regime extensively during the Iran/Iraq war. They made him but they couldn't (and still can't) break him.

Oh, by the way, the US also bankrolled the Muhajudin rebels that became the Taliban in Afghanistan.

So then...

[phocuz]

what should the rest of the world to fascist america then?

Re:So then...

[jiheison]

Turn on the TV for your answer. What you reap is what you sew.

None of the Americans who lost their lives yesterday deserved their fates. Neither did the countless civilians who died in America's ideological wars. Nor do the civilians who may die in America's quest for revenge.

Re:What can be done? Nothing.

[Wolfier]

Don't kill them. Make them kill each other.

I know it takes considerable efforts and wits, it is not impossible to stir up an internal conflicts within the terrorists or their countries.

Let their people know their god Allah does not approve such acts. Make them overthrow their own governments.

Re:How about the IRA

[crush]

Hear, hear! You are completely correct.

When we say "War on Terrorism", we'd better mean all terrorism, whether it be by Arabs, Irish, Indonesians, Central American Drug Lords

I'd just like to add to that list, the British Army and Government who used and use terror to enforce religious and ethnic discrimination against Catholics, by extension also the people that vote for the government that supports this. Also anyone whose work goes to support this regime no matter how indirectly. I'd also like to call your attention to the people that bombed and are boming Iraq (that would be the USAF and its European NATO allies) and of course their governments.
Yes, that means that the US gets a double whammy because it does murder on its own account and also supports dictatorial regimes (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Yemen, Jordan, Columbia, Afghanistan....) and of course you and your fellow thinkers - you must be what you mean by those in America responsible for enabling these people to continue to operate

Responding to Middle Eastern despot states...

[xnuandax]

The best way to respond to the Middle Eastern despot states currently celebrating this obscenity would be to force a rapid move to alternative energy in the US and thus depress the value of oil as quickly as possible.

Patriotic people/companies

[gururise]

I've heard about several companies/people making donations and such to the Red Cross. I just wanted everyone to know that even the smaller companies are trying to help in any way they can.

My employer is ERA Champion Realty, Inc., a Real Estate company based in Orange County, California with about three dozen employees.

Our manager has committed to donating $500 for each home sale made during the next 60 days. Counting the sales we already have scheduled to close this month, we are close to the $5000 mark.

Just wanted to let you all know that some of the smaller companies are pitching in too!

the truth about the 5th Plane theory?

[crossconnects]

At one time in the broadcasts, it was believed that two AA flights had hit the WTC, and another was down at the pentagon and two united flights had also crashed, one in Somerset County PA. As it turned out the second united flight had been one of the WTC planes. The Colorado angle came from the use of the abbreviation for County, CO.

Got this from CNN

[DA_MAN_DA_MYTH]

Secretary of State Colin Powell says the coalition being formed will not stop at getting the people responsible for the attack, but will go after terrorists wherever they are found.

Start with these 30...

Re:Got this from CNN

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting. Only that the IRA is missing -- Ohh, that's right, they are white. White people can't be terrorists, they are just fighting for their freedom from England; and this is patriotic.

-- A White, Irish-American Male

Re:What can be done? Nothing.

[fiore42]

You are evil. There's no other word for you.

If it's evil (and it is) to kill a man, how much crueler is it to tell that man that he must simply stand there and be killed?

The thing is...

[phocuz]

...the us government supports israel. The us government is selected by the us people )well, sort of anyways) and therefore many americans are to be blamed for the us foreign affairs.

As you could see in them targetting the pentagon, it hints at them being angry with us militaryofficials.

List of winners of Medal of Honor

[Brian_Ellenberger]

You are so wrong. To prove your point, here is the long list of United States Medal of Honor winners, most of which gave their lives in acts of extreme heroism to fight for our freedom.

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/moh1.htm

link for the amazon.com/red cross fund

[Jish]

I just wanted to say that I think it is amazing how many people are donating to this and I really believe it should be a link on the front page of slashdot.

To reiterate:

Donate money

- Josh

Re:link for the amazon.com/red cross fund

[dsb]

Thanks for the link, I just donated and helped bring total to $1,719,875.62

Hopefully, my $10.00 will buy those hard working volunteers and blood donors another Papa John's pizza!

Re:link for the amazon.com/red cross fund

[rtos]

I have been tracking the average donation (total/donations) and it has been slowly increasing from 24.98 early yesterday morning to about 32.23 as of 9:30 AM EST today. The increase has been steady. I'm not sure if there is anything notable about that, but I found it to be interesting.

NO, it will happen again

[ckedge]

What happened yesterday is totally without precedent and it would be unwise to make such a drastic policy and procedural change

NO, there is ample precident!!! The alternative is to suffer through the development of TOMBSTONE TECHNOLOGY.

It's been clear for some time now that it would only be a matter of time before an air-rage incident with an unarmed intruder resulted in 4-500 people dying as an airliner went straight into the ground. And yet no government agency even considered forcing airlines to "reduce profits" by adding a 1000 lb titanium/aluminum door to seperate the pilots from the passenters, even though the idea of a 'stronger door' is the first thing that strikes EVERYONE.

It's a known fact, by those in the know, that most of what "humanity" and "society" does is Tombstone Technology. Everything that has happened could have been prevented if decisions were made on the side of safety instead of economics. If people didn't simply refuse to deal with complexities by glossing over them with black and white pictures. The phrase "tombstone technology" does not describe "what must be", but describes what goes on now because of the "stupid short-sighted decisions human beings currently make." The way in which organizations, businesses, governments, and masses of human beings makes decisions MUST CHANGE.

If the FAA isn't relieved of it's air-safety responsibilities, I will be sickened. It's been known for 10-15 years now that the NTSB should be in charge. The conflict of interest of the FAA in promoting air travel and the profits of the airlines has already killed so many due to not implementing NTSB recommendations.

If all they do is "beef up" boarding security, I will be sickened. We've known for 10-15 years that current security precautions are totally inadequate. I have never EVER heard of a "test" of the boarding security precautions which didn't report a 40-60% success rate at getting serious weapons aboard.

Airplanes have been siezed before by people bluffing that they have bombs. Knives do not need to be made out of metal. And yet we've got some idiot on TV spouting off how it's so impossible to prevent someone from hijacking an airplane and doing this, seeing as they don't actually need a weapon. If there was a bulkhead and they had no weapon, all they could do is bluff and negotiate when back on the ground.

No, you can't stop someone from blowing up an airplane in-flight. But you can stop someone from crashing a fully loaded super-liner (like the new ones on the drawing boards from Boeing and Airbus) from being crashed into the Superdome and suffocating 100,000 people, or bringing down the Sears tower.

You're simply refusing to work through the complexities of the real world. That's what got us into this fucking mess!!! We can handle complexities of this nature, if those capable of making analytic decisions are given the chance, and not mucked with by those who can't think past their nose.

BTW: With respect to depressurization: the pilots simply need to do a crash dive down to 5000 feet and slow to 150-200mph, at which point there will not be a pressurization difference and aerodynamic stresses will be minimized. Then a few bullet holes will be just fine.

Re:NO, it will happen again

[Pig Hogger]

...
forcing airlines to "reduce profits" by adding a 1000 lb titanium/aluminum door to seperate the pilots from the passenters, even though the idea of a 'stronger door' is the first thing that strikes EVERYONE.

The strongest titanium door won't do zip against "social" engineering such as done by the hijackers yesterday to force the pilots out of the cockpit: killing stewardesses.

Re:NO, it will happen again

[Doctor Faustus]

True, but making the pilot and copilot unable to get out of the cockpit, either, would. Combine that with tazers and/or safety-slug equiped pistols, and you've got a pretty good defense. Most of what is being ordered currently sounds totally ineffective.

Re:NO, it will happen again

[einhverfr]

It's been clear for some time now that it would only be a matter of time before an air-rage incident with an unarmed intruder resulted in 4-500 people dying as an airliner went straight into the ground. And yet no government agency even considered forcing airlines to "reduce profits" by adding a 1000 lb titanium/aluminum door to seperate the pilots from the passenters, even though the idea of a 'stronger door' is the first thing that strikes EVERYONE.

That is one hell of a door. Probably not that necessary. We do need stronger doors, but 1000 lbs of aluminum/titanium alloy is probably a bit excessive (about a foot thick).

Re:NO, it will happen again

[farmhick]

Ask New Yorkers if a door that weighs the equivilant of five average men is too heavy, or too thick. The idea of saving weight/fuel is what makes everything in planes so flimsy now.
And what are the dimensions of the door, width and height?
But why aluminum? 1000 pounds of aluminum weighs the same as 1000 pound of cast iron. Which one sounds safer to you? (and much thinner.) I know, aluminum is stronger than iron for the hull of the plane, but that is a very thin sheet. Is a three-inch thick plate of aluminum stronger than a three-inch thick plate of iron?

Re:Wire the cockpit door!

[Picaska]

Until yesterday, most airline hijacking incidents were confrontational with the hijackers making demands and, when met, would release the passengers and crew. Now that we have witnessed the potential of suicide terrorists, we need to come up with a better way to protect all people in the sky...I say wire the door, floor, whatever for shock/stun/electrocution if a hijacker breaks in.

The pilot or co-pilot could just hit a little panic button like a bank teller. This would activate an instant door that would be inpenetrable by bullets, activate the floor to electrocute or stun whoever is standing there at that moment, and it would also reset the transponder to show an emergency situation. Once activated, the door would not open and the transponder would not be able to reset until the plane was back on the ground and the airline or FAA gave a ground worker the code to disable the emergency function. If it was a false alarm, oh well, it would be the price paid for safety. And if it was a real situation, then the plane could be escorted by military jets to safe ground or be shot down.

If you were on a plane taken by terrorists, would you rather the military just shoot it down than have the terrorists fly it into a building and kill 20 or 30 thousand people? I'd hold up a sign telling the F-16 to "FIRE, PLEASE".

Re:What can be done? Nothing.

[lie as cliche]

The only effective weapon against terrorism is to do absolutely nothing.

Make any change at all in response, and you are instantly losing. Pandering to the desired effect, which is 'change'.

Not so. In evolution (and in business) a new strategy only succeeds until everyone else has caught onto it and adapted to neutralize it. One can at least shore up the gaps in the way buildings and aircraft are designed to attempt to prevent this sort of thing recurring. Either that or we should reach the comclusion that air travel is inherently risky and no amount of feigned security is going to prevent something like this, and do away with the extra expense and humiliation of what we generously call airport security. I think that concept was common knowledge before all this. All this incident did was make it unavoidable.

Say what you will about the loss of life, and the human tragedy of it, but the fact remains: humans die, whether at the hands of other humans, or by their own doing.

Right, right. Let's trash the whole social contract, shall we? American citizens make increasingly greater concessions of their rights and liberties to their government on the grounds that the government will in turn perform its current function of legislation and taking care of the tough stuff. Do as much as cross the street wrong or talk to a cop or a judge in a way that displeases them and the system penalizes you. People are liable when they don't perform their portion of the social contract, but you seem to be suggesting that when the government fails in its capacity to keep its people safe from harm it should be released from its obligation to do so. Governments, like doctors, bury their mistakes. Now either we have a government that is making ever-more inroads into the liberties and rights of its people in an attempt to shoulder the burden of doing the tough stuff, mainaining a safe system so that people are able to go about their individual pursuits, in which case it needs to ensure that it does so, or we have a government that is only responsible for settling disputes and maintaining internal cohesion as applies to foreign policy, in which case it needs to stop making a power grab in the private lives of its citizenry. Either it's one way, or it's the other. It can't have it both ways, controlling the private lives of its citizenry yet not responsible for them.

...

[phocuz]

What would you do if another state came into your city, and demolished your house, just because some extremists bombed a pizzeria earlier that day? The arab-states dislike Israels actions in palestine, with all rights.

There is lots of racism in the middle east, and it was when things came to seeing sionism as racism, that the us and isreal left. I pretty much think seeing your people as better than others, and that the other people should just move if you say so, is a lot like what Adolf Hitler thought at first when he deported lots of jews, gypsies and others...

Gas Station Bombing in New York

[japes]

Relative of a friend reports of Gas Stations getting molitof cocktails in NYC!!!

Any first hand accounts?

FAA = lack of security

[Anonymous Coward]

I had a long talk this summer with a person that works at the FAA in their security division. To make a long story short, I was shocked about what I learned regarding airport checkpoints.

1) The checkpoint are not run by the airports or the FAA, but instead are private companies contracted by the airlines.

2) Pay is extremely poor at these checkpoints and in many airports these are the most unskilled and uneducated laborers.

3) Turnover is extremely high at these checkpoints, which means that most of the workers there are perpetually "green" (i.e. novices).

4) If a restaurant in the airport food court has an opening, that job is likely to be snatched up by a now "former" check point operator. Why? Because they see those fastfood jobs as a step up in the world.

Overall, I got the impression that it would be extremely easy to sneak something through a checkpoint. We can talk about air marshalls, armoured cockpit doors, etc., but the truth is that yesterday 24 men managed to sneak 24 knives onto 4 different aircraft.

Does anybody think that the news is changing?

[variable26]

Why are all the death toll numbers changing or shall I say being lowered.

And does anybody know anything about early reports of flight 93 being shot down by USAF planes?

Just wondering...

Re:What can be done? Nothing.

[Cid Highwind]

You don't kill terrorists to punish them, you kill them to get rid of them! The more terrorists you kill, the less terrorism there will be. Duh!

You're right! That tactic worked so well for Isreal, they've run out of terrorists to kill!
Dumbass.

Re:What can be done? Nothing.

[sansoo]

I suspect that the most active terrorists are simply sociopaths, who have a need to hurt and kill and rationalize their anger, directing it at a specific group (especially because it gives them political power). There is more of Hitler than Ghandi in bin Laden. What message was Hitler sending Jews? While the US (I'm a Yankee) is guilty of meddling too much, Americans on the whole are not dancing whenever a Palestinian's house is bulldozed. We need to have it explained when we do wrong. Mostly we're a target because we're rich. This attack just gets us angry, not smarter.

rest of tower 2 collapses

[carrolljim]

Just reported on CNN - the remaining stories of tower 2 has collapsed. They're still worried about 1 Liberty Plaza collapsing further, and have evacuated rescue workers from that area.

Re:They were NOT designed to take an aircraft impa

[Peyna]

I'm pretty sure on CNN or other news station I heard/read that they were designed to withstand a hit from a 707 (not accounting for all the fire, etc.). Of course, a 707 is significantly smaller than a 757 or 767, and momentum, fuel, etc. all make a differnce.

What I'll be thinking...

[nettdata]

Am I going to be scared of being hijacked? No. They've just tought me that you can't just sit back and let people make you a victim and hope that it works out in the end.

When I get on my flight to LA next week, I'll be hoping that some asshole TRIES to hijack the plane so that he can proceed to get the shit kicked out of him. Even if he puts me down, the guy behind me will get him.

Blood Donations in Indianapolis

[Peyna]

Just a note in case people are looking to give blood that live in or near Indianapolis, IN: Most blood centers will be closed and setting up shop in Conseco Fieldhouse on Thursday and Friday so that they can handle alot more people more efficiently. Sorry, I don't have the hours or other information.

Re:What can be done? Nothing.

[sydbarrett74]

You may be OK with grabbing both ankles and spreading your arse-cheeks so you can take it up the cornhole, but why should anyone else? Inaction is no action! What have you been smoking, because I sure would love some.

This is not an attack on America

[irc(addict)]

This is not an attack on America, as much as it was intended to be. It was an attack on the World. A large portion, if not most, Companies in the world trade center have their Headqaurters in other countries all over the world. The WTC was merely on American Soil. It wasn't America's economy that was hurt and terrorized - it was thousands of secretaries, salesmen, computer operators, and janitors. Ordinary people trying to make a living. They have been devastated, as have been their friends neighbors and families. Let me make a suggestion. All the people who are yakking away about america deserved it, or along those lines, sit back for a moment, shut up, and THINK. Use some of that precious gray matter. These people, for the most part, were not americans by birth or origin. They were people just like you and me. Would YOU still be staying "it was America's fault, and oh hey, they should change their policy" if it was YOUR wife, son, husband, relative, friend in there? WOULD YOU!? Didn't Think So. Just imagine how those PEOPLE.. real live people.. must be feeling about how everyone is talking about their loved one dying saying things like 'America had it coming', especially when they and their son was born and grew up in Australia, on the other side of the damn world like one couple Ive seen on the TV. Grab the right end of the stick. Please. Visit This Register Article and see for your self, just how many foreign companies there were.

Re:What can be done? Nothing.

[jgerman]

And one way is to punish and destroy completely those responsible so that those that do try to come along in the future think twice about fucking with us.

Imagine this scenario, say we discover that it was Laden who was responsible. We demand that he and his closest men are turned over to us for execution, and imagine that Afghanistan complies.
Terrorist would then know that there is no where they can hide safely while they plan their acts of evil and depravity.

The message is simple, they have no respect for human life, they are no more than animals, worse because animals would never do this to themselves. I have no qaulms about detroying these people, to put the fear in them that our citizens are currently going through.

It doesn't matter that others will come along, the alternative is to let these people do whatever they want and that is simply wrong.

Yes. It is entirely about economics.

[PowerPimp]

Show these people a little shred of economic prosperity and I guarantee you this whole thing will dissapear. I'll tell you, it isn't the Saudi oil sheiks who are crashing jets into buildings. As it lies now, there are simply too many people out there with nothing to gain and nothing to lose.

You must understand that people like Osama Bin Ladin and the Taliban are a threat to democracy in the Middle East, let alone the US. I mean even IRAN looks down on the Taliban. Egypt is scared stiff of terrorists! Everywhere you go there are tourism police lurking with submachine guns to protect the AMERICANS who are there. Just wait until there is another luxor massacre and the money goes. Then some right wing theocratic government will take over for the moderate government, and we will have lost another stable government in the region.

Like I said. Stop giving Israel guns and start doing something about the economies in these countries. People wouldn't be so pissed off if they were getting a piece of the action!

Re:Yes. It is entirely about economics.

[carlos_benj]

Show these people a little shred of economic prosperity and I guarantee you this whole thing will dissapear. I'll tell you, it isn't the Saudi oil sheiks who are crashing jets into buildings.

Osama Bin Ladin is poor? He may not be an oil baron, but he ain't sellin' pencils on the street corner either.

Re:Yes. It is entirely about economics.

[Squeeze Truck]

Cripes man, bin Laden is a Saudi and he is financed by Saudi oil money. You think he won that billion dollars in the lottery? Some of it is private holdings from his former businesses, but most of it comes from *donations*. Donations from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, and China.

I agree though. Israel doesn't deserve the aid they get from us.

Re:Yes. It is entirely about economics.

[JAVAC THE GREAT]

I think I read somewhere that the country the OKC bombers came from did alright for itself. That didn't seem to stop them.

Terrorists are crazy, no matter what excuse they use, they are simply bloodlusted insane fanatics with no respect for life or grasp on reality. Terrorism is an illness.

Re:Yes. It is entirely about economics.

[Kharny]

Apart from The terrorists themselves, who are indeed either misled or utterly crazy, the people supporting this, or countries supporting them, usually don't have much to lose. If for example you are very poor, and so is your family, I come up to you and say if you support my cause, i will feed your family, you are likely to say yes. This works the same as for anyone, if someone helps you, you help him, if you have a choice, you can accept morality, if not, you will accept anything....

Re:Yes. It is entirely about economics.

[MentalPunisher2001]

He is using his money (and that of others) to finance an army, instead of laying back in a beach in fucking California (which he could have easily have done, for the rest of his life, with his millions of dollars).
He is doing this for his beliefs, not profit.
Profit is not the only motive in this world, you know.

Yes, he has something to lose (money, his life)
Yes, he has something to win (getting the US out of the area)

Those fighting for him probably have nothing to lose, and stand to win only what he will win.

Now, if he were to attack the Saudi Government (which may be what he plans to do after he gets the US out of there), he'll no longer be in exile.
He may help set up a new, theocratic government.
He will indubitably be a VERY high ranking official in said government - but he's already spent most of his life fighting for his religion, it doesn't make sense that he would waste his whole youth for more money/power in his latter years, when he could have just enjoyed ALL of his years. It doesn't make sense.

Re:Yes. It is entirely about economics.

[SergioB]

I totally agree with you. Although there are some rich terrorists - most of them are poor people with no other opportunities. Everything has its economic roots.

Re:Yes. It is entirely about economics.

[Kharny]

There are some rights, but that was what we both were saying.

Re:Yes. It is entirely about economics.

[carlos_benj]

You seem to miss the point entirely, even though I quoted the pertinent passage from the post I replied to. The comment implied that terrorist attacks would go away if "these people" were to experience some economic prosperity. I pointed out the Bin Ladin was very prosperous. The tone of your reply seems to disagree while the content manages to admit the man has plenty of cash. My point was precisely that if economic prosperity would solve this, Bin Ladin would not be a problem for the US.

Islam logged off from the Koran long ago

[Ars-Fartsica]

Every faith has its extremist bigots

You mean like the ones that rule every Middle Eastern Islamic regime? Name for me one, ONE moderate leader of an Islamic regime. Name for me one who allows women to dress and act in a way THEY want. Name for me one who does not support a violence in their justice system that makes Texas look like Norway. Name for me one who was elected in a fair and open process.

Re:Islam logged off from the Koran long ago

[Arandir]

You used the word "regime". I can think of no single leader of ANY regime, regardless of religion, that will meet your criteria.

Re:Islam logged off from the Koran long ago

[fault0]

I won't respond to the regime part, because that extends beyond religions, but if you want to look at a predominatly Muslim country which has had all of these, look at Turkey. They've even had a women head of state this decade.

Another _was_ Pakistan. Although they are in the shitter right now.

Another _was_ Iran (f.m.a. Persia). They were quite open until 1979. Well, actually, the Shah was prolly not moderate. He was very pro-Western, which tends to piss of Converatives in countries. It'd be like if suddenly, the US had an autocrat who was extremely liberal, legalized all drugs, legalized homosexual marriages, etc.. I'd guarentee that there'd be a revolution by the countless number of Conservate Christians living in this country.

Another is Bangladesh. They have a women head of state.

Another is Indonesia.

I'm sure there are countless more.

Re:Islam logged off from the Koran long ago

[tomson]

In Turkey, which is mostly a Muslim country (though not the state itself), everybody can wear whatever they want. The amount of women in high goverment positions in Iran is at least as hight as in most western countries. All muslims that I met while traveling where amongst the most friendly and open people I have ever met. We did not agree on everything, but we accepted our differences and had a great time.

Maybe in some Muslim countries women can't wear what they want (most don't mind, and they can wear what they want at home), but neither can man. It's a different culture. Can you wear whatever you want to your work. I think not.. Do you feel opressed because of that??

It is a different culture, with different people and different rules. That does not make them evil. That does not make suicide bombers of all of them.

One of the worst things that could happen now is a big anti Muslim frenzy. Many problems in the middle east have started with the crusades. I don't think we need another one.

Know Your Enemy

[aprentic]

I don't know if you're aware of this but the fundamental problem in that area is that since the founding of Israel, the Arab countries have continuously devoted themselves to its destruction. I think you also have some major misconceptions regarding the nature of a "Palestinian homeland" which could be more accurately described as "whatever area happens to be under Israeli control at the moment".
This is entirely understandable. Before the allies decided to give Israel to the Jews as a new homeland, the Arabs who had been living there for thousands of years, had just fought a bloody civil war to escape Turkish occupation. They got almost no help from their British "allies".

The use of the word "racist" is a non-event. The issue was conference ostensibly intended to fight racism that turned into a wildly anti-semitic assault depicting Israel (one of the most ethnically diverse countries in the world) as the sole locus of evil. Yes, it's appropriate that the US government didn't lend legitimacy to it, and European countries should be ashamed of their compliance.
Why were the US and Israel the only two countries to walk out of the UN conference on racism?

If it makes you feel better, think about how much we spend on defense each year. Now think about the dollar value of the fact that Iraq didn't have nukes in 1991. Was aid to Israel cost effective?
We don't need Israel to blow up nuclear power plants. We're perfectly capable of doing it ourselves. And besides what right did we have to attack Iraq? Because we wanted to controle the price Iraq could charge for THEIR oil. If you think it was to save the poor Kuwaitis, where were we when the Hutu were commiting genocide against the Tutsi in Rowanda? At it's height the Tutsi were slaughtered at the greatest rate in history and we didn't lift a finger. (Yes I know that more Jews were killed by the Nazis but it was over a much longer period)

And also that the current hostility isn't because Israel denied the Palestinians a homeland but because it offered them one.
The current hostility is because the Palestinians see the Israelis as invaders who have spent the last 50 years makeing themselves at home on land which the Palestinians had been calling home for thousands of years.

Re:Know Your Enemy

[tjb]

"And besides what right did we have to attack Iraq? Because we wanted to controle the price Iraq could charge for THEIR oil. If you think it was to save the poor Kuwaitis, where were we when the Hutu were commiting genocide against the Tutsi in Rowanda? At it's height the Tutsi were slaughtered at the greatest rate in history and we didn't lift a finger"

Repeat after me:

In the gulf war we could do something, in Rwanda we could do nothing.

Whatever the motivations for the GUlf War, blatantly taking over a neighboring country is way out of bounds. The US had friendly bases nearby, and the Saudis were very willing to help. We could do something here and we did.

Rwanda would have made Vietnam look like a teaparty. It is heavily forested, the US had no nearby bases, and "lifting a finger" would have literally meant genocide on a mass scale. Nothing short of anihilating both sides would have solved that situation. There were no good-guys, there was nobody it was even morally palatable to side with in the interests of peace. There were very good reasons we stayed out of Rwanda.

Tim

Re:Know Your Enemy

[aprentic]

In the gulf war we could do something, in Rwanda we could do nothing.
You're saying that the most powerfull army in the world couldn't stop a bunch of machete weilding civilians from slaughtering their neighbors?
And if stopping the genocide in Rwanda would have made Vietnam look like a tea party how did the Tutusi pull it off when their refugees mounted an invading army? (Hint they didn't have to annihilate the Hutu).
Also while there may have been no good guys, there was clearly a bad guy. So who was the good guy in the Gulf war?
More Tutsi were killed in Rwanda than everyone who died in the golf war combined. How is this even vaguely acceptable if invading another country is way out of bounds?

Re:Know Your Enemy

[vinlud]

Uh, because they're the only two countries with real balls?

No, because the other ones know you cannot solve problems by walking away...

Handsoff approach to middle east

[haggar]

Your arguments have been appearing several times on Slashdot and in the media, propelled by the well-oiled (sorry for the pun) Arab propaganda.

However, this reminds me of the propaganda in the Third Reich, Hitler's Germany. You see, Arabs would like US to be more partian in the Middle East, in favor of the Palestinians. Or even better, just leave the problem to the Arab countries. That's exactly what Germany wanted from the European (and other world) countries: mind your own business, so you won't be harmed.
And so, when Germany wanted to take part of the Chech Republic, the European powers of the time (France and Unied Kingdom) agreed, thinking that this will secure them peace.

Well, Germany invaded the whole of Chech Republic, butwhat the heck, they are not touching France or UK, right? So, everythig is fine? Well, not really, as son after Germany invades Poland. Hmmm.. now surely the European countries would join forces to stop the agression.. uhh.. no, they didn't. They thought that it wll stop there, that they won't be harmed. Some 70 million deaths later, the world didn't learn the lesson.

Why do you think the US supporst Israel? It's because it's the only truly democratic country in the MIddle East. Sure, the US policy could go hands-off, let the Arabs "throw Israel in the sea" as they so often threaten. Then they will be satisfied with te US. So, the terrorist attack actually worked! They achieved something, they changed US' policy in the Middle East! Great, so next time they don't like something about the US, they make another terrorist attack, and the US will cave in. Well, let's see: the christians in Syria, why not get rid of them, too? Surely the US will not mind, or else...

If you don't stand up to the bullies, they will make your life impossible, eventually. That's why we have principles, that's why they make us humane and preserve our dignity.

BIN LADEN UNDER HOUSE ARREST !

[Augusto]

Taliban wisend up ? They must be really scared about getting bombed after all, but this is probably just "symbolic". I'm still waiting for the president to give them the 24 hour warning to turn him in.

http://au.dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/20010913/a apworld/1000336445-1141825578.html

Bin Laden under house arrest: report

Afghanistan's ruling Taliban militia had placed alleged terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden under house arrest in the wake of the suicide attacks on the United States, an Arabic online newspaper reported.

Quoting "fundamentalist Arab sources", Ilaf said the "Taliban have arrested Osama bin Laden before placing him under surveillance with several of his assistants," including the head of the Egyptian branch of Al-Jihad Ayman Al-Zawahri and bin Laden's military commander, Muhammad Atef Al-Makni.

"A number of Afghan fighters are under house arrest along with bin Laden," said the report late Wednesday.

But a diplomat at the Taliban's embassy in Abu Dhabi said he could not confirm the report.

"All we know is that he (bin Laden) is somewhere in Afghanistan, but we are not aware if he is under house arrest," the diplomat said.

Bin Laden and commander Atef have been indicted for the 1998 bombings of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

Bin Laden has emerged as the prime suspects in yesterday's kamikaze hijacked passenger jet strikes on New York and Washington.

Someone who might have known something?

[Julz]

This article World War III at MaximOnline, specifically
"Scenario 1: Moles for Muhammad"
, is told by retired Colonel David H. Hackworth. I think he could see things getting close to flash point, he wasn't wrong with the size of the target and who knows maybe this is still a possibility, except maybe closer than some think.

On another note, maybe it's time for those patents on cheap free energy from water to be released into the public domain and for this technology to be used for planes, trains and automobiles, etc.

Also time for more trade throttling on the middle east till they hand over the goods. Eye for an eye doesn't work with these sort of people because they are willing to put their who following and their supposed religion on the line.

The most likely suspect for the attack

[anomalousman]

The mostly likely suspect for these attacks would have to be, or at the very least include, American nationals. The "nuke other countries for revenge" mentality is terrorism of an even higher level than that behind this tragedy.

The perpetrators were extraordinarily well informed, equipped and organized. I wouldn't put it past their abilities to leave a false trail, and it's vital that in our rage to punish those responsible we don't massacre innocents. Do not forget the moral of the Oklahoma bombings.

Re:The most likely suspect for the attack

[Steve B]

The mostly likely suspect for these attacks would have to be, or at the very least include, American nationals.

Nonsense. There are two basic types of terrorist kooks in the US. The type that gets its lips tired reading The Turner Diaries would have hit the UN building, not the WTC. The type that gets its lips tired reading The Unabomber Manifesto is more attached to small-scale terrorism such as tree-spiking.

Re:The most likely suspect for the attack

[anomalousman]

Fair enough. But why assume it was kooks? Apart from the chilling evil of the act it seems overly well executed for an unstable brain.

Why do an attack like this without taking responsibility? What has anyone gained? You'd expect some kind of cause to have been trumpeted if it was for a cause... It can't really have been a worthy target in and of itself - what will have changed in a year?

The only obvious result is going to be some US act of aggression - probably anti-arab. If I wanted to destroy Palestine or the Taliban I couldn't think of a better result. It wouldn't be hard to leave a suggestive trail, either.

That sounds a lot like a conspiracy theory, but if it was motivated by religious fervor I'd expect to see at least some kind of point being made. The whole thing seems a little too cold and professional to be "real".

Here's hoping that the US public and military are patient enough to find whoever or whatever really did this.

a must read, forward to friends

[Anonymous Coward]

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."

Re:a must read, forward to friends

[uncadonna]

sigh, this is about 25 or 30 years old at this point. I think I first read it in the Nixon era.

Gordon Sinclair died in 1984.

The Tri-Star and DC10 airplanes mentioned as pinnacles of US technology date from 1968.

This "recent" article is getting, ahem, a little tired.

Obviously, regardless how the current situation was created, recent events pass any test of requiring a military response, a response neither of revenge nor of deterrence but of necessary and total elimination. This is nothing to be happy or enthusiastic about. It's like chemotherapy. It hurts the patient but if it kills the cancer, it's worth it.

Spouting tired jingoism is neither helpful nor appropriate. Spouting jingoism that is *this* tired isn't particularly impressive either.

Moral High Ground

[lytefoot]

Points 1-3: If we turn our eyes from the fact that our own actions cause human suffering, among civilians, among children, we can hardly consider ourselves above being hated. If we willfully cause the suffering of civilians in order to further our point, the only distinction between us and the terrorists is that we're unwilling to get our hands dirty. Point 5.1: Have you read about any of the CIA's actions in the '70s and '80s? The ones they've ADMITTED to? Point 5.2: Geeks tend to come from the educated elite. Obviously. Those who can afford the hardware, if nothing else. As a former--often on the verge of current--citizen of Third World America, I feel quilified to answer your final trailing question. Living on the streets is illegal in the cities of the Unitied States. Living in poverty is illegal. Most so-called "welfare reform" movements are almost explicitely designed to take children away from the poor. In many towns and cities, there are "rif-raf" ordinances, where one can be ticketed and (if one can't afford to pay the ticket) jailed simply for looking scruffy in public! Americans are slaves to the dollar, sir, we are slaves to the bottom line; we are slaves to the American Dream, to keeping the nightmare it has become out of the eyes of those who have attained it in illusion. A few fortunate ones among us are able to find work that we can love; the vast majority dread waking up in the morning and being forced to go to work. Yes, in theory, there are other options: we can go to prison, or we can die. These are NOT, however, the options available to the people of a free nation. Our last presidential election was a sham; if this had happened in a "developing nation" the UN would have sent in peace keepers to implement democratic elections. Dubya CLEARLY lost the popular vote (note that Gore also had only a plurality, not a majority). The outcome of the electoral vote stands undefined; a deadline was artificially set so that Americans could have "closure" when what we wanted was "democracy". Pop psychology (the modern state religion, and the opium of the masses) won out over law, justice, and common sense. Our nation's ruling class, the class that controls 95% of the wealth, as well as virtually all of the means of production, consists of less than 5% of the population; more than 90% of the wealth is controlled by less than 1% of the population. Think fast: who knows was "oligarchy" means? My mother, an ordained minister and community organizer, nearly fifty years old (sorry, mom) and holding a Divinity degree from Harvard, was teargassed during a peaceful demonstration in Eugene, Oregon several years ago. Her lungs were permenantly scarred--primarily due to the fact that, as a minister to the poor and disposessed, she can't afford health care. Sound like a story from some bizarre third-world nation? It is, a story from third world America. Most of all, Americans are slaves to our own willful ignorance. It's truly telling that an appearantly intelligent man like yourself (at least, you're capable of logging on to /.) can believe that Americans, the majority of Americans, are free. We don't know what's going on all around us. We want to cling to an out-dated image of America; we may be clinging to an image of an America that never was. If you think you are free, sir, you're one of the lucky ones. The rest of us are not so skilled in the art of doublethink.

Re:Moral High Ground

[lytefoot]

What about the people who were stopped from entering the poles? (I'll tell you now, it wasn't the elite that were kept out!) What about the people who refused to vote because the theoretical "choices" were virtually identical? What about the people who voted their conscience and spent the next several months being blamed for Dubya? What about the fact that the president's brother--his BROTHER--was responsible for delaying the recounts; can we spell "conflict of interest", boys and girls? What about the fact that Florida law called for a recount that was not allowed to procede? Remember, Gore NEVER asked for a recount! It was legally required, not by ordinary Florida law, but by its CONSTITUTION?

Now might be the time to admit that the electoral system was ment to keep democratic government out of the grubby hands of the people (it's true, read the work of the founding fathers, especially Mr. Adams the elder). Now might be the time for a revolution.

Thomas Jefferson, by the end of his life, felt that a revolutionary war would be required every twenty years, every generation, so that the government could be redesigned to fit the needs of the citizens, so that the government would be precious, vital, painted with blood, to those who mandate it. By his reconning, we're two centuries and more overdue.

Re:Moral High Ground

[SomePoorSchmuck]

lytefoot, i just wanted to thank you for your post.

Re:Moral High Ground

[matrix29]

It is also important to remember that Mel Carnahan died in a plane crash CONVIENENTLY weeks before his election against John Ashcroft. The plane was supposedly struck by lightning (though no such information was to be found in radar records).

When Ashcroft lost to his dead challanger, his wife Jean Carnahan was elected. On September 9th, 2001 her house was struck by "lightning". Now on September 11th, 2001, the World Trade Centers were hit by two planes and a third slammed into the Pentagon.

Perhaps if this fraud Presidency wasn't so dead set on causing murder, mayhem, embezzlement, revenge, and bankruptcy we Americans could sleep soundly again. This will all point back to George Worthless Bush and most likely Scaife's schemes rather quickly.

Re:Moral High Ground

[crush]

Good post. Kudos to your mother.

Re:A Day That Will Live In Irony

[dachshund]

Amazing.

But, as we all know by now, the buildings were actually designed to withstand the impact of a 707-- which is much smaller than the 757 and 767 that were used in this attack, let alone the monster that is a 747. The 707 was about the biggest jet around when Yamasaki & Co. designed the towers way back when.

Re:Osama Bin Laden uses PGP to thwart intelligence

[ClarkEvans]

One of the reasons the CIA lost track of Osama Bin Laden was due to his switching from cell phones to PGP and the Internet for communications. Somehow i'm feeling a little guilty...

Please... please... don't think like this.
Let's think about Ben Franklin's prophesy,
if you give away freedom for security you
end up with neither.

We must turn our cheek and lead by example,
the bulk of the world are filled with decent
people and they will follow and shun those
who turn to barbaric acts. Responding with barbarism only breads contempt. We must act fairly and pull those from distress -- for it
is very much an act of desperation that we
have witnessed yesterday. Pity our enemy for
they have probably not had the opportunity to
see any other way.

On the home front we must fight a vigorous
intellectual challenge for our freedom. Only
today Sen Kennedy said in one sentance that
we will be returning to normalicy and then
a brief minute later said that we are at war,
and we must be willing to give up certain
liberties while we are at war (12:30 PM Today).

As we get more and more technologically advanced and the gap between the rich and the poor widens we must struggle to ballance captialism with our democracy; so that neither has the upper hand.
This is what we must struggle with; educating
our leaders so that they make the correct
choice for the people of the world -- the
choice of Jesus who turns his cheek and
teaches others to fish!

We are no longer a people of the U.S. we
are a people of the world and we must start
acting like such a people and stop looking
for borders which no longer exist.

Best,

Clark

No

[TheInternet]

6000 die every DAY in this country. And 100,000 humans die every die on this planet.

Quantity is not the only issue. It's the fact that the deaths were so sudden, in such a small area, and the result of malicious intent. These people were executed. Many of the deaths you're talking about are due to age, disease, and some that have voluntairly entered themselves into conflict. At least some have time to prepare, make sure their families are taken care of. The people in the world trade center were doing paperwork when a 757 flew into the building.

- Scott

Americans do not fear death

[Ender Ryan]

You need to take your head out of your ass. Americans are no different than the people of any other country. When the time calls for it, most Americans are willing to sacrifice themselves for the greater good.

Did you see how many firemen died trying to save people? Did you see how many people ran back to the toppling buildings to do what they could to help?

After Pearl Harbor you know what many American men did, they joined up! They wanted to fight! They would rather fight and die than sit and do nothing! 200+ firemen are DEAD because they were trying to save others! Doctors in the area rushed in to help, some of which are missing.

Open your fucking eyes!

encouraging words

[Anonymous Coward]

"No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win though to absolute victory... With confidence in our armed forces - with the unbounding determination of our people - we will gain the inevitable triumph - so help us God."

- President Franklin D Roosevelt
December 8th, 1941
Speaking to the American people after the attack on Pearl Harbor

Heroes of Flight 93

[phillymjs]

And does anybody know anything about early reports of flight 93 being shot down by USAF planes?

CNN is reporting, and I've seen it elsewhere, that people on that flight called relatives who told them of the WTC attacks. It has been said that the men on the flight voted to fight the terrorists once realizing their plight was not likely to come to a negotiated end on a runway somewhere. Apparently, the passengers did prevent them from striking their target, now strongly favored to have been the White House.

Regardless of whether the President was there at the time or not, a successful attack on the White House-- a blow struck against the worldwide symbol of Democracy and America-- would have been just totally detrimental to the [at that time] already-seriously-floundering morale of Mr. and Mrs. America. IMHO, when they identify the passengers who fought the terrorists, a high school or two ought to be named for those guys. They won (or at least fought to a draw) one of the battles of a war of iconoclasm. Those fuckers are attacking the images of this country, the things we hold dear as symbols of America, in order to shake our faith in the system, and hopefully bring the system crashing down.

~Philly

Re:Heroes of Flight 93

[variable26]

I heard this heroes story too.

But yesterday I read a report stating that it was shot down by USAF planes. If you look on any big media site you'll see coverage on this plane has been played down. There are not a lot of photos available.

Re:Heroes of Flight 93

[triticale]

But yesterday I read a report stating that it was shot down by USAF planes.

There was certainly speculation to this effect; one report was that a high level committee was trying to make the decision when the plane in fact crashed. I recall that this option was considered when Payne Stewart's plane went astray. If you review all the coverage you will find several issues on which there were conflicting reports. Remember when they were talking about 5 planes?

Even if it turned out that Flight 93 was shot down (my own first guess) or that the pilot still had control and took the Phantom 309 option (my second guess) Glick and Barrett are still heroes. Why? Partly because our collective psyche needs heroes right now, and partly because a decision to take positive action in the face of overwhelming odds is the essence of heroism.

tech solutions

[Anonymous Coward]

Large passenger jets are close to being able to land themselves (if they are not already capable of doing so, that is). Of all the solutions being bandied about, I haven't heard of anyone suggesting a "panic" button.

The idea would be simple. The pilot hits the button and relinquishes control -- permanently. The plane then looks in its database for nearby airports and lands itself.

I Resemble That Remark

[grendelkhan]

As a part of the "machine" that allows you the freedom to bitch about it, you're welcome.

Now, for just a moment, pop yourself out of the comfortable little shell you've built for yourself where your wonderfully self-righteous attitudes keep you warm and satiated at night and think about this experience I had, for just a moment.

When I was serving in the Republic of Korea, I was riding on the subway one day, when sitting on a bench next to me, (I was standing, anyone over 15 and under 35 stands) an older gentleman taps me on the leg and says "Excuse me, are you an American?" I answered yes, and he took my hand in his, shook it and said "Thank you.". I asked, for what? He replied "When my country needed it, your country sent it's sons to die for me and my children. You sent us the young men who should have been building your country, and those of us that lived through it, never forget. Don't pay attention to these young kids, they don't know any better. But we remember."

For every instance of exploitation you can name, I can find more to show that Americans are the most compationate, caring, and and concerned citizens on the planet. So much so, that even total screwheads like yourself can rant about the evils of corporate America and how horrible this place is. Not to sound like a total military goober here, but go try and complain about the state of the nation in some other countries and see how far you get.

I'm sorry, but sit down, shut up and grow up.

inside a terrorist's head

[Korova]

I want to make an analogy to help people try to get inside the heads of the terrorists who perpetrated yesterday's atrocities. It is inevitably an uncomfortable analogy, perhaps especially for the slashdot community.

Think of a typical all-American high school. Think of the football team. Think of the big powerful swaggering star quarterback.

Perhaps he is a good guy. But he is the hero, and he throws his weight a bit. Perhaps he's a nice guy and is an alterboy on Sundays, it doesn't matter.

Perhaps there are some lesser kids at the school. Not necessarily geeks. Maybe goths. Anyway in persuit of the all-American way the quaterback is somewhat down on such people. They resent him. The probably don't resent his athletic ability ("Who'd want to be a jock?"). They resent his attitude that he is God's chosen student. They resent being belittled. They resent being told that football is everything.

One of these put-upon kids puts a fire-cracker in the quaterback's locker and as it happens sets fire to his year book etc.

The Quaterback is hopping mad and goes around saying "when I catch that F***er, I'm going to rip him apart! If anyone knows who he is and isn't telling me I'll rip them apart too!"

Now destroying the WTC is not the same as a firecracker, but the analogy stands. Be aware, America, that much of the world does see you as an overbearing and self satisfied and opinionated, just like the quaterback in the story.

Re:inside a terrorist's head

[ellem]

does the quarterback feed the geeks?

does the quarterback give the geeks money?

does the quarterback sustain the geeks cash flow?

does the quarterback give aid & comfort to the gees?

then it isn't really the same thing is it? the geek looks like a real scumbag at this point and the quarterback is looking pretty sane.

Re:inside a terrorist's head

[ClarkEvans]

Does the quarterback steal the geek's lunch?

Re:inside a terrorist's head

[Korova]

And the quaterback is a pretty decent person really. Certainly a very nice person measured by his own scale. But that doesn't mean that the little, outsider kids see him that way. The snivelling brat that puts the fire cracker in the locker is not a nice guy. The point is that overbearing behavior can result in irrational responses from those who feel trodden on.

And America can be overbearing and arrogant, as can any powerful country. Britain, Germany and France are up there too, but not to the same extent: they don't have the power. And in the last 6 months or so the US has been more overbearing and dismissive than usual.

oh, yeah, right

[Ender Ryan]

WTF does that have to do with anything? He tells his people we are denying them food, yet we are prepared to give them food, but, he doesn't let them have OUR food. That makes sense, how?

Maybe he should stop trying to build biological and nuclear weapons and should let his people eat.

I think you need to take your head out of your ass.

Unconfirmed report of troops mobilization

[Pig Hogger]

On september 9th, some 1000 reservist elite snipers were told to assemble in the same airforce base in LA George W. went to.

And it is interesting to note that Israel pulled-out ALL of it's ambassadors mere minutes after the WTC was hit.

Something *** BIG *** is brewing, and it ain't smellin' good.

And how come the news don't show any pictures of people jumping from the WTC towers???

Re:Unconfirmed report of troops mobilization

[yzquxnet]

And how come the news don't show any pictures of people jumping from the WTC towers???

On page 2 of my area newspaper, the 'Star Tribune', there is a person plumetting to the ground.

I, personally, wouldn't air video of a person falling. Some respect must be given to the victoms. I think most of the media outlets have pretty much silently agreed that it wouldn't be respectful. Print news is a little different. A picture doesn't always have the same effect as video does. (albeit, sometimes a picture can be more meaningful)

1945: Bomber crashed into Empire State Building

[BlueStreak]

When I heard about the first plane that crashed into the WTC, I thought back to 1945 when an Army Corp B-25 bomber crashed into the Empire State Building. You can read more about it here

People didn't know.

[PowerPimp]

Nobody is going to be able to hijack a plane like this again. Up until now, the rule has been for the passengers to sit tight and wait for the Swat team to bust in and take care of it.
I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't another hijacking like this again, because NOBODY is going to sit down and let some punk with a knife do anything. Hell, if I'd known what was going to happen, I'd have jumped them.

You can do it safely.

[NetJunkie]

Air marshalls carried guns on aircraft for a long time. They came out with a special rounder to be used. It's commercially available now to people like me that live in apartments and don't want shots to go through walls should they have to defend themselves.

It's called MagSafe (as well as a few other brands). Basically the point of the round has a resin tip with small "BBs" in it. It fractures on impact and loses energy. It'll really hurt someone, but loses a LOT of it's energy when it hits drywall, and wouldn't go through the skin of a plane.

Capitalism AND Democracy

[ClarkEvans]

Please be careful about attributing these "good" things to capitalism. This is not strictly true. Only when you have *both* Capitalism and Democracy in ballence do these things occur. In the last 10 years our Capitalism has been taking too much credit for our Democracy, and Corporations are getting more power then the People. This is a problem. Capitalism is good, Capitalism taken to its extreme is Totalitarian and we must use Democracy wisely to keep it in check; to harness the firey beast if you will... please consider this.

Re:Capitalism AND Democracy

[smallpaul]

I was pretty careful to discuss "democractic capitalism" and not just capitalism. As you say: some of the benefit comes from democracy and some from capitalism. You need both. Robust capitalism is necessary for democracy because the flow of capital gives the middle class a voice. Robust democracy is really the end goal.

Yes, corporations can buy votes (and they do) but it is important to remember that the money they "spend" mostly goes to advertisments that try to influence the views of ordinary voters. This is somewhat self-limiting -- you can't too obviously do what the corporations want all of the time because then the advertising dollars become ineffective. "Vote for us. We inacted the law that abolished the weekend. We're going to advertise once an hour, every hour, until the elections"

Recently corporations have been beaten on big issues like the MAI and they have beaten us on some big issues like the DMCA. I think that is as it always was.

Re:Capitalism AND Democracy

[Sagarian]

I think the point is that capitalism out of check results in the purchase of the votes of elected represenatatives, not the brainwashing of the populace through advertising.

Re:Capitalism AND Democracy

[smallpaul]

I understand the problem but I think that it is somewhat self-limiting. What can a congressman do with the millions of dollars he gets from big Tobacco. He or she can't put it in his back pocket. He or she has to spend it on something that will get them re-elected (that's the whole point). No matter how much money you have, you will have trouble getting re-elected if you have been too obviously working against the interests of your constituents. There is a point of diminishing returns on financial investment. So there comes a time where you have to say that it is in your own self-interest to stand up to the corporations in order to save your own hide come election time. Why do you think that there are any laws on the sale of tobacco (for example) at all?

Re:Capitalism AND Democracy

[other_things_to_do]

Corporations are not to blame for the their influence on politics, we are. Corporations are a lot like people, they seek to protect their own interests. However, unlike most people, corporations get off their asses, get organized, and take action.

smallpaul: Regardless of whether I disagree with you or not, you have been making some of the best constructed arguments that I have seen here tonight.

Re:Capitalism AND Democracy

[MentalPunisher2001]

Yes, the balance is tipping away from democracy and towards capitalism.

Let us not forget the DMCA.
Let us not forget UCITA.
Let us not forget the unjust arrest of Skylarov.
Let us not forget that capitalism wants to do away with public domain, and reverse engineering.
Let us not forget the war on drugs, which is really a war on freedom.
Let us not forget that they are trying to take our guns away, so that we won't be able to fight back if necessary.
Let us not forget that they are taking our freedom of speech away, chipping away slowly so people won't notice.
Let us not forget that it is illegal to be poor, because you can't trespass and you can't live on public ground.
Let us not forget that Democracy isn't working, because the choices we are given are not choices at all.
Let us not forget that we didn't pick our last president.
Let us not forget that we cannot achieve infinite growth from finite resources.
Let us not forget that our leaders are pissing other people (countries, sects) off to guarantee our way of life (and obviously their own) - it is a trade off.
Let us not forget Echelon.
Let us not forget that the NSA is probably recording this post.
Let us not forget Carnivore.
Let us not forget restrictions on encryption.
Let us not forget the powers of FEMA under emergency situations.
Let us not forget executive orders.
Let us not forget that the Supreme Court may be bought off.
Let us not forget that our politicians ARE bought off.
Let us not forget that companies don't want libraries to have normal books anymore, they want to sell them subscriptions to electronic information

nothing is holy anymore

If this attack was by Bin Laden, I wouldn't worry.
Most of his attacks have been rather petty, anyways.
If this attack was domestic, the shit will soon hit the fan (and I mean one of those 7000RPM fans).
Domestic means people are pissed.
American people are pissed.
Domestic also means that McVeigh is a martyr (in somebody's eyes) - it means things are escalating.
Domestic means we can't carpet bomb, domestic means your neighbor could be carrying a suitcase nuke.
Domestic means more wiretapping in the US, which may piss MORE people off.
It means more searches, more intrusive searches - which may piss even MORE people off.

Remember what happened when the British pissed people off.

Re:Capitalism AND Democracy

[crush]

Robust capitalism is necessary for democracy because the flow of capital gives the middle class a voice.

Democracy is government by ALL the people.

corporations have been beaten on issues like the MAI

And have beaten us on NAFTA, GATT, Kyoto, land-mines
They've also heavily beaten the millions that are estimated to be actual slaves. The many, many millions more that are de facto slaves. The millions that are dying due to simple lack of food and clean water.
"Democratic capitalism" at its best stinks.

a sense of scale

[condour75]

I combined these two images, taken from eagle rock in New Jersey, into a flash dissolve, which gives an idea of the scale of the damage.

http://www.amberdigital.com/wtc/

rational p.o.v.

[fifth children]

yeah, my friend (non-slashdotter) wrote this and sent it to a couple senators. it pretty much sums up what i, and i'm sure others, have been thinking. lines might be a little fucked up... oh well.

Dear Senator,
Please do not give in to the pressure to call for extensive retribution
against the people harboring the terrorists responsible for the Sept. 11
attack. Too many people have already died in the attack; we must not kill
any more innocent people. Please, I beg you to consider the implications of
a retaliatory attack. If we strike back at the terrorists and the country
harboring them, not only will more innocent people be killed but this will
continue a vicious cycle that ends only with the death of the entire human
race. Revenge only begets revenge.
Please to not give in to political pressure. I may not represent the
majority of Americans, but I know that the killing will never end if we
strike back blindly and without discerning between terrorist and civilian.
To strike back now would be to ensure that another attack will come later in
time. I plead with you to consider the possibility that we can use this
situation to set a precedent for all of humanity.
We can use this opportunity to extend a friendly hand to all of our
brothers around the world. We can work with all human beings to create a
better future for mankind. Any country, whether weak or strong, large or
small, wicked or righteous, can attack another country. To strike back now
would only show the terrorists that we are no better than they are. Please
consider my message. Violence begets violence in a vicious cycle of death.
Peaceful solidarity as a human race offers us a chance to break this cycle.

If we must consider biblical texts at this time, let us consider this:

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a
tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes
you on the right cheek, turn the other also;"

"But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,"

Thank You,
Jacob B____

Re:rational p.o.v.

[mimbleton]

What kind of bullshit is that ?

Please, if US followed your message 50 years ago we would have not 6 but 12 millions Jews dead.

Do you truly believe that people like Hitler or , whoever was behind that attack, can be talked into "creating better future for mankind" ?

I am truly afraid that this country will simply implode because of this kind of crap like you just posted, becomes our policy.
One cannot survive among wolfs unless one acts like one of them.

PS.
Read Hitler biography, read how he attributed his successes precisely to people like you.
Weak, all-loving, good spirited folks whom he was able to fuck left and right over and over again.

Re:rational p.o.v.

[pkesel]

If you suggest extending a friendly hand to create a better world, explaine how that is going to happen! Are you going to go hug every one of the? Pat their little heads and say, "I know you're not happy. Let's chat about it" What do you mean by that statement? And do you honestly think that peaceful means wouldn't be tried if it could work? Don't you think it has been tried? Those terrorists already think we're worse than they are. That's why they attacked! Do you think they care what we think of them? We're the Great Satan in their eyes. Can we do anything that they will not condemn?

The fact that they resort to such extreme, anonymous violence should clue you in to the fact that they do not value your ideas and morals. Trying to deal with them on your terms will not work!

NEVER take the plane out of the pilot's control.

[TheMCP]

Look, computerized systems to ensure the pilot can't screw up have been tried in the past. The result was that a computer took over at precisely the wrong moment because it thought the pilot was doing something he shouldn't (even though he was actually reacting to an emergency), and the plane crashed. As a result, such systems were banned.

Airline pilots in America are about as safe as we can possibly ask for. Most of them are ex-military, and all of them have to have a lot of commercial flight experience before they get behind the yoke of a jumbo jet. It's not uncommon for a pilot to have 20 years professional experience before they get to pilot a commercial airline jet. These people are very well known and are very, very stable or they don't get the job.

I would rather trust an airline pilot to fly the plane I'm in than a computer any day.

Now, if you're worried about terrorists getting into the cockpit, perhaps you should be questioning why there's a door between the cockpit and the passenger cabin. Why can't they have a wall between them, and separate doors to the outside?

Seismic Activity of the Collapse

[deathcow]

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/12/seismic.impact/

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_wt c. html

Outside access for pilots only

[Von Rex]

You miss the point. If there's no way for the terrorists to get to the pilots, the pilots will retain control of the plane, thus removing the larger threat of the plane being used as a missile.

The plane might land with a cabin load of dead passengers, or it might simply be blown up by the terrorists, but it's still removes at one stroke the possibility of this tactic being used again. I think it's a great idea.

Pakistan ...

[dvNull]

... is one of the 3 countries wihch recognise the govt of Afghanistan as legitimate. Lets also not forget that the ruling power in Afghanistan the army also actively trains and supports the Taleban and provides them with weapons and intelligence.

They want to stay in power and if they try to go against their 'Muslim brothers' the hundreds of terrorist groups within these 2 countries will tear the remaining parts of it to shreds and we could end up having 2 countries in total anarchy.

Jesus Christ!

[lytefoot]

Plase note, my dear coward, that Christianity was also a "gutter religion" from a "garbage country" in the time of the Romans. The Xians came to power through Jihad, through a hollocaust of proportions, in comparison to the population of the time, that shames the Nazis (Xians) and all the so-called extremist Islamic movements ever. But if I start talking of witch burnings, I'm sure I'll hear about my own religion being extinct, and about survival of the fittest (though Xians deny that last). "Leave the world to the strong"? Did not Christ say "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth"?

Or perhaps you're a follower of the state religion of the United States, the religion of money, of pop-psychology, of self-indulgence. Of self-importance, of greed, of medicated contentment and willful ingorance. Go back to your shrink and work through your post-traumatic stress syndrome, stemming from a disaster half a continent away that you saw on TV, with a commercial break every ten minutes, and that is ultimately no more real to you than an episode of Survivor.

By the way: your kind? What rock dwelst thou under?

Re:Jesus Christ!

[Water Paradox]

Jesus Christ resurrected. One point made by the resurrection was that even if you kill or are killed, your soul continues. Therefore don't kill or be killed, if you can help it.

Jesus Christ taught a simple doctrine: faith, repentance, baptism, and the gift of the Holy Ghost. All else was in support of that doctrine. When he said, "Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth," I understand him to mean "After all the bad guys kill each other off, the ones left standing will be the meek."

If we respond with violence to terrorism, we only justify their actions in the eyes of their friends. If, however, we respond with grace to terrorism, willing to die for the gift of liberty that we stand for, then we shine the light of injustice upon them, and the light of justice/mercy shines brighter and longer than any act of war or terror.

There is no state religion in the United States; it's prohibited in the Constitution, in several clauses. Yet our Creator is mentioned quite early in the document because the people who created this country were fit enough to submit themselves to God before setting about creating a nation.

By the way, the word 'shrink' has been out of vogue since the early 80s. Wake up, my friend. Xian, is that the X-Generation you refer to?

I dwell upon the rock of salvation.

Re:What can be done? Nothing.

[tzanger]

If you get stung by a bee, do you just let it sit there, no you slap the hell out of it. If you get stung by 10 bee's, you get to a safe place, and then come back and destroy all the bee's and the nests in the area.

Or, do you stay the fuck away from areas you don't belong in?

I am NOT saying the American people deserved this. I do believe that the United States government and the US Military organizations have been meddling with world affairs for far too long. They support dictatorships and arm one side (sometimes both!) whenever it will support their goals.

Isolationist my ass. The US has been doing this since WW2, if not longer.

Again, The American civilians did not deserve this and I do not, repeat do not condone this at all. Terrorism is never good.

Re:An Old Chestnut - Really old

[crowchild]

Widespread but only partial news coverage was given recently to a remarkable editorial broadcast from Toronto by Gordon Sinclair, a Canadian television commentator.

As a friend of mine responded when this showed up on a mailing list we're both on: Recently?!?!?

This article was originally written and broadcast by Gordon Sinclair on CFRB, Toronto, Ontario, on JUNE 5, 1973 - over 28 years ago.

Besides the fact that I disagree with quite a lot of it, it's a bit out of date.

'crow

Put your head between your legs...

[lytefoot]

...and kiss your lifestyle goodbye. THIS is what can, will, must be done about this.

The modern, western, American lifestyle is already doomed; like the dinosaurs, we just haven't noticed. If humanity doesn't stop us, nature will. Not the Xian God come down off his mountain-top to smite us, but sheer, scientific, biological limitations. This cannot go on.

The World Trade Towers, the Pentagon, the White House, these are both the means and the symbols of this way of life. The national/international air system: again, a means, and a target of this attack that cannot be ignored.

America may, finally, be forced to step down off its pedistal. It's going to be hard, and a hell of a lot of us are going to die--because biologically we aren't fit to survive.

So what can be done about Terrorism? Get down on your knees, or out in a sacred circle, or wherever you feel is appropriate, and pray to the gods of your choice. And if you worship money, now might be a good time to convert.

I'm frickin' depressed. That's enough of this crap; I'm goin' home. Bless you all.

Cheering and Killing in Brooklyn...????

[dachshund]

Extremely disturbing:

I don't know what to say about this. A friend of mine in [a Brooklyn neighborhood that shall remain nameless] just called and told me that a number of arabs (??) are dancing and cheering in the streets. One of them went up to her and said "why do you look so sad? this is a joyous day." I know that she isn't lying about this, but I'm not sure about her interpretation.

In addition, a Muslim woman hung a (Palestinian?) flag out of her window sometime today. Someone entered her apartment, beat up her husband and killed her (???). I find all of this hard to believe. Somebody please tell me that I'm wrong.

Enough can be done to prevent hijacking

[Alph Mega]

Personally I do not think that increasing the security at the airports is going to make a bit of difference. You can still get on board with a hip flask of ethoxyethane, a bag of gauze bandages and a belt that contains five feet of piano wire.

Increasing the "security" at the airports is a knee-jerk reaction that serves no other purpose than to create a "oh good, they're doing something" feeling in the general public that is totally misplaced.

You put two armed guards on board each airplane, and you train _ALL_ flight personnel in kung fu, you create an airlock between the cockpit and the rest of the airplane, or you make the cockpit autonomous. That's how you prevent suicide-hijacks.

If you want to be _sure_ that no passengers are going to pull any stunts, you sedate them when they board the plane. Preferably with Sodium Pentothal...

Cheers,
\Alph

An opportune time...

[doorbot.com]

...to make a very clear, very public, very obvious statement that any sort of international terrorism is unacceptable and will be responded to with complete and utter destruction of all terrorist groups in the world. Any individuals or governments aiding terrorists will be likewise targetted.

A bit extreme? Perhaps, and I'll be the first to admit that I think killing more people is a poor solution. But realize this, and before you jump all over the idea, how many innocent, non-violent people have to die at terrorists' hands before the world says enough is enough.

I'm not suggesting kill all Muslims or Irish or Corsicans. But any "international" terrorist groups must be eliminated. How could leaving one group while leaving the ones responsible (eg, WTC attack) benefit us? Why do we want groups of terrorists?

The US/Europe/Russia/China are the dominant powers of the world. We make the rules. We decide who is right and wrong. So don't be naive and think the terrorists are "right" and fighting the good war. If they were in charge, would they hesitate to kill us (since we'd be the terrorists)?

We need to coordinate with Russia and Europe and in one massive planned attack wipe out all known terrorist groups in the world. There will be reprisal attacks, but this is a small price to pay. Do we kill a few innocents now or millions later?

For non "international" terrorists, such as the US militia groups, I think these are strictly internal problems and should be dealt with internally. Notice US militia groups don't blow up Afghani planes, or Irish pubs.

I fear, though, that this decision will be made after another unprecendented attack (I think we can all agree the WTC saga is without precedence). Perhaps a chemical/biologial or nuclear payload will be what it takes for the world to take a "no tolerance" stance on international terrorism.

The WTC events have threatened the very foundations of the free world. Not because the "big boy" got successfully attacked, but because terrorism has stepped up to a new level of destructive power. It will continue until the world realizes that it is time for what in a normal situation we would consider an "extreme" reaction.

The world powers must send a cohesive ground force and attack the terrorism at its source.

Re:An Old Chestnut - Really old

[crowchild]

Sorry, I forgot the URL that I found for the speech.

'crow

Stop and think for one second.

[Evil MarNuke]

then there would always be guns on the aircraft, freeing the hijaakers from having to figure out how to smuggle them on board.

We just had a four groups of three to six men take over planes with small pocket knives and box cutters. A damn box cutter!! There's no thought needed to smuggle that on board!!

The reason why is was so easy to take over the plane was becuase they were the only people on the plane with a weapon. Can you really sit there and worry about a tool of protection falling in the hands of hijaakers when it's a hell of lot more likely that a trained personal would kill the hijaakers?!? Tell that to one of the family or friend of one of the 20,000(!!) who died at the WTC. Tell them you are more worried about a tool of protection falling in the wrong hands then allowing a trained person providing protection to prevent thier death.

Do it brave man. Go find a person who knows someone who died. Tell them you think it's better for the pilots to be unarmed. Tell them you think it's better that the only people on the plane with a weapon is a hijaakers. Becuase that is what you are really saying!!

BTW, Air Force pilots are trained to use hand guns. Part of that training is not allowing the gun to have the gun used on them.

Dog located something in the Empire State Building

[kjj]

It is possibly a bomb. I just heard this on MSNBC. People are being cleared from the Empire State building. More later.

There will never again be a good day....

[dfenstrate]

to hijack a plane. The passengers and crew undoubtably cooperated to the extent they did because they thought it was some ransom bullshit.

Now that planes have been used themselves as weapons, and the passengers with them, I doubt there will be a high-jacking where they're aren't people like Glick and Barret. The sentiment has been repeated over and over these past two days: "If I fall, the guy behind me will get him."

I hope that if such a day ever comes for me, I can get over my imminent death fast enough to do some good.

Nothing is more dangerous than someone who thinks they have nothing to lose.

This site: http://www.stratfor.com/

[yum_icecream]

Whoops. Here's the site. http://www.stratfor.com/

Re:How about the IRA

[Fesh]

Dude, I know we're not angels. We're just as human as you or anyone else in the world. If you feel I'm directly responsible for every evil that America has done, would you advocate that I slit my throat in protest? Do you want the videotape as proof?

Nobody deserves what happened yesterday. The people who can do such things are malignantly twisted individuals. At least I can say that I try, and feel remorse when I fuck up. Go look at my posting history for today. (Yes, I got a little excited when the shit hit the fan yesterday. Who didn't? I understand that I wasn't thinking clearly.) None of us here are cookie-cutter duplicates spouting the same party line. To hold the view that we are is to hold in your heart the very kind of blind, hating generalization that allowed the horror of 11 September, 2001 to happen in the first place.

And yes. If there are citizens of the United States of America who are directly responsible for terrorist acts or who directly fund such acts, they should be given no more consideration than anyone foreign to the U.S. The KKK comes to mind as a prime example. And I know it's "politically unreliable" to suggest it, but letting Kissenger face trial at the Hague would be the right thing to do, in my opinion. It would show that when America does the wrong thing, it can feel remorse, pick itself up, and try to right the wrongs.

Re:Iraq

[Salis]

They were hours away from Bagdad...a lot of the troops wanted to continue onwards though a lot of that is battle adrenaline, of course.

I don't know if the U.S has ground troops in Iraq, though they do enforce the no-fly zone.

They have air bases in Turkey & Italy from which they launch the fighters, fighters-bombers targetting Iraqi SAM/radar sites.

Terrorism is no way to conduct politics.

[gotan]

The terrorists may claim, that these are the reasons for their deed, or maybe there's some other 'political cause' they wanted to enforce. I don't care, and nobody should. Terrorism is just no way to make politics. That would really mean inviting terror, for everyone with any political aim would then consider terror to get to his aim. This cannot be. If someone hits you he has to be punished for hitting you, not given a reward.

There has to be made a distinction between the terrorists and other people with maybe similar political aims. It has to be made crystal clear, that the only way to get to those aims is via diplomacy, and that terrorism only is a setback in the process. Also the forces/parties/organisations seeking this dialogue have to be supported, so they gain support in their own countries. In the same way the reactionist and extremist forces, terrorists and the people backing and supporting them, have to be weakened, but the best way to do this would be, to make their own people see them for the inhumans and even traitors to their own countries they are.

The terrorist organisations need the hate between countries to find followers, one way to reduce their support is reducing that hate. Still it must be made clear, that the terrorists and their financial backers must first be found out and punished, before peace talks can go on. It must be also clear, that these are actions against the terrorists, not against countries or peoples. The Governments of the Countries where the terrorists are suspected are well advised to distance themselves from the terrorists, and even help the USA with their investigations.

If the Arab countries are aware, that now the opinion is swinging against them, then it should be also clear, that the terrorists are not working for, but against them, and that they're their enemies as well as the USAs. This may be hard on that nations, and against the emotions and education of their own people. But then it's time to change that education, and remember, that a government has to make rational decisions, and not be guided by some irrational extremist minority playing on their peoples emotions. If the US-decisions where guided by the gut-feelings of some american people, the middle east would be a nuclear wasteland by now. And the Arab people in fear of irrational revenge should try to see the other side, and think what they and their leaders would/should have done, were the situation reversed. Maybe then they come to the insight, that the terrorists are their enemies as well.

some news about Bin Laden

[thopo]

What most of you Americans might not now (because the media will not tell you) is that Osama bin Laden was actually trained by the CIA during the Cold War to operate from Afghanistan against the Sovjets.

Another thing that went through my head today how much quality of humans have been lost in the WTC. Also think about all the DATA that was blown away, not only computer data (which was probably backed up at other places to some extent) but also contracts etc. and all the companies that simply vanished. horrible.

Re:What can be done? Nothing.

[GMontag451]

THE US GAVE THEM THE NUKE

France sold Israel nuclear weapons, not the US.

Re:What can be done about terrorism? --kill em all

[bendude]

Yes terrorism is a signifigant threat to EVERYONE.

However, before you go declaring open season on terrorists, keep in mind that despite the fact your media leaves out the details, you own country is constantly involved in acts of terrorism.

How many civilians have the US killed in their wars on terrorism, drugs, copyright pirates? US civilians are rarely the victims of terrorism, but US forces and weapons have struck terror into the lives of millions.

This event still comes nowhere near the destruction of Hyroshima.

I said this a lot and I will keep saying it until I'm blue in the face;. "There has been enough violence. NO MORE!"

evac NOW from Empire State

[trelyle]

Just released on FOX(TV) news:
Threat to Empire State building prompts NYC police to evacuate the neighborhood.

How to win a war in the Middle East

[kevinank]

I've been thinking about how you would even go about trying to win a war in the middle east. It is quite a tricky problem.

Unlike either Germany or Japan, terrorist groups are not organized into strict hierarchy. Even if the leaders were convinced surrender, there isn't any reason why the individual self organized cells should do so.

Nor is the social system a structure founded on laws; rather it is a system founded on morals, with the moral teachings subject to many interpretations by the church leaders. So unseating the government and showing the people that the government was corrupt is also not possible.

The only way I can see of winning such a war is by doing something the US at least would consider very distasteful; that is we would have to displace not the government, but the religion. Topple the religious system, and show that the system of morals is corrupt. But the US' seperation of church and state will make us incapable of that sort of attack, while anything less will be unsuccessful.

I think the reason that Germany and Japan were both successfully changed was because they maintained the local form of government without its belligerence. Aside from a religious crusade we would be loathe to conduct, I can't see how the same result could happen here.

Re:How to win a war in the Middle East

[slykens]

I've been thinking about how you would even go about trying to win a war in the middle east. It is quite a tricky problem.

But who do we really want to fight in the Middle East? The terrorists. How do we fight them? Now, that is the million dollar question.

My proposal is quite simple. Harrassment We make it widely known that US policy will be pro-active in the destruction of terrorist camps and infrastructure and that any collateral damage to a host country is not our problem. When we (or an ally) suffers a terrorist attack *ALL* terrorists get hit. If we can trace this to bin Laden then we should not only hit him but also any other terrorist group we can point a finger at. The result? Three things:

1: Reluctance among not only host countries but individuals who aid terrorist groups for fear of attack through no overt action of their own.

2: An overall weakening of all terrorist groups as their capabilities are reduced through loss of property and life and through disassociation from people and countries who enjoy not being bombed for others' actions.

3: Peer pressure from other terrorist groups not to attack us for fear of retaliation. Example, if I am in Hammas and bin Laden does something that I get bombed for, who should I be pissed of at? Of course I will be pissed at who bombed me, but I will also be pissed at bin Laden for getting me bombed when he knew it would.

The only way to prevent a terrorist attack is to make the terrorists fear the response. One of the goals of US retaliation policy for many years was to make it appear that the US would respond to any attack like a madman hungry for revenge. (Hence the authorization for the release of nuclear weapons as a response to chemical or biological attack on us or our troops) Now the time has come to implement that policy and a super-majority of Americans support it. The terrorists want fear in us. They're not going to get it. It's time for us to wield the big stick we've got and make them fear us. ("I fear we may have awoken a sleeping giant." or so)

Re:How to win a war in the Middle East

[kevinank]

Well, the question was meant to be academic. As in how (in theory) could we win a war in the middle east. The question was occasioned by the continuing references to WTC1&2 as comparable to Pearl Harbor. I was simply pointing out that aside from the obvious distinction that we don't yet know who to blame for the tragedy, we aren't even likely to be up against an enemy who can be fought, overcome, and restructured.

It is possible that we will (as you suggest) consider ourselves at war with all terrorists (and all countries that protect terrorists) but that could include for example Ireland (when was the last time you reported your local IRA front company), many allies within the middle east, and arguably even the US itself (do our citizens not send money and support to terrorists?)

Re:What can be done? Nothing.

[iphayd]

It would be interesting to see what would actually happen if a politico called for forgiveness and love rather than revenge and hatred. I would vote for them. I know many people that I know think that this retaliation is not going to be pretty.

This is a letter that I wrote to Dubya. They are christian in nature, but a little religion never hurt anyone, just those that do atrocities in the name of religion...

"The call of the unwelcome bird is heard on the chimney stack. Bushels of wheat will rise so high. As a result man will devour his fellow man."

-- Nostradamus

Christ said, as he was dying on the cross, "Forgive them father, for they know not what they do." Last night, I used those words to ask for prayers for the terrorists, but this are not fitting with the context that Christ called them in. Those words are more fitting for those of us that are calling for revenge, as Christ was referencing the mob that called for his death, and the leader that allowed it.

Re:who is the real terrorist

[RavensDark]

People cannot justify injustices of the past by blowing up inocent people in the present.

There were Arabic and Palestinian people working in those buildings as well. Men and women who have families and friends who all live in the U.S and have gotten along fine so far without feeling the need to blow somthing up as a political or religous statment

People (Note I said people and not just Arabs or Palestinians) that are living in other countries are on the whole happy living in those countries and try to get along with their neighbors.

The brainwashed uniformed retoric you spewed out shows that you have no real opinion of your own.

Get a life.

Training of non-US pilots widespread in US

[pongo000]

Many flight schools throughout the US offer non-US citizens the opportunity of flight instruction. One reason is that the US has some of the most lax airspace rules in the world. For instance, in Canada, one must be instrument-rated to fly at night. Not so in the US. In Russia, all flights are controlled, with no exceptions. Again, not so in the US.

At the risk of being labeled a racist, it seems to me the US should strictly limit the availability of all high-tech training (including such things as flight instruction, graduate study, and high-tech internships) for all non-US citizens. Why must the US continue to be the training grounds for the world's terrorists? God knows we have problems as it is with our own citizens. Maybe it's time we close our ridiculously porous borders to foreigners who seek to come to the US only to take advantage of our advanced technological facilities and educational opportunities.

Many here have said life as we know it will definitely change in the US. Let that change start by restricting our borders before restricting our freedoms.

If I were an Arab... [was: Re:What can be...]

[lukel]

...I might question America's respect for human life.

I remember seeing IR footage of an Apache attack on a radar station. The mission should have been complete, the Iraqis were running for their lives from the burning buildings. It was pitch black. Against the US apache pilots using IR vision and 30 mm automatic cannons they stood no chance. They wouldn't have even known what direction the attack was coming from.

You're a 17 year old conscript. You're in a trench, you want to surrender. Instead the Americans drive an armoured bulldozer along the line of the trench burying you all alive.

The war is lost and the Iraqi army is in disarray, you've lost your weapon and are escaping on the back of a packed cattle truck. American A10 tank busters drop napalm on the truck. Everyone is burned alive.

The United States suffered 148 killed in action, an estimated 100,000 Iraqi soldiers died (killed by the armies of elected governments, not terrorists).

Instead of talking of making no distinction between terrorists and those who harbour them, GWB should ask why people are willing to harbour them, and whether America could do anything about it.

Re:What can be done? Nothing.

[einhverfr]

I respectfully disagree. I am respectful because I think that the basic problem is understood by you. No quantity of military response can crush a well-organized and motivated group of terrorists willing to sacrifice their lives in attacks.

There are some things that can be done (and may be done to some small extent). Middle Eastern nations need to be given an actual helping hand which will help bring about real economic and social independence from the Western powers. This is important because it targets the motivational aspects of terrorism.

The limiting factors of terrorism are motivation and finances. Looking at the root causes may enable us to win the war without military involvement (sort of like the cold war).

Re:Arm Pilots Guns n Pressure

[deoxyribozyme]

As a former army intel pilot, I was trained to deal with rapid loss of cabin pressure - unless a front windshield was blown out there is no way a small arms weapon will create a hole that will do anything more than start a slow leak in pressure.
I have to admit that I hadn't thought about it when I was flying, but a technique might be to dump the cabin pressure to about 12-15k feet ASL thus immobilizing cabin occupants, but not killing them (unless you were up there for a really long time). The trick would be to shut off any O2 through the cabin masks.

Also closed circuit tv within the cockpit monitoring the cabin would also be good.

Finally, it is a really bad idea to lock the pilots inside the cockpit with no possible way for anyone to get in. Maybe an alternative would be a situation where one pilot would have to be actively preventing the door from opening by using an emergency hijack lock, ie holding a spring-loaded deadbolt in the locked position. This would prevent the unlikely event of three crewmembers in the cockpit having simultaneous heart attacks being locked inside.

Getting what you ask for?

[Cairsten]

Wow.. The text is older than I am. The details are, without a doubt, outdated. My thanks to those who provided the little modifiers, and to the nudge in the right direction. My thanks go out, as well, to Israel, to Canadians who support us in our present situations, and to those around the world who have, at one moment to another, stepped in to defend and aid, verbally or otherwise, a country whose every attempt at defending itself is viewed, it seems sometimes, with patronization or with criticism. It is the criticism of the people at home, the evidence of a nation spoiled, its citizenry indulged beyond any other, that hurts the most. We can withstand anything, I believe, except this erosion of American goodwill among Americans.

The most remarkable thing about America, the thing that has gone hand in hand with the legend of a golden land, has always been the ability of its people to stand together, fierce and undaunted, in the face of overwhelming danger, and triumph through unity. The words, "the American spirit," are synonymous with resilience, with determination, with the willingness to place oneself on the line for family and country and the ideal of liberty. Even in the face of disapproval, of anger, of ridicule from our global neighbours, America has been the strong right arm unafraid to carry or to use the big stick when others were sidestepping a growing problem. The phrasing is not, nor has it ever been, "Give me popularity, or give me death." It's a role that all of the world at large has at times, been grateful to let America assume, all the while not being above sitting back from the sidelines to comment and criticize. It is also a role that America as a nation has perhaps become too accustomed to accepting.

Myself? I would be amused, I think, to see America withdraw all its aid, all its support, all its interference, and fortify itself here, at home. Perhaps it is time, to let the rest of the world fend for themselves. To build our defenses and take our turn at sitting back, looking on, to criticize the performance of the rest of the world. There are children starving here at home, after all; there is no shortage of ways to mend our own fences and tend our own orchards. Make a direct incursion, and you will be struck down. We will not interfere in anyone else's conflicts; deal as best you can. What say you, world? Is it time Uncle Sam retired, and became a father, dedicated only to those within his fences?

No TV Network Competition

[Leif_Bloomquist]

From somewhere on CNN:

The major television networks suspended competition, agreeing to share all footage gathered during the terrorist attacks and their aftermath, on suggestion of "60 Minutes" creator Don Hewitt.

Well done.

Re:Must be careful

[Heph_Smith]

I think Osama already has enough aginst him to warrent his death. Many would also contest to that based on his past actions. He is also on our 10 most wanted list.

No, You couldn't be more wrong.

[einhverfr]

In order to be a terrorist and be able to justify the lives taken, I think one has to be willing to die-- this does not mean that they always sacrifice themselves in suicide attacks, just that they are willing to die for their cause. And killing bin Laden may turn him into a martyr-- is that what we really want?

But, that resolve only lasts as long as the terrorists truly believe in their cause. Target the root economic reasons for terrorism, and then when you target the terrorists themselves, the causalties really begin to take their toll. No more people start taking up the cause. And financiers start dropping off... Money and resolve are the limiting factors of terrorism and these are induced by economic factors.

Re:No, You couldn't be more wrong.

[trcooper]

What other options do we have if we don't kill Bin Laden(or whomever)? We could let him be, turn the other cheek so-to-speak, and let him do more things like this. Or we could send Delta Force personell to capture and imprison him, and have his followers taking hostages demanding his release. I'd prefer option A. A good terroist leader is a dead one.

So, Bin Laden is economically opressed, and that is why he resorts to terrorism? Guy's a billionaire, that doesn't add up. Bin Laden is a racist, and is determined to attack any thing not Islam. He's supported islamic uprisings, genetic cleansing and acts of terrorism against his opposition. Just about all terrorism in the world whether it be the KKK, PLO, IRA, or al-Qaeda can be traced to racism.

The US is one of the few places where Jews, Muslims, Christians, Mormons, Christian Scientists, etc can all live together somewhat peacefully, sure there's friction, and we aren't devoid of racism, but we can go a few days with out firebombing each other.

This exactly what he doesn't want, because he has no tolerance for people who have different beliefs than he does.

Bin Laden isn't a robin-hood for the third world. He's explioting the third world for his own purposes. Would it help if everyone's standard of living was up to that of the US, Canada, Australia and the EU? Yeah, I can't deny that. Is it possible to get everyone there in the next 10, 20, 50 years? No, because you don't just immediately become an economic superpower. There are steps, and these steps involve exploitation of the working class and a huge separation of wealth. The US went through it, Europe did as well. These steps can't be eliminated for other countries. Possibly expidited, but certainly not eliminated.

Are economics the primary cause? I don't believe so. Are they a non-issue? I don't believe that either. What I do believe is that we need to send a message that no matter what your beliefs, or your situation, this is not acceptable to the world. The civilized world (and these people simply are not part of it) needs to let these people know that if they want to be part of our world, to be able to obtain the standards that we have, they need to do it our way. Force seems to be the language they understand best, and I think we should speak their own language.

There is no way to justify what happened on tuesday. Period. It was unforgivable, and must be dealt with.

Here's a Specific Way You Can Help

[annielaurie]

I read an article earlier this evening on TechTV indicating that the New York Red Cross is in serious need of an enormous list of hardware, peripherals, consumables, and software to help facilitate their field operations, many of which are being carried out by paper. They also need Microsoft and Citrix certified volunteers. The list ranges from entire systems to network hubs, Cat5 cable, scanners, handhelds, and even things like diskettes and tie wraps.

I wrote to the contact person to verify this, and I have just heard back from her; apparently the story is entirely true, as she has asked me to phone her in the morning.

If you are looking for a way to help that is relevant to what you do and who you are, this certainly looks likely.
Anne

Here are the texts of my message to Ms. Webman and her answer to me:

-----Original Message----- From: Anne Madison [mailto: ]
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 8:18 PM
To: dwebman@webmanassociates.com
Subject: Story on TechTV

Sorry to break in on you like this.

I am reading an article from TechTV that indicates you're in need of hardware and equipment. A detailed list is provided in the article. The URL is: http://www.techtv.com/screensavers/showtell/story/ 0,23008,3347294,00.html

If you're still in need of these things, a group of us here in Baltimore would like to help. We are wondering if the list is still current, and while we don't have a wealth to expend, we would like to try our utmost to cross at least one item off your list. If you could ask someone to let us know that the story is correct, and where and how to send the items, we would be grateful for the opportunity to assist in some small way.

Thank you for taking the time to read this. God bless!

Anne K. L. Madison

Ann,

The story is true. We will have a better sense of what has been donated by tomorrow morning. Would you be kind enough to call me in the morning and I will see what is left on the list.

Thank you!!!

Dorothy
Dorothy Webman, D.S.W.
President/CEO
Webman Associates
dwebman@webmanassociates.com

4 Brattle Street, Suite 207
Cambridge, MA 02138
(617) 864-6769 [Telephone]
(617) 492-3673 [Facsimile]

New York Office:
1650 Broadway, Suite 701
New York, NY 10019
(212) 459-0944 [Telephone]
(212) 586-4306 [Facsimile]

Re:Here's a Specific Way You Can Help

[linzeal]

Omg, they sent in the geeks !!!!

A couple of more buildings that are unstable

[kjj]

MSNBC said that One Liberty Plaza where Nasdaq is located has a crack in it. They mentioned some other building too.

"Idolatry is worse than bloodshed"

[Kafir]

For thirteen hundred years the Islamic faith has been one of peace, civilization and high culture. The Quran condemns the killing of the innocent. It condemns suicide in any form. It condemns the degredation of women.

True enough, Muslims have often proven more tolerant than Christians, and the Koran, like the Bible, says some admirable things. But, like the Bible, the Koran also says some fairly vicious things- "Idolatry is worse than bloodshed" is the one that sticks in my mind. Idolatry, from the perspective of Islam, includes all trinitarian forms of Christianity. Obviously we should not be blaming these particular attacks on Islam as a whole, but it is also unfair to say that "true" Islam is peaceful while the terrorists' faith is twisted-
each version is as philosophically (in)valid as the other, by the very fact of being founded on faith. In this case both facets of Islam are to some extent justified by scripture, as well.

They use things like religion and nationalistic pride to give credibility to their actions.

This seems unlikely. The fact that their beliefs are horrifying does not mean that they are not heartfelt. Are we to assume that apparent religious devotion is a mere facade being used to cover their true goal, dying in suicide attacks? Was apostolic Christianity just a cover for a bunch of crucifixion fetishists? And so on...

FRS is a nightmare

[leonbrooks]

Does anyone have any objection to facial recognition systems at customs?

Yes, lots of them. Starting with the huge number of false positives generated by existing systems and the hell that the victims go through (and sometimes the legal minefield that the FRS operators tread). Moving on to the possibility of wearing masks to falsely incriminate people and/or disguise terrorists, technology which the terrorists have and most other people do not.

The answer is not in more security. One answer would be to stop meddling in other people's politics. Another would be to think about the fact that Israeli airliners basically don't get hijacked because the hijacker would be dead before they finished their first threat.

gold under WTC

[Goonie]

This article claims that there is very large (> 1 billion USD) amounts of gold stored in a vault under the WTC towers.

Assassinations

[PaxTech]

What we need is for Bush to countermand the executive order banning assassinations. This attack was precipitated by one person leading a small organization. Military strikes will cause civilian casualties which make us no better than the terrorists. Assassination isn't brutal in this situation, it's justified.

We might not even have to do it ourselves, if we offer a big enough reward for the heads of those responsible. Would $10 million do? How about $100 million? No matter how dedicated and fanatic your gurads and followers are, for enough money some one will pull it off. $100 million is peanuts compared to the cost of a large military response.

I think the best way for the American people to feel avenged though would be the capture of those responsible followed by a trial, and if found guilty a televised public execution. They talked about it doing that for McVeigh..

NYC coming back up

[Animats]

The official New York City web page is back up, after being down since yesterday. Highlights:

• All bridges and tunnels are open except the Brooklyn-Battery tunnel.
• Most subways are running, but stations below 14th St. are being skipped.
• Long Island and Metro North rail service is running.
• Manhattan below 14th St. is still closed to the public. Power is out due to damage to two substations near the World Trade Center. Con Edison is bringing in replacement equipment.
• Schools reopen Thursday.

Good idea, but imagine M$ getting the contract?

[leonbrooks]

implement a remote control system for all passenger airliners

Good evening, passengers, this is your captain speaking, we are about to touch down at... ooh, why has the windscreen suddenly gone blue?

Cracker paradise. You too can run Jumbos and WBJ's around major airports armed only with a cracking toolkit and a pointing device?

A collection of videos

[dfenstrate]

Some incredible footage can be found in the video section of www.consumptionjunction.com . They also harbor all sorts of objectionable material, so click carefully.

50kg flight attendant

[leonbrooks]

A 100 pound flight attendant is not going to stop anybody.

I personally know a very pretty 55kg (110lb) flight attendant who could stuff your feet into your ears before you could blink.

``It's not the size of the [subject] in the fight, but the size of the fight in the [subject] that counts.''

Not hard to find if you look

[danox]

This is the first link I got after typing "Koran" into google:
http://www.hti.umich.edu/k/koran/

Re:Jokes

[Ghengis]

Hey Coward... grow some BALLS... or better yet.. come to the ATL and say that garbage to my face... that's what I thought... I just hope you're there to be on the recieving end of our Country's backhanded-bitch-slap... and oh yes... it's coming...

Free press

[iamr00t]

I want to point out that example of Free press.
That's not exactly true.
Countries with established free press - yes. But during the last 10-15 years many countries just started developing that. And what I see (using Russia as example) is that many people, especialy over 50, tend to keep their minds shut. They can not apprehend what "free" is. And no matter how much money and effort you spend telling them what it is, they will still believe everything they see in newpapers and TV ("But TV just said that!") and still will blame everything on somebody else they were taught to blame at.
And it's even worse when many meople can not quite educated in politics/economics. In russia that resulted in very unfair business development and pretty sad elections results.

Now, take all that to the extreme of some thirld-world countries.

Re:Free press

[DumbSwede]

Those closed minded individuals you mention over 50 will not be around forever. If a free press exists in those societies, the younger generation will do what needs to be done eventually. Free press is the feed back loop that keeps a democracy in check. We can unite with other free societies and work towards applying pressure, sometimes economic, sometimes military intervention as needed in the case of those who meddle outside their borders, and harbor those who export terrorism.

Absurdity

[Sagarian]

Middle Eastern nations need to be given an actual helping hand which will help bring about real economic and social independence from the Western powers. This is important because it targets the motivational aspects of terrorism.

What exactly do you mean by "helping hand"? I assume you mean financial aid of some sort.

Threatening and carrying out criminal acts upon others in order to get them to give you share of their wealth has a name. It is called extortion.

Re:Airport security (NO NO NO NO)

[PaxTech]

the LAST INSTANCE OF "TERRORISM" ON A US FLIGHT WAS IN 1989

Maybe so, but we've had an average of one every three years since then.

Just a tidbit...

[Ghengis]

This appeared in ERRI Risk Assessment Services-DAILY INTELLIGENCE REPORT-Friday, July 25, 1997 Vol. 3 - 206 "Kenneth Katzman, the terrorism analyst for the U.S. Congress, said, 'I think you have an "atomic bomb" brewing between bin Laden, Hezbollah and the Iranians. If these two huge forces are married, either could set off the spark. Sooner or later you are going to see more from these people.' "

You can't reign in corporate greed

[Archfeld]

that is their purpose, We CAN however prevent that greed from influencing our GOVERNMENT, which is supposed to be a HUMANISTIC institution. The problems today are very similar to the conditions prevalent just prior to the US revolution, the Hudson company, and others were given carte blanch with people and land by a distant crown. Today corporations are given cart blanch with people and land by a distant government hiding behind a huge wall of functionaries.

United Airlines Flight 93

[nighthawk]

They took a chance which insured their deaths and probably saved the lives of hundreds, or thousands, because their aircraft did not hit its intended target.

There is an empty crypt at the tomb of the unknown soldier. Remains from flight 93 should go there. They made the ultimate sacrifice for their country.

my view on what should be done vs. what will be

[mysticysm]

Personally, I would like it if we would find out who did this, and bring them to a fair trial somewhere. That would be a legal way of solving this that would not involve actions to which the enemies, whoever they are, could retaliate to.

However, I am aware that this was a terrorist action. Though terrorist actions are reasonably infrequent and small in the United States usually, other countries have much more frequent attacks. If the United States does not retaliate in some form, it will look as if there is no down side [to a terrorist, mind you] to going out and attacking. If we do not retaliate, we would open ourselves up to much larger possible problems. Also, Bush has already announced he will go after whoever did this.

Since there will be a retaliation from the United States at some point, it is my hope that we will be quite careful in what we do. Despite the fact we have NATO behind us, I think a war would be risky, especially since [according to an article from MSNBC"On Tuesday, a senior U.S. official told MSNBC.com that "no option has been taken off the table." 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." "] the possibility of a nuclear retaliation has not yet ruled out. I am aware many of our officials have been speaking out of hurt for loved ones, out of anger, and most importantly out of terror. To act out of terror or anger would be quite dangerous, for inside intense emotions people are not usually at their most rational.

Bush and many others have already previously said to Afghanistan that if while they were harboring Osama bin Laden he caused trouble they [the US] would consider it an *act of war* from Afghanistan. Think about that. An act of war.

One strong concern about war for me is that, as like many others, I have many friends of drafting age who I would like to see alive for quite some time thank you very much should drafting come into consideration again. Most importantly though, I don't like the possibility of a war now. As we know, technology has reached such a place that a world war [which is what a war would most likely turn into, as we have NATO's support since they invoked Article 5] has the potential to be quite deadly for, well, the entire world. If people were to start biological or nuclear weapons, all hell would break loose not just on humanity but on the ecosystem. Needless to say, I do not support a war.

I find it interesting that the US has changed policy regarding terrorist actions when Bush said last night "We will make no distinction between the terrorists who commit these acts and those who harbor them." In the past the US has done more of what I'd like here, they've tried to take terrorists to court.

It will be interesting seeing how everything unfolds. Let us hope it does so as peacefully as possible.

My Prediction To How The US Will React....

[Foggymyst]

Here is my educated guesses as to what will occur next:

There will be further attacks, their magnitude is beyond me.

The US will attempt to identify the organization behind this attack and any following attack.

If the organization is found to be Osma Bin Laden, the following is my best guess as to what will happen-

I am fairly confident that the US has a good idea where Osama Bin Laden is located. They may claim not too, but I am sure they have a good idea. Already rocket attacks are reported in Kabul. I have little doubt this is due to American influence, particulary the CIA's. The CIA is notorious for influencing various foreign activities, most notably coups and wars and due to the Afghanistan/Russian was we already have a good share of influence there.

The first objective will be to destroy Osama Bin Laden and his "army". Unfortunatley Afghanistan is not located in an ideal geographic location (surrounded by Iran, Pakistan and other such nations) for a military campaign. Also, this is not the friendliest of countries.

"Afghanistan was invaded and occupied by the Soviet Union in 1979. The USSR was forced to withdraw 10 years later by anti-communist mujahidin forces supplied and trained by the US, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and others. Fighting subsequently continued among the various mujahidin factions, but the fundamentalist Islamic Taliban movement has been able to seize most of the country. In addition to the continuing civil strife, the country suffers from enormous poverty, a crumbling infrastructure, and widespread live mines. "

However, as you can see America already has some friendly forces (the mujahidin) in the area. Again, do you think its coincedence that Kabul was attacked this afternoon?

I digress. Osama Bin Laden will most likely be hiding in a bunker built somewhere in Afghanistan. If the location of this bunker is know it will surely fall prey to a wide assortment of American missles. However, again, Afghanistans geographic location creates problmes that would hinder extended attacks.

Bombs designed to destroy hardened bunkers, "bunker busters",must be delived via jet. To get to Afghanistan the US aircraft and missles must cross through Pakistanian airspace. During the 1998 missle attacks by the United States against Osama Bin Laden, 70 to 80 cruise missle made their way across Pakistanian airspace leading Pakistan to file a complaint to the UN. While this complaint did not lead to anything significant, an extended campaign in this area could cause major issues.

Along with Osama Bin Laden, the US will strike at Afghanistan for sponsoring such activities. Potential targets include weapons factories, military installations (notably SAM and radar sites), fuel depots, bridges, etc. The objective would be to cripple terrorist activities in Afghanistan and to generally dent the economy of the nation. I have no doubt there is a list of potential targets being generated as I write this. Once the list of targets and objectives had been generated the attack would be launched and most likely would be over in a period of hours, possibly days but not extending into more than a week. The attack would probly consist of Tomahawk cruise missles laden with conventional warheads striking various targets spread throughout the area.

For reasons mentioned above, an extended campaign would be very tricky and would be the most likely canidate for causing an escalation in hostilities. I predict that any attack by the US against Afghanistan will be extremely swift and will last but hours.

Surrounding nations will object, but no official action from any such nations will occur.

Finally, I predict that US sponsored guerilla activities will heighten in the region. We will see an increase in violence in Afghanistan as things progress.

Attacking Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan is a tactical and political issue that could reach potentially deadly levels. I am very interested to see what happens if Afghanistan is indeed held responsible.

Unfortunatley the result of any action by the US will be further terrorist attacks. This is almost a given. Also, any attack we make will not make up for what occured this morning. Nothing aside from a full scale retaliation can appease the anger that has filled America.

That is my speculation for now. I am way to tired to continue so I will stop here. There is more, but I will save my insight for later.

Until later. If you would like to read more spectualtion check out http://www.foggymyst.com

Know thy Enemy

[Col. Panic]

Bin Laden is a sort of rich businessman from Saudi-Arabia. Probably he still owns some company (or companies), drawing his income from it (or them)

This profile on Bin Laden explains that his father's contruction company is the source of his wealth. There is also an explanation of al Qaeda, his terrorist organization.

Empire State?

[1DeepThought]

Read on an australian news site http://www.news.com.au that the Empire state has been cleared due to a bomb threat. Have not found any info anywhere else. Anyone know anything?

Re:I hate Moslems

[thespaniard]

It is a sad day in America when we mourn this terrible atrocity one minute, and go out and commit another in the next. This evening, I heard a New Yorker blew up a Texas mosque. I have a friend of arab-descent who is afraid for her safety because people are harassing her. Cities are under martial law because they're afraid of hate crimes against arab-americans.

Why? Are they no less hurt or scared by this? Did they not have friends and family, or know those with friend or family in NY or DC? Are they any less American than we? Are we so terribly insensitive and bigoted to think that a person's ethnic heritage determines their political allegiance? I thought after the internment camps of WWII we'd have learned our lession, but, unfortunately, it appears we have not. Just like the asian americans of the 1940s, today's arab-americans live not only with sorrow in their hearts for the atrocities of 11 September, but also fear--fear that some unthinking racist will hurt or kill them because of the color of their skin.

I could cry. This is not the America I thought we lived in. Maybe I'm naive, but it seems after all we have been through--WWII, the civil rights movement, globalization--that we could see beyond this. Unfortunately, it appears I am wrong.

Calling for more senseless violence on innocents will not solve this terrible situation.

But I do think we should--and must--retaliate. We cannot let cowards get the best of us. I am scared, however, of those who would lash out at the first people suspected. How do we know--for sure--that it was an arab country that did this? Couldn't it have been domestic? Couldn't it have been another country? We do have a lot of enemies... I know signs point to the middle east, but I still think we cannot in good conscience lash out until we can know--at least reliably--who did this.

That's not to say that I'm sure another Tim McVeigh or the Israelies or the IRA did this; but I do think that we cannot act hastily or brashly in this situation. We must think before we act, investigate before we accuse, and look before we strike.

The blood of our innocents cannot be washed away with the blood of others' innocents.

Think about it.

Part 2... My Prediction To How The US Will React

[Foggymyst]

Last night I spent rougly an hour drafting the predictions I posted earlier. I had more theories that were based off of the terrorist group not being related to Afghanistan but I reached a point where I was so tired I could barely keep writing, so I stopped. I will now continue, however I will continue with the assumption that the terrorist organization responsible for yesterday's attacks is Afghan.

Yesterday I stated that a US strike against Afghanistan would have two goals: Destroy the terrorist leader Usman Bin Laden and cripple Afghanistan's military/terrorist activities. If the strike were to be along the same magnitude as the previous strikes against Afghanistan I predicted we would see a short offensive consisting almost entirely of cruise missles. I also predicted that this retaliation would fall very short of what Americans would consider ample punishment. Any offensive would undoubtley result in heightened tensions in the Middle East, price hikes at the gas pump and further terrorist attacks.

Today I will focus on the possibility that the US will retaliate with a much harsher, colder offensive- which as events unfold is becoming more plausible.

A large scale retaliatory attack would have the same goals as the aforementioned attack: Destroy the terrorist leader Usman Bin Laden and cripple Afghanistan's military/terrorist activities. The difference would be the extent to which this objective is carried out and an extended effort to remove the Taliban goverment (which is apparently sympathetic with terroists). My previous prediction may temporarily stun or slow terrorism but it would surely not stop it. In fact it may provide more fuel for the fire. A larger scale attack would involve severley damaging the Afghan goverment and its military as well as areas of finical importance. This may slow terrorism, or it may increase it. I dont know.

Unfortunatley, no allied nations border Afghanistan. Due to this we are nearly guarenteed an air war which depends wholely on our ability to defeat the Afghan air defenses. In order to carry out air attacks, coalition aircraft must tresspass through another country's airspace, either Pakistan or Iran. In this case it would most likely be safer to go through Pakistan as we have done before, but Pakistan could become hostile-- although I doubt this will occur. Keep in mind that Pakistan is the only goverment that recognizes the Taliban goverment in control of Afganistan so one could easily deduct they are near allies. To what extent Pakistan would defend its airspace, to what extent it would aid Afghanistan and to what extent the United States would violate it Pakistani airspace is anyones guess. I can imagine the Afghan goverment demanding the Pakistani goverment shoot down American craft. I can also imagine a potential political and possible physical conflict developing over this issue.

A ground war is almost totally out of the picture. Again, to get troops into Afghanistan would require penetrating another country's air space. Furthermore, a ground war would be dangerous at best as Afghanistan has already been host to a 10 year war meaning veteran guerillas are in abundance and worse still is the area littered with mines.

So in summary, an extended campaign against Afghanistan would surely be air based. It would bring up many issues for Pakistan and their relations with Afghanistan and would surely make the area "hot" as things became hostile. Ground assault is almost completley out of the question. However, other nations siding with Afghanistan could complicate the issue beyond all reason and lead to a greater conflict that could dwarf previous conflicts in the Middle East.

I guess we'll see what happens.

Not the real reason(s)

[leonbrooks]

don't knock your aussie ass over by patting yourself on the back too hard

You missed the references to Russia and China? Shall we dwell on stuff like the Harrier jets from Britain? Or some of the incredible space stuff that Japan have been up to, on a shoestring budget? To quote Son of Naked Vicar on ballet dancers, ``Our poofs'll beat your poofs any day!'' The point is not that Oz is great (hey, I like it), but that everybody has their strong points, their own individual greatnesses. To hear many (far from all) citizens of the USA speak, you'd think that everything worthwhile happened in North America, except for some of the really cold bits.

the only reason you (or any other "first world" nation) doesn't (apparently) "meddle" in the affairs of other nations is because you know you have the u.s. to do it for you.

You've got that ass-backwards, as the previous respondent pointed out. The real reason is that the politicians we haven't jailed are too lily-livered to do much of anything. Indonesia sneezes, they whimper and grovel.

it does so when it (and it's allies'...ahem-australia-ahem) interests are at stake

Unfortunately for this argument, the interests are almost always corporate, and it often comes out in the wash (alas, too late) that the interests were more or less deliberately put at stake, or the official reasons are covering a lot of dirty dealings of one form or another.

This gives the majority of Americans a very bad name in other countries. Which is a shame, because many, many Americans are helpful, humble, honest people.

Re: What can be done about terrorism? - 1st Sam 15

[Inthewire]

This is exactly why I can't stand Christians
The fact hat I can use google?

Suicide Attacks

[Riktov]

>>>
The reason that these terrorists are willing to die isn't common to their culture. It's common to any military establishment. The purpose of training soldiers is to get them to do things rational people would not normally do. We train our soldiers this way, and every army in history had to lead men, who had a better chance of dying than surviving into a battle. In war there is an expected loss of life on all sides, everyone involved is aware of this.
>>>

When the planners of this attack were training the volunteers, they didn't say,
"This mission will be dangerous, and there is a chance you will die. Some of you will not return."

Rather, they were told,
"This mission will require your death as a condition of its success. On the morning of September 11, you, sitting right ther in your military fatigues, you will die. And so will you and you and you."

Suppose the United States had at its disposal four unarmed jet airliners, fully fueled in a Kabul airport, each with an American crew in standard airline uniform, no parachutes. Assume no anti-air defenses. Also assume no passengers aboard. Just waiting to take off.

I'll just leave the rest of this scenario as an exercise for the reader.

Re:Suicide Attacks

[trcooper]

Are you trying to tell me that there aren't American soldiers who would do this if asked? Or that any arab would? Or to take it one step further, that an American soldier hasn't been told that there is no chance of survial but took on a mission anyway? Besides, which is more disconcerting, knowing, or not knowing your outcome?

Let me go back and quote from my original post: "Making these terrorists out to be somehow braver than Americans is simply false."

Because these leaders are more willing to kill their own does not make them or their soldiers braver, does not make them unbeatable, and does not mean that we can't intimidate them. We are not dealing with people who are unshakable. I'm guessing that half of Afghanistan is terrified as the FBI follows a trail that appears to be leading back to Bin Laden. I know that the Palistinian leaders were terrified when it was initially said that they were claiming responsibility. No one wants to be on the recieving end of what's going to happen soon, it's not going to fair well for them, I think we all can agree on that.

Re:Suicide Attacks

[Riktov]

>>>
Are you trying to tell me that there aren't American soldiers who would do this if asked?
>>>

I really don't know, that's why I floated the scenario. I've never heard of the U.S. planning or executing a deliberate suicide mission. (And I don't mean "jump on a grenade to save your comrades", I mean planned from the start as such.)

In fact I've never heard of any nation/culture in modern times besides Imperial Japan and Islamic terrorists doing such a thing.

>>>
Let me go back and quote from my original post: "Making these terrorists out to be somehow braver than Americans is simply false."
>>>

I don't care to speculate on whether the terrorists were brave or cowardly. There's little question, though, that they were brutally effective.

Very well written post I found in the newsgroups

[ryanvm]

With apologies to the original author, I would like to present a post I read in nntp://rec.autos.makers.jeep+willys. It is very well written and insightful.

Subject: view from a new yorker...

the numbness is setting in... im looking at my family right now, each with
that depressed face one gets on the 2nd day of a funeral....

there is a depression hitting this city like you wouldnt believe.. everyone is
just.. blah at this point.. its beyond even the point of saying "i cant
believe it" its just a numbness... a blackness.

there were slight racial incidents... my neighborhood is very near to an arab
neighborhood, coincidentally only a few blocks from the mosque (sp?) where the
original 1993 bombing was planned... anyways, there have been sirens and lots
of police activity over there.. so far i have heard of a car being set on fire
and a muslim beaten, but not killed... i think when the shcok wears off
tomorrow, and people become increasingly angry at the growing number of death
reports.. or when the stupid media starts showing bodies or body parts - the
same as they keep sensationalizing the clips of people jumping out... as if
thats something we need to see 17 times in one news report :( - well as the
anger increases tomorrow, i fear common sense will not control people's actions
tomorrow... hopefully people can keep their senses, and not turn into an
LA-riots style race war.

There are still particles floating in the air, and i am 4 miles away, across
the river. there is a 1/4 inch thick layer of dust from the collapsed
buildings.. there is also a burning tire smell in the air.. just hanging
there..i find myself wishing for a breeze.

stories of the few recovered survivors are filtering through, and there are
"mental health crisis hotline" flyers posted all over NY...

i personally dont even want to go to sleep.. im haunted by images, and today
has been just a series of moments.. i have no sense of a continual and
coherent passage of time today... just a series of isolated moments and
emotions... this is the strangest feeling i have had. i decided to write this
letter after i realized i had been sitting at my keyboard just staring at the
computer screen for 10 minutes.. not doing anything.. i sort of zoned out.

its gotten to the point where we have recieved so many phone calls from crying
relatives and friends that i dont even want to pick up the phone anymore.

no one is crying anymore... their eyes are sunken in and swollen to show they
had been crying the whole day.. but not now... its a mental, emotional, and
physical weariness.

everything south of 34th street in manhattan is closed tomorrw. the rest of
manhattan is going to be "business as usual."

my fraternity brothers who own a hosue right nea the brooklyn bridge are
telling me about the HUGE amount of commercial truck traffic into the city
across the bridge. construction support and 18 wheelers full of rescue and
recovery materials are working their way down... its sort of like that scene
from "godzilla the movie" where the u.s army takes over nyc.

stored i shopped in regularly are gone totally..

people who are trapped in the rubble are calling the authorities from their
cell phones!!! As the fire was still burning and fear of a gas explosion or
further collapse was present - rescue workers have not gotten to the "ground
zero" of the towers... however the surrounding rubble is being searched.

a few of the people who were calling earlier from their cell phones are feared
dead nwo from smoke inhalation.

the national guard is a strong presence in nyc right now - and the scene of
standard issue cammo gear and soldierly movements in and about the city is such
a surreal and unfamiliar site...

most major subway train lines are not able to get into manhattan from brooklyn
tomorrow... the trade center was above one of the largest hubs in the NY subway
system... all the major lines from brooklyn met there, and then proceeded to
ther respective courses uptown or crosstown... this major station of course
collapsed once the building collapsed...

my brothers car was rear-ended by a police vehicle that started sliding out of
control on the layer of ashes (as thick as 2 inches deep around 34th street
(more than a mile away from the immediate crisis)

and right now i feel myself getting struck with that numbness i spoke about.. i
think i'll go and try to get some sleep right now... but just thought i would
update you on the local condition here in nyc... from a ny'er

-Steve 98 TJ

My heartfelt sympathies go out to all those who are directly affected by this tragedy.

Muslim pupils in Australia

[xnuandax]

There are no borders in a religious war...

Check this: Muslim pupils attacked in Australia

Particularly: "Meanwhile, Mr Deen criticised Islamic students who were cheering as television images of the plane crashes played at a Queensland university library yesterday."

I assume we'll be deporting the little darlings at the first opportunity?

Better, more costly idea

[einhverfr]

How about creating an air-born police force under the control of the FAA, armed with fighter-type aircraft capable of operating well on jetliner-type speeds as well as a bit faster. These planes would not carry missiles but would carry guns designed to cause minor damage to a rogue aircraft.

In the event where an airline veers too far off its course, these interceptors would escort the plane down to land at the nearest airport.

Re: What can be done about terrorism? - 1st Sam 15

[Inthewire]

This is exactly why I can't stand Christians
The fact that I can use google?
Or the fact that I can't seem to type?

How to Stop Terrorism

[PenguinEnvy]

I am far from an expert, but I feel it is going to be a hearts and minds exercise like that of the British campaign in Malaya, or the early phase of the Vietnam war before Johnson attempted to convert it into a Stand up fight.

I can think of a few simple steps:

Determine why the terrorist group is performing these acts of terror, and who supports them

In other words determine whom are your enemies and who could become your friends.

Address the issues of the supporters of the terrorists, so that the terrorists lose their broader support.

Don't alienate the communites from which these terrorists come from and tar them with the same brush. In doing this you only create further cycles of violence.

Lawfully persue and openly prosecute perpetrators of terrorism.

Law must be seen to be done, no mob justice, no trial by media. You may as well acknowledge defeat if you allow that to happen.

If you're going to claim the moral high ground, make sure that each of the actions you take is moral and legal.

No illeagal bombings of Afganistan, Sunda, Iraq without the agreement of the UN. No supporting of Nations that are carrying out such illeagal actions as that is as bad as doing it yourself.

I've walked through Anzac Cove, Lone Pine, US Civil War sites, Pearl Harbour, Normandy, Flanders Fields, Dresden, Ypres, Dachau and many more war sites. I've seen the names of my countrymen younger than I fall simply because we as a species have not grown up. It saddens me that we have to fight again and again just to learn that same lesson.
Lest we Forget

Re:How to Stop Terrorism

[MackE]

No illeagal bombings of Afganistan, Sunda, Iraq without the agreement of the UN. No supporting of Nations that are carrying out such illeagal actions as that is as bad as doing it yourself.

A nation that is the target of an act of war needs no permission to fight back.

Re:Why the Surprise?

[crucini]

I think you are a bit naive. When a nation experiences a huge disaster, heads of other nations are expected to voice their condolences. This is strictly pro forma and has nothing to with the real agendas of those other nations.

It would be great if you could watch the "Yes, Prime Minister" episode dealing with the predecessor's funeral.

PM: I shall take my place among the world's leaders.
Sir Humphrey: Bearing your grief with dignity and fortitude.
(from memory). Condolences are free. Anyway, "the world" which may hate the US is the third world, not so much Britain and Canada.

Examples of tragedy used for local politics?

[weslocke]

It may sound sort of odd, but I was wondering if there were any other examples of this sort of thing out there.

Here in Chattanooga (TN) the citizenry's been fighting with the local government over a proposed city budget which has as one of its major components the largest property tax ever levied in this area. Now this was being fought on the same principles as always, namely "Hey, I don't want to pay anymore taxes!" and "But it's for the children!"

Anyway the point of all this is that there was a vote scheduled for the city council meeting Tuesday night. Protesters/opposition/etc had planned to show up in force...

But then all hell broke loose.

Like everyone else we were stunned... glued to our TVs, and frightened of what would happen next. Heck, they even closed down the local shopping malls at 2:00pm. All sporting events were quickly cancelled, and businesses closed down early. We all recovered quickly though, and soon the local bloodbanks had wait times of up to five hours as the citizens tried their best to do something to help.

But what did the local government do? Forged on ahead with the meeting, and also with the included vote... with almost no one in attendance since they had assumed (if only we'd all thought about what that breaks down into) that it would be put off until a more fortuitous time. Granted it was totally legal and within their rights to carry on with the meeting as planned... but it was wrong, and most assuredly done as a means to shield the proceedings from naysayers.

...

If that sounds like a rant, it really is I suppose. But mostly I'm just pissed off, and feel exceedingly disgusted with my local politicians for using a tragedy of this enormity as a means to stealth-vote their own agenda into place.

And it leads me back to the question, anyone else have an experience like this? Not anything to do with the politics of the tragedy itself, but using it and perverting the grief to further their own goals?

Re:Rebuild: Slave labor:USE SKULLS

[Grog6]

We should rebuild the towers as soon as reasonably possible; And use the skulls of bin laden , the palestinian assholes who were celebrating yesterday, and all the other assholes who gave succor to these terrorists.
Glass their fucking country from border to border, and make sure everyone knows why!
We need just one general to 'lose his cool' and go rogue for about ten minutes;
'Um.. Mr. Putin? Its George w. on the red phone. He says to pull all our troops away from the afgan border, and give them rad suits. No, I dont think its another drunk...'
Of course, that would be terrorism, I guess, but I think we would be able to live with ourselves.

Re:Must be careful

[The_dev0]

Of course Bush wants to unite all the muslims against the US... then he can nuke the fuck out of the lot of 'em, not just the one guy who is supposed to be running the show. What the fuck do you think all that "god be with us, god this, god that" was about? not to make his sunday school teacher proud, but to aggravate the islamic fundamentalists into making another move, one i'm sure he hopes gives him the excuse to vaporise the lot of 'em.

Re:Why the Surprise?

[crucini]

Notice that none of the countries cited as beneficiaries of US help (Germany, Japan, Italy, Britain, France, India) are sending suicidal terrorists against us.

Don't give in to ignorance and hatred

[mreece]

I know probably no one will read this, but I felt like I should write it nonetheless. First, my condolences to all those who know people who were lost in the disasters Tuesday. I'm fairly sure no one that I know was near those areas, but still I can never remember being so shocked and sickened. The thing that bothers me most today, though, are reports of ignorant Americans who are terrorizing innocent Islamic citizens in America. The local news here in Louisville carried a story of a local Islamic woman who was told by the owner of a store that he was going to get a gun and if she didn't leave by the time he returned he would shoot her. The woman, of course, was completely innocent; in fact her sister was a victim of the attack on the World Trade Center. This sort of ignorant hatred disgusts me. In its own way, although on a smaller scale, this is just as evil and reprehensible as the terrorists attacks themselves. No form of bigotry should be tolerated. Let us judge the terrorists by their actions, not by their religious beliefs. And remember that even flag-waving, apparently patriotic citizens of the U.S. are just as much enemies of our country if they turn on their fellow citizens.

If only the World Trade Center was made of Flexon

[hoggoth]

This showed up in my mailbox the morning of the disaster...

Eerie cooincidence? Evidence of Marchon Eyewear's terrorist connections? Psychic advertisers?

Don't get mad at Marchon's apparent bad taste. This ad was obviously planned, printed, and mailed before the tragedy at the World Trade Center.

Use Face Recognition in Airports?

[Chris Y Taylor]

What can we do to make air travel safer?

Should we install cameras and run face recognition software with data on known terrorists to analyze all passengers boarding aircraft?

If the public is informed that this will be done, and no one forces you to travel by airlines (it is an elective activity and a private business transaction) then does this go too far in infringing on privacy?

Would this have any benifits, anyway?

Final Thought.

[dkoyanagi]

Like everyone else, I've been watching the events of the last two days in shock, disbelief, anger, anxiety and sadness. We've seen the depths to which humanity can sink and the heights to which it can rise. We hope that the world never has to endure something like this again. We know that it probably will. I want to leave this discussion with a final thought.

In Vancouver's Stanley Park, behind the aquarium, is a column with the dates 1914-1918 and 1939-1945, as well as some names. They are names of Japanese Canadians who died in the service of their country. One of the names belongs to my grandfather's cousin. He served with the 50th Battalion, 4th Canadian Infantry division (Alberta Regiment) in WWI. He died on Friday, 26th October, 1917 and was buried near the town of Ypres in West Flanders.

Twenty-four years later members of his family (my family) are sitting in horse stalls awaiting relocation to a camp in the interior.

Please, please, please, do no take your anger and frustration out on your fellow citizens. They are not your enemy. They are your fellow countrymen and patriots. And they are hurting. Do not act out of rage, fear or paranoia. Don't look back twenty years from now and say "I can't believe something like that happened here". The time to prevent injustice is now.

Peace.

Re:What can be done? Nothing.

[Nail]

So we give stuff to our friends. Does that make us responsible for everything they do? Probably not. I disagree with you wholeheartedly on the point of responsibility.

For arguments sake, say that you were my friend, and I gave you a gun, and you committed terrible acts of violence with it. Am I responsible for your actions? Or could it be you and you alone? I certainly could be said to have facilitated your actions in the giving of the gun, or if I sold it, or even if I allowed you to steal it from me...but who is responsible?

Big "what ifs" not withstanding, Israel is responsible for what Israel does, be it throwing around nuclear missles, bullets, rocks, or pebbles. To not understand that simple fact is to not grasp what "responsibility" really is.

Generations have come and gone and no "progress" (as you measure it) has really been made. It is really too bad everyone cannot make terrible mistakes and not live to regret them, but that is the way life is.

And someone has made a terrible, terrible "mistake" indeed, and now all that needs to happen is a "correction".

An eye for an eye scaled to the whole world would only render those with tragic learning disabilities wholely blind. Without such a scaling, the meeker half would be blind, and the more violent half would have carple tunnel syndrome from all the "wrist slapping" received.

When you act, you teach. What will a violent reaction teach us? What will it teach them? What will doing nothing teach us? And them?

Most importantly: what have their present actions taught us? If your answer is "not to help our friends", I think you may have a tragic learning disability.

Much information re Terrorism and Counterterrorism

[argonaut]

I stumbled across a site that has tons of detailed reports, research, and studies about Terrorism and Counterterrorism. Many may have see nthis already but a quick search turned up no hits within ./ so here it is. The Oklahoma City National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism "is dedicated to preventing and reducing terrorism and mitigating its effects."

It has many links tons of Articles related to terrorism from various sources, Fact Sheets from Governments, Journals, Terrorism-related journals and magazines published by the United States, State Department and various Institutes. Information describing the lessons learned from past incidents. Reports on Counterterrorism and related reports from governmental and non-governmental sources. And an image gallery. This is definitely worth checking out.

Many are in HTML but most are in PDF foramt.

A few that I found interesting include On Terrorism's Trail: How the FBI Unraveled the Africa Embassy Bombings and "Combating Terrorism: In Search of a National Strategy" .

The URL again is http://www.mipt.org

Re:Religion

[Drazi100]

ah yes lets believe you oh wise person.. so when are you coming out with youre next scientific theory? (obviously since you KNOW EVERYTHING).
difference between agnostics as compared to atheists is that agnostics dont claim to know bullshit.

CNN Exclusive?

[dachshund]

Why does all of CNN's WTC-crash footage say "CNN Exclusive" on it?

one big difference to "traditional" news

[Technodummy]

is that you get to see when the information changed. You watch the flow of news change and clarify, and the same again with opinions.

in addition, I was happy to see many apologise for things they said when under emotional stress. Please don't let these posts be modded down, not everyone admits their mistakes, and it helps to cut down the flames

well done /. (especially for great access, it was never slow)

Turks != Arabs

[einhverfr]

The Turks eventually converted to Islam but they are not Arabs (Nor are the Kurds or the Iranians, for that matter).

In the 8th century, while Europe was in the very "barbaric" dark ages, Bagdad was one of the greatest cities in the world, with universities, and great centers of Europe. When Rome fell, Bagdad became the main center of Neo-Platonic philosophy. This golden age lasted longer than the European Rennaisance, to which it is comparable. One only has to read Heinrich Agrippa (a 16th century Neo-Platonist) to understand the Arabic influence in the European Rennaisance.

We are not Arab or need a highly structured, misogynistic culture to support.

That country, Turkey, you hate so much has had a woman in charge of it within the last ten years. Can you say the same of the US? And Qaddafi's bodyguards are women! In fact, if you read the Quer'an you will find that it emphasizes that women should be educated. This is so important to Islam that when Saddam Hussein wanted to restrict women's access to universities, the public outrage was so great that even as a dictator(!) he had to back down.

I am not a Muslim. However, I really hate it when uninformed people make wild accusations which are founded on misunderstanding and the more cheuvanistic actions of minority sects.

(I am actually more of a Neo-Platonist-- which owes much of its heritage to this Arabic golden age.)

Whores in the media

[balthan]

I'm really getting sick of the media and the way they handle this and all major news events. A couple specific things that piss me off:

1. The Melodrama. This is already one of the biggest events of recent times. There is no need to play this up at all, it's already a huge deal. Yet every single news person feels the need to pile on the melodrama.

2. The Carnage Whoring. Who hasn't seen the film of the towers getting hit and later collapsing 500 times already? And from 50 different angles. And people falling from the building. Yet they continue to show it over and over and over and over again.

3. The over-coverage. The day it happened almost every fucking station was showing some kind of feed. Including MTV, VH1, and ESPN. And everyone except the major news people (ABC, CBS, CNN, etc.) were using feeds from other channels. CNN, HN, TBS, and TNT, for example, were all showing the exact same CNN feed. What's the point in that?! In today's newspaper, every singe section (including Style, Sports and even the kid's section) all had pictures of the WTC on the cover. People need something else to thing about, if only for a little while.


On a side note, something else that pissed me off in the Congressional resolution condemning the attack. Anothing fucking useless measure. If my house is burglarized, why should I gather my family members together to condemn the robbery?! The US was attacked, so of course everyone in the US is going to be against the attack! What's next? Passing a law to ban suicide bombing?

Quote by Carl Sagan

[lukehan]

Here is something that is worth thinking about at a time like this.

Hold on second here.

[Biker Jim]

I see a lot of "nuke em" going around(pick a country). Seems to me instead of nukin anybody maybe we should peace corp em. Think about it.

I was trying to think about it from the point of view of some one in (pick a country), and I'm pretty sure that when they think about their american "enemies" they are'nt thinking about most of the americans I know and love. My dad would start building a water line, my mom would want to feed every one in sight and get relly pissed off at all the needless pain. Aunt Angie would want to haul off the nearest mess and get things cleaned up. My neighbor Bob knows about the refugee camps so he does'nt waste food or anything else as a result, he'concerned about lifeboat earth,as am I.
None of the above gives a rats ass what color, religion, or language any one else is. But they all get mad at stupid needless pain and suffering.
Not many people I talked with today really know anything about the situation of poor people in any of these places. They they were amazed by the conditions most of the terrorist pool grew up in. (I only know one kid who had a auto rifle in his hands by 8 and he was from nam)
What would happen if you took 50 or so workin stiffs and plunked em down in all the refuge camps and beat up cities in country x and asked them to see if they could help out and make a list of the things that were needed. In a week they get $50,000 each to help whoever they can, no black market, no three letter agency BS, no top heavy beaurocracy, just your average american free (!) to help and get to know these people. Do you think everybody would learn something?
(what do you mean too much money? How about the rounds (Buck a round?) per enemy we are willing to spend? You got any idea how much yesterday cost?)
They would probably find out that not many americans like the way the fat cats run the show either.
Might make the difference. They don't know the states the way we know it.
We for the most part have never experienced what they go thru every day.
I don't underestimate anybody, and I certainly would'nt underestimate the ability or willingness of americans to set things right if they were given the chance.
Think about it...............

Psychological; terrorism 2.0

[pedro]

I posted something similar to this last night, but left out something rather important.

WARNING: This is a particulary grisly and morally iffy solution to problems of mideast born terrorism, but it has been shown to work in the past.

(NSA? Are you listening?)

Since it seems very likely that the perps in this little drama may well be personally identified by name and nationality, an inside out approach of sheer psychological terror at their end might prove fruitful, and has in the past.

(a) Find all of the members of the now dead perps' families. Kill them one by one. One family at a time. Take polaroids. Mail them all about. Do next family. GOTO 10.

(b) Locate all members of the aforementioned families' extended families. Repeat recursively.

(c) FINALLY.. Take out the leaders. Ship many heads and other anatomical features in boxes and jars to various high profile, carefully chosen recipients.

(d) Go silent. Say nothing. Smirk, maybe, but say nothing.

(e) Oh. I almost forgot.. If there was a way to defile the bodies, or the graves of the ancestors so as to jeopardise their experience in the beyond, or merely inculcate fear in those still living, I would do that too.

Techniques such as above have worked VERY well for Organised crime, and the KGB. They're godawfully realpolitik and amoral, but the body count is very low, and could, in a Duney sorta sense, be the more humane course, as insane as that sounds.

If I were the pres, and someone presented me with such a plan, folks, I'd have to give it some good, hard consideration.

Christ, I'm such a bastard. Maybe I've been reading ASR too long?

Re:Psychological; terrorism 2.0

[Water Paradox]

I stopped at your warning, and read no further. The question I have is, if it is grisly and morally iffy, why do you populate your thoughts with it so strongly that it tumbles out in public forum?

Father, please kindly return this man to sanity. Thy will be done.

Re:Psychological; terrorism 2.0

[pedro]

I don't know if you'll ever see this but I totally agree with you.

I wrote about what actually works. I don't like it. You cannot battle evil without to some degree embracing it so as to understand it.

As a spiritual being, a Warrior, I have no choice.

Warriors always learn things about the opposition. We, in order to understand their motivations, MUST learn to think like *them*.

When we do so, we sometimes actually find some understanding with the enemy. Why they Fight.

*This* enemy has no heart. None. They are as bugs. Insects.

However, we all have bugs living in our homes, invisibly. Some help.. some hinder.

I'm babbling, but I'm trying to say this..

There is nothing recoverable about this enemy. Even the most devout of the Islamic world agree.

Bin Laden and his like are bugs to be squashed, without mercy or a hint of sorrow.

Do I make myself clear?

Re:What can be done? Nothing.

[SecurityGuy]

The only effective weapon against terrorism is to do absolutely nothing.

And what, exactly, do you base this on? Which nation has "defeated" terrorism by doing nothing? Or is this perhaps nothing more than your arbitrarily fabricated theory?

Nearly all of us need to sit back and admit we have no information or basis to decide what the right response is. These terrorists aren't misbehaving children. Pretending they are is dangerous beyond measure.

Global Consciouness Project has an analysis

[mutende]

The Global Consciousness Project has an analysis of the data streams at the time of the terrorist attacks.

american media re: canada

[aoeuid]

I have a feeling its american media in large part. Many americans just don't get the information about these sorts of things from CNN. For example, I think on Monday there was a news story on the Canadian CBC network about our trade minister in washington pleading with officials to reconsider the 19% duty they are schedualed to impose very shortly on our softwood lumber exports (so much for NAFTA). This has been a big story in Canada for a long time and we have won WTO decisions regarding this issue in the past.

What is particularly interesting about this report was that the minister had pleaded with the Washington Post to at least print a blurb about his visit to Washington, and asked CNN to discuss the issue on Hardline, and whatnot. But _NO ONE WAS INTERESTED_ . The Washington Post would not even print a blurb about this big and lingering story in Canada.

The point is that the average american has no idea what softwood lumber is or that a large portion of it comes from Canada. And a big part the reason is that American media was much more interested in Gary Condit than trade disputes with their biggest trading partner (despite Bushes snubbing of Canada in favor of Mexico last week).

Who's to blame? It's a tough question, but I sincerely believe American media and politicians do not necessarily reflect the values of most Americans, and I base this on the fact that I in no way feel that my politicians or media truly represent me here at home in Canada.

I'd also like to point out that over 200 planes were diverted to Canada which had been bound for the United States. By the news reports today, it sounds like many, many Canadians were helping out, taking these stranded passengers into their homes, and feeding them, and other things. When the head United States Transportation official was giving a speech about the situation, he did indeed thank Canada for our part in the efforts. I switched to CNN to see if was being carried live, and, of course, it wasn't. So again, this is not the average american, its just their media largely ignoring others. If theres one thing that comes out of this, I think its going to awaken americans to the realities of the world.

Re:american media re: canada

[itch]

I have noticed the same thing. at the moment we ofcourse are getting coverage over the recent tragedy via CNN, ABC and I think NBC.

President Clinton at the time of tragedy was a guest of our country and he has had cut his visit short. But before he left he spoke with the press in which he gave his full support to President Bush, at the end of his speach he also thanked Australia for their support, and gave special thanks to our Prime Minister John Howard for the very moving speech he made.

I watched the whole speech live via Australian news services, and then watched the same speech via a US broadcast. The US broadcast cut the broadcast before President Clinton made his comments about Australia.

Our Prime Minister is currently visiting Washington, (and as of a few hours ago still is)and has spoken to Australia on several occasions via Australian television live from Washington DC, at one time just prior to the Pentagon incident, where you could see the Pentagon still intact. And some of the first pictures of the incident where made by Australian journalists on tour with John Howard.

I have not seen any of this on the US broadcast, only Austalian.

Im not watching every channel every hour, so I proberbly have missed something. And also I understand that maybe because of the tragedy information like this is being pushed aside. BUT I do believe that all Americans would be greatly moved by the words given by our Prime Minister, and that the support that the Australian goverment is offering would hopfully give all of America great hope, restoring faith to those that have lost it.

Re:american media re: canada

[leviramsey]

I have noticed the same thing. at the moment we ofcourse are getting coverage over the recent tragedy via CNN, ABC and I think NBC.

Not strictly related, but has anyone else been watching BBC America for their coverage of the events? I myself find it quite good, with a very nice perspective on the events (and a lot of emphasis given to worldwide reactions).

Re:What can be done? Nothing.

[Vorro]

Make any change at all in response, and you are instantly losing. Pandering to the desired effect, which is 'change'.

Only problem is that you assume that the US is entirely correct in every action that it makes. I don't think I need to quote statistics on how greedy our country is. We also blindly condone all the Israeli atrocities while condemning the Palestinian efforts to fight back. Our economy and military in its present state is very agressive and is ultimately very destructive.

Perhaps we do need to change.

I am in NO way condoning the attacks, but in their minds, what they were doing was right. Just as we are expected to stand up for what you believe is right, you must expect everyone else to stand up for what they belive is right, and that we don't all have the same beliefs.

Were the hijackers "right" in killing countless innocent civillians? Of course not.

Is American policy "right?"

Well... I'll leave that up to you.

Re:FedEx hijacking - correction

[EvilStein]

It was a DC-10. No matter, the guy that tried that was a grade-a screwball.. geez. =/

Gossip columnist calls it quits

[Mike Schiraldi]

I found this story pretty moving. A gossip columnist comments on how meaningless all the stuff she's built her career on is in the grand scheme of things. Talks about the future of celebrity and entertainment.

Re:What can be done? Nothing.

[therion]

> The only effective weapon against terrorism is to do absolutely nothing.

> Make any change at all in response, and you are instantly losing. Pandering to the desired effect, which is 'change'.

I don't know about the rest of you geeks but I learned in Junior High that ignoring attacks doesn't work.

Submission isn't good for a Junior High geek and it's not one whit better for a people.

Capitulation anyone?

I didn't think so.

Oh, that was just an excuse

[XNormal]

Note long before Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount the peace talks were tense but there was actually agreement on most points. Today both sides often express doubt about the other side's intentions at the time, but I believe they may have been genuine enough.

But the fact that there was agreement on most points only brought the remaining points of disagreement into sharper contrast. Central among them was Jerusalem.

Both leaders knew they would not have support from their people for anything that might be interpreted as concessions on Jerusalem. They also knew they have much more to lose than just politically - based on past experience they could literally lose their lives at the hands of the extremists of their own people.

So Yasser Arafat did the only logical thing, followed the only course of action that would not only keep him alive but also reap some political gain - blow up the talks and make it appear to be the Israeli's fault.

Sharon's visit provided a convenient spark, but it would have happened anyway.

Arafat had ordered the uprising. Palestinian television started broadcasting nationalistic songs and show old footage from the Intifada as it is of current events, well *before* the eruption. Activists of the PLO helped stir up the population and Presto! - you have a "spontaenous" response of outrage to the visit.

What was Ehud Barak thinking at the time? I don't know. I believe he saw it coming but tried to keep to the original course of action anyway. What else could he have done? What do you do when your mind tells you that it will not work, not thi time, but your heart tells you that you must have hope, that the chance for peace is worth taking this enormous risk to your country and to your people?

Re:Oh, that was just an excuse

[jesser]

What was Ehud Barak thinking at the time? I don't know. I believe he saw it coming but tried to keep to the original course of action anyway. What else could he have done? What do you do when your mind tells you that it will not work, not thi time, but your heart tells you that you must have hope, that the chance for peace is worth taking this enormous risk to your country and to your people?

IIRC, Barak was said at the time that peace talks would not continue until terrorism stopped completely. Maybe that was the best thing to do, but it seems to me that an ultimatum like that makes peace very difficult. A few (IMO) Palestinians unsatisfied with Israel's concessions were able to halt the negotiations.

Re:Oh, that was just an excuse

[Jethro]

but it seems to me that an ultimatum like that makes peace very difficult.

Perhaps it does, but there was really no choice at the time.

While our leaders were engaged in peace-talks, Israeli citizens were being killed by the scores in terrorist attacks. I personally was narrowly missed - twice! - by an exploding bus, and once by a suicide bomber. Granted, that might not exactly be avarage, but still.

Can you imagine public opinion, when our side gives in to many, many demands and makes a HELL of a lot of gestures of good faith (read above re: Palestenian autonimy and arming PA poloce force etc), and their side won't even stop killing us? There comes a point where negotiations are moot.

As for Jerusalem... the Palestenians have no claim to it. It is Jordan who has a legitimate claim, and Jordan never asked for it back. And if they really want to play the We Were Here First game, the Jewish people have at least 3000 years of historical connection to Jerusalem.

Now I personally am MORE than willing to share. I really have no problem with Muslims praying at holy sites in Jerusalem. When I was a kid, there were quite a few Palestenians around our neighbourhood. Nobody minded. There was one guy, Daud (sp?) who worked as a gardener in my neighbourhood. All the kids loved him. He used to always bring us fresh fruit from his village, was pretty much welcome in peoples' appartments, and you could see the happiness in his eyes when he saw children play.

How we (collectivally as a Human Race) let the situation deteriorate to the utter mess it is now is beyond me.

Re:A cruel thought...

[Foggymyst]

You can assume that no one knew they were going to die. How many hijackings end in the death of everyone? Very few. They have already released statments saying that conversations aboard one of the planes that were transmitted through one of the pilot's mike went along the lines of "Dont do anything foolish and you wont get hurt." However, the Pittsburgh plane terrorists told the passengers they were going to die. The plane crashed in the middle of nowhere and we can safely assume this was a last ditch effort by the terrorists to kill anyone as the passengers took over the plane. The point i'm making is, if the passengers on those other planes knew what was going to happen...they would have ripped the terrorists apart with their teeth. We have entered a world where when your plane gets hijacked, assume you are already dead. ~Steve www.foggymyst.com

problems with separated cockpit and cabin

[JimBobJoe]

I've seen this suggestion a lot, and i've been wondering about the potential problems with it.

It would be hard to make these changes at this time, since the cockpit is so close to the cabin anyway.

It may be possible in the future, but it'll take a complex redesign. The pilots need access to the lavaratories and galleys (for obvious reasons. If they have their own separate area, that area needs its own bathroom and galley.) On long range flights, the crew is swapped out and replaced with a fresh crew usually sitting in the passenger cabin--now they will need their own special area separate from the cabin.

And then pilots do often enter into the cabin if there is something strange going on--they need to be able to walk to a passenger window and look at the wing...perhaps if the plane is on the ground during winter and they need to make sure the deicing is going well, or if the aircraft is in air and the engine is doing something strange, or there is a leak from the wing. The pilot needs to look at these things from the main cabin.

Finally, I believe that international air regulations make it so that the pilot is the only person on the aircraft who can arrest someone (like the captain on a ship.) In an air rage situation, the pilot has to get into the cabin to perform the arrest.

Re:Monetary support for

[mimbleton]

I am sure Arafat condolences were so fuckin sincere.
This dude is responsible for unleashing rain of terror in Israel and now he is fucking "shocked" at what happened in NYC ?

Sateillate Photos of the WTC sight.

[Arkoth]

These pictures reveal a horror from space of the dust and smoke still rising into the night sky off the ruins of the World Trade Center. http://www.spaceimaging.com/newsroom/attack_galler y.htm

A challenge to elite hackers

[Chris Y Taylor]

Someone needs to find where bin Ladin's money is, and transfer it to the Red Cross's Disaster Relief Fund.

No,

[Sycraft-fu]

The US is (one of) the center(s) of the Christian world. Not only is a large percentage of our population Christian of one form or another, but our society and culture are very, very Christian based. Also the US culture is highly visible throught the world. Well, this makes us a prime target for those that don't like Christianity.

Sad but true

[leonbrooks]

I have been on 9 international missions in my career, EVERY SINGLE ONE being directed by the states, who wont use their own staff because they are not as well trained. (as they have explained to the oz military on numerous occasions.)

Sad but true. I've talked to vets of many wars, and often the story is that the Oz (or Brit, Rhodesian, name it) infantry would take a hill, give it to the Yanks, and then have to take it back again the next day. It often got so routine that both Oz and enemy soldiers would leave their gear on the contested hill - and share stuff - because they knew they'd be back for it next day.

I've also heard - from the horses' mouths - of times when Oz (or insert-name) troops and enemy would be involved in a firefight, a Yank group would approach, and both sets of combatants would go to ground until the group was well clear because the Yanks were just too damn dangerous to be near, bombing and strafing everything in sight if they got nervous.

OTOH, if you wanted something absolutely carbonized, you called in a Yank firestrike and stood well, well back.

you may have the planes but china would eat you alive if it came down to soldier vs. soldier.

The upshot is: in a real war, I predict that the USA would pound the pooh out of China from a long distance and then lose most of their troops in the cleanup. The obvious tactical approach would be to not have a cleanup. )-:

No problem

[Sycraft-fu]

What they need is something like the Glaser Safety Slug [goldpaint.net]. Bullet does fairly well against humans but won't go through much else. For aircraft, you'd probably use the normal pressure version (the one for sale here is high pressure) which penetrates even less.

A nightmare

[windchill2001]

It just keep waiting to wake up... But no such luck. This is reality, and it has changed the world.

Re:Why the Surprise?

[JohnG]

I'm not being but so naive. The support the US has enjoyed from most countries has been more than "we are sorry that happened to you". Canada has been a great help in terms of providing our stranded citizens with food and shelter, our injured with blood. All the NATO nations are ready to stand as one for us.
True that Middle East leaders may be less than sincere, but I was honestly touched that Arafat gave blood to the cause. The bottom line though, is that we have had peace treaty meeting after peace treaty meeting and Israel seems much more willing to negotiate than the Palestinians. I suggest the third world countries look at their own governments before blaming ours for the problems. I'm not saying we are perfect, but we ARE trying to help both sides.

Israel is moving into jericho!!!

[linzeal]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east /newsid_1541000/1541228.stm

This is so petty and predicatable of the sharon government and those who cower behind him.

Primetime?

[Rywen]

Rhetorical Question: I can only wonder amidst all of the rumors of US military personnel being called up and sent overseas tonight if whatever retaliaion the US is planning is being carefully scheduled for primetime TV viewing?

Its time not to act impulsively but to think

[polikitti]

The issue here is not what has happened or how it has happened.

The issue here is all about however hard you try, when somebody is prepared to even die, nothing can stop him.

If you look at the attacks in a larger view, the issue is not about cure by attacking those respnsible, its all about prevention.Prevention thro' stricter security, thro' intelligence is only a short term measure.

On a longer term, we need to achieve global peace. This cannot be achieved through bombing people or being vindictive. For every family that's bombed in Iraq or Afghanistan, the survivors will create such problems.

If US had not bombed Iraq or had not given arms to Afghans to fight against Russians, would this have happened? I am definite it would not
have happened... Again now, when they bomb the entire afghanistan, leaving out only some people with "the fire of revenge in their hearts", ain't all this expected? (yeah I know that's immature, but what else can you expect out of them).

My heart goes out to the numerous people killed in the process...

The total number of deaths in Kashmir thro' out the years is probably a huge multiple of the number of deaths this attack caused. All this time, the Internatioal community inclusive of the US has been advising restraint from the Indian side. Its time to practise what you preach, Uncle Sam.

A good article by Robert Fisk

[agape]

http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=93798

There are safer fuels

[PhilHibbs]

this disaster may spark re-interest in fuel additives for jet fuel that would immediately put out fires upon impact.

There was a test a few years ago where a large jet was deliberately crashed into a hevay duty metal barrier. It went up in a ball of flames, and so was a PR disaster, but in fact the flames were all superficial and only the fuel that was in the engine at the time went up, and that was only beacuse the engine itself was torn apart by the impact. In the WTC case, the engines probably would not have been torn apart. Even if they had, it wouldn't have been as bad as it was two days ago.

What can be done about terrorism?

[kuiken]

Well a good start would be to stop giving them money.
You might not want to hear it but in the'80s the US goverment supported Bin Laden to fight the Russians.
(note freedom fighter is a nice word for terrorist)

Re:military jets and authorities not reacting?

[Tazzy531]

Media it not covering it, all they say is: "the (911) operator kept talking until the crash..." or something similar. But did the 911 operator contact any authorities, and did anyone do anything? It seems like there were some serious negligence on the ground too. Or am I missing something? I don't think any of the cell phones did call 911. They all called friends and relatives. Secondly, authorities were contacted, however, the hour is not enough time to actually do anything. In most hijacking situations, they aim to get something in exchange for the hostages, not crash it into a building.

The US and its people were totally not prepared for anything like this.

US most strongly Christian country in first world

[Goonie]

If you go to Australia, Japan, most of Europe, the UK, you'll find that religion has a far weaker influence on the daily lives of people, and political debate.

I'd go further than you. Aside from the Vatican, there is no country more visibly identified with Christianity as the United States.

horror and shame

[archivis]

The obliteration of the World Trade Center, as well as the strike against the Pentagon, and the utterly needless deaths of those innocents in the planes turned missiles is something that I have been struggling to comprehend.
I have learned a great deal. We, the people of the United States of America, are responsible for a swath of violence and hate across the world, mostly in the wake of well-meaning but short-sighted policies designed to protect us from an array of threats from Communism to economic blackmail. Our leaders have made choices that have earned us deserved enmity. That is not to say that we are an unalloyed scourge upon the world. We have acted to protect our interests, as any sane country must, as well as what we saw as the greater interests of the free world. Given our status as superpower, our interests cover the entire globe and every conflict. Inevitably, those we oppose become our foes.
This in no way lessens the horror and sheer audacity of the terror perpetrated upon us. Issues of morality and justification aside, one who baits the tiger cannot expect anything but bestial fury in return. Factor into the equation the immoral slaughter of thousands of innocents without warning as the end result of a cold-blooded and calculated plan of terror, and the unsheathing of the naked blade of war is all but inevitable.
We have been engaged, around the world, in a number of battles and military actions since World War II. This attack upon our home presages the possible advent of the first real declared war, with no power or resource of the United States held in abeyance for concern of mercy. Those who perpetrated this attack cannot but have anticipated this response. I feel, surely, that they cannot have but have desired it.
Commit continual acts of blood and terror upon a country, and that country will stagger from the blows. Freedoms will be lost to expediency and need. Lines of social stress will flare as tensions rise. Inevitably, if no outlet for the strain can be found, the long slow onslaught of terrorism will bring a nation down - or warp it into something unrecognisable.
I watched the videos of disaster, from a score of angles and perspectives. Too, I sampled scores - thousands - of news stories, commentaries, posts, essays, and interviews. I have covered CNN.com to slashdot.org to CBC broadcasts to transcripts of interviews with terrorists to chat rooms and more others than I can remember. I have spoken directly with Americans and Canadians. I have sampled the opinion and thoughts of the world. All of it, searching for meaning.
This act was not unthinkable. The carnage was not unimaginable. This was a human act, carried out by human planning, directed by human will. All of it, birthed from a human understanding of something most people shy away from.
I have done my best to understand.
At first, I wanted revenge. I had fury-driven fancies of tank battalions driving across Afganastan, should bin Laden be at fault. Then I read, from the posts of people familiar with the region, of it's poverty. I read the CIA World Factbook entry on Afganastan.
To be blunt, from what I know, there isn't much there to bomb or blast. The people have had war for over twenty years, are dirt poor, and under the isolationist control of a fundamentalist Muslim faction that does it's best to deny them the benefits, amusements, and information of the West. Television is banned, along with a host of other things. Not that it matters much - no electricity.
No TV, no radio. Nothing remotely resembling a free press. I'm not even sure they have an unfree press. These poor bastards don't have any but the dimmest notions of what has been done to us, it's magnitude, nor the magnitude of what we could raise against them. They have been betrayed as much as we.
So, having come to understand who it is that massive American action in that poor blighted corner of the globe would be smiting, I came to hope for surgical strikes, as massive in their own way. Of course, that won't sate the American bloodlust, nor will a barrage of cruise missiles give us the confirmation of the eradication of a cancerous organization.
I came to wrestle with the question of having the stomach to watch our military force carve a bloody swath through a people who don't deserve another invasion to remove a man who has been waging a war from the shadows with religion and money. I hoped I would have the moral resolve to stand firm and let war be waged.
This didn't feel right. I spent another 12 hours trying to realize something fairly simple. I continued my reading and watching, canvassing any resource I found. In the end, I understood.
In a perfect world, were we a perfect people, we would absorb this violation done us. We would return, in a spirit of a peace, the violence in the form of aid and construction without taking resources both material and cultural in exchange. We would spend the long and difficult years, paying the high price in our lives and money, to rebuild shattered nations who we helped, with shortsightedness and poor thinking, to break. We would find those peoples who lived in fear, in the very grip of terror themselves, and raise them up. We would let them rebuilt while we took on our shoulders the brunt of the slaughter, so that they could raise forth new and free nations in the image of their own people. We would make terrorism needless in a world of understanding.
We are not a perfect people, and we are not living in a perfect world. It is not a question of wether I have the resolve to let justice be done. It is a question of my having the resolve to take a better path, to bear calmly as sacrifice the burden of horror while rebuilding the world.
I believed that I was a man of peace.
Let blood and fire reign down. Let us burn them out, whomever did this, and salt the earth with their blood, so that no son in the next generation may raise sword against us. Let this thing be done.
The truth of terrorism is that it is an act which creates terrorists.
I understand.

I hope that I am more alone that I suspect. I hope that cooler, saner heads than mine will prevail. I hope.

Re:horror and shame

[xnuandax]

Simplistic hippy talk.

As somebody else has pointed out, the only Middle Eastern country in which Arabs vote for their leader is Israel. It's not like America covertly bombs women and children in various countries to amuse itself. Unfortunately for America they are one of the few countries that are courageous enough to take up the fight against countries that go bad.

What is a country that goes bad? Try Germany in 1938. The rest of the world sat on its hands behind the infamous 'appeasement policy' until it was almost too late. Poor fk'ing America has to go in everytime some tinpot nation goes bad (try Serbia & Iraq in recent times), and then they suffer the terrorist attacks afterwards.

Meanwhile the other pissant nations of the world stand around scratching themselves preaching the whole 'America is a bully' tripe. Very convenient.

I'm an Australian btw. One of those who is keenly aware that it was the US that stepped up for us in the battle of the Coral Sea to head off the imminent invasion of Australia near the end of WWII.

p.s. Israel, with all due respect, get the hell out of Palestine for God's sake. You're making things that much worse.

Re:horror and shame

[archivis]

You obviously did not read the entirity of what I wrote.

Stating that the United States - in the course of pursuing it's interests around the world and what it felt were the interests of the Free World - made some decisions that paid off in the short term but in the long term led to resentment and hatred isn't simplistic, nor is it particularly hippy.

Besides, if one continues in my original post, one comes to understand my realization of the nescessity of the abandonment of an essentially peaceful position for one of total war.

I suspect you read merely the beginning and end of my post - thus interpreting my statement of hope that wiser heads will go for a moderate and reasoned military responce as opposed to my gut instinct to nuke them down to bedrock, as some sort of apologist position of appeasement.

Malaysia and the British Re:How to Stop Terrorism

[joneshenry]

"Hearts and minds"? From what I've read about the crushing of the Communist insurrection, none of its circumstances apply to the current situation. The British had a relatively freer hand than anything the US would be permitted to have in a Middle Eastern country. The task of the British was simplified by the Communists in Malaysia coming from a hated minority, the Chinese. The British decided in the Briggs plan to forcibly remove every single POTENTIAL Chinese sympathizer from his/her original home to new villages under incredibly strict control in regards to food. I suppose "hearts and minds" might refer to the Chinese being given title to their new land and better overall material circumstances than their original miserable existence as squatters. But underneath the velvet glove was the iron fist of the absolute control over the people's lives required to deny the export of a single cup of rice to the Communists. And this took place over TWELVE years.

I think the US tried a similar plan in Vietnam. It didn't work. There was no way to separate out a particular minority of the people who would be the sole source of enemy support. It was too big a task to try and take on an entire civilian population numbering many millions.

It is also possible that only the British were competent enough to accomplish such a feat. (That same factor might bode ill for the US if it tries to base its strategy on its own version of special forces. It might be better to let the British SAS lead a particularly critical mission such as a direct assault to apprehend Osama Bin Laden.)

There is also no way the rest of the world would stand for similar measures today. It would be the United States that would be accused of establishing concentration camps regardless of what conditions the people were given. The forceful removal of an entire minority population solely based on race to a controlled environment would create a wave of comparisons to prior shameful US events such as the Trail of Tears or the Japanese-American internment during World War II. In four years the rest of the world outside of a few allies would be calling for US leadership to be extradited to the Hague for trial, and internally the US would be at civil war.

A more meaningful comparison as far as a recent historic event would be the decision of Jordan's King Hussein in 1970 to crush the Palestinians, a war that was to become reviled by the Palestinians as "Black September".

If you want to strengthen the door

[einhverfr]

Use a high-tech composite. The idea of having a door 6" thick or more might cause more problems than solutions and 1000 lbs near the nose might not be soemthing that you could retrofit into existing planes without some pretty serious sacrifices.

Re:His name was Timothy McViegh!

[KjetilK]

He did. He just wanted the feds to kill him. That's the whole point.

What pilots think

[King Of Chat]

Can't tell if anyone's linked this yet, but there are some interesting comments at PPrune on what level of training these nuts would have needed (sorry, frames site - no direct link).

The popular media seem to have made up their mind that it's evil technology again. Maybe some of the victims could sue M$ on this basis.

Background Info

[TitaniumFox]

Foreign Affairs is a mag that I recently subscribed to, and it covers not only foreign politics, but the implications.

I was unaware that they had an online version until a few moments ago. They have placed all of their articles pertaining to the politics of the attack in one area, and have made the full text free to non-subscribers. (link below)

Foreign Affairs: Terrorism Background Briefing

Some of the articles give some pretty interesting info for those who wish to know more about the destabilizing factors present in the middle east.

Re:What can be done? Nothing.

[Myko]

It's so long after the fact that few people may see this, but I post anyway.

I quote you with "The more terrorists you kill, the less terrorism there will be."

How totally and incomprehensively INCORRECT. People have been applying the same flawed logic to the drug problem for decades with no effect.

Burning down fields of marijuana in South America does not mean less drug addicts in the US, it just means that you pissed off a very strong and powerful drug lord.

Terrorism is like durgs in this regard. Killing some terrorists will not even dent the problem, it will just make the rest of them angrier and push others to join the terrorism cause.

This is simple cause and effect logic. I'm surprised by how many people just don't get this...

Please America

[1%warren]

If you must retaliate, use a bomb that won't kill the children.

Deepest sympathy & sorrow from /me in New Zealand.

Why are there only American airplanes ?

[arnwald]

Look,

what happened in NY is a real tragedy, but it's not a reason to start spreading BS.

Scuse me,

I read in this 'Canadian' letter there were only American airplanes ??? Do you know that Airbus is a European airplane manufacturer that beats Boeing ?

Great speech about Americans, just not very fact based.

Oh, and you know that the foundation of space technology ( both US & Russia)is made by EUROPEANS (German guys after WO II) right ?

Duh, another post that will be modded down, why do I bother ?
Duh, I wont even post anonymously.

Re:Why are there only American airplanes ?

[4mn0t1337]

I can't find directly what it is that you are posting in response to. I can only presume that this is what you are responding to.

The United States dollar took another pounding on German, French and British exchanges this morning, hitting the lowest point ever known in West Germany. It has declined there by 41% since 1971 and this Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as the most generous and possibly the least-appreciated people in all the earth.
(text continues... see site)

This was a radio broadcast made by Gordon Sinclair from Canada in 1973. (Original audio is at above site.) At that point, the American Aeroindustry was the only one to really speak of.

Good Salon article

[KjetilK]

I'd like to recommend this Salon article.

It is asking the important question "How much anger can prompt a group of people to do this?" An important question people seem to ignore in their anger.

*PLEASE* read this before posting

[Alejo]

There is a very nasty document about CIA operations tearing down, killing and pushing IRAN to what it is nowadays. This is declassified CIA doc posted on NYT, so don't flame that fast.

IMHO U.S. citizens should judge severily their elected government (please don't start with bush weird election stuff, since it doesn't matter on the discussion).

Instead of helping Iran to become a free+democratic (WTH even capitalist!) country, it was completely tortured. Now we got this crazy ppl there, doing terrorism worldwide (including my country twice, and we never bothered them!).

Most US TV is convincing ppl to become racists against arabic/muslim men/women/children. Ask yourself if nuking them is the right way of a free country to solve this problem.

Also what is it with Afghanistan now? Rambo made it a nice place to live, right?

Re:*PLEASE* read this before posting

[pkesel]

In my area, the heart of the midwest, the only mention I have heard from the media regarding muslim people is that these acts were carried out in the name of the Muslim people, but that they do not represent Muslim beliefs. It has been stated very clearly by local and international Muslim leaders that these acts are against all that Islam is.

Many of us work side-by-side with Muslim people every day, people who have become our friends, and in this event our allies. While the US has been dealt an injustice by these terrorists, we likewise have to recognize the injustice dealt to our neighbors who have been so sorely misrepresented.

Certainly there are those narrow-minded people who will unjustly accuse all Muslim poeple, but there are also those Muslims in the streets abroad celebrating this event. People of the US are not dancing in the street calling for the death of all Muslim people. Sadly those dancing in the streets of Palestine and Iraq are indeed calling for the death of all the people of the US.

The separation and accusation that Muslims around the world are feeling has to a great deal been brought upon by false prophets of Islam. I would think that the Muslim people of the world would want to work to bring about their end as much as the victims of these attacks.

Re:*PLEASE* read this before posting

[Alejo]

Nice too have that kind of feedback! Well, here we have CNN only, and it's international transmission did a lot anti-muslim showings. Media manipulation is very scary. BBC instead showed palestinians expressing sadness and just a few shooting guns. I just pray for the US not unsing any kind of nukes. Terror cannot be fought with terror.

LEarn the History

[Poligraf]

It became fashionable to hijack planes and demand millions in seventies. A lot of Arab and other terroristic organizations were doing that.

After Israel freed Israeli hostages in 1976 (in the Air France plane) that Arab and German terrorists took to the heart of Africa, hijacking had pretty much stopped (Israeli commandos has also shot two hijackers of the Belgian Sabena plane).

Another example.

Arabs has murdered Israeli delegation at the 72 Olympics. ALL of the masterminds and planners as well as surviving participants were hunted down and exterminated. Do you think any terrorists are willing to repeat murdering Israelis?

Re:LEarn the History

[Syberghost]

After Israel freed Israeli hostages in 1976 (in the Air France plane) that Arab and German terrorists took to the heart of Africa, hijacking had pretty much stopped

Yeah, hijacking has pretty much stopped.

Except for those two planes that hit the goddamn World Trade Center, and the one that hit the Pentagon, and the one that went down in Pennsylvania, and however many they didn't manage to get to (such as possibly Miami or Orlando).

But, there hasn't been any hijacking LATELY; it's been really good since Tuesday afternoon.

Re:LEarn the History

[jiheison]

Do you think any terrorists are willing to repeat murdering Israelis?

Is this a joke? Pick up a newspaper sometime. Suicide bombers kill Israelis on a regular basis, in Israel. Hard to track them down when they are willing to die in the act.

Re:LEarn the History

[Poligraf]

Hey, don't confuse hijacking planes for demands (money/release of imprisoned terrorists) that stopped 20+ years ago because of Israel's actions with what have happened here, in the US.

This is completely different terrorists with different goals and so on.

Re:LEarn the History

[Poligraf]

This is not a joke, just read the context.

I meant a high-profile demonstrative murders of Israeli sportsmen or other delegates outside of Israel.

Whatever is going on there is different beast.

Israel is now trying to kill not these potential bombers (there are too many brainwashed fanatics), but the ones who plan their actions and supply them with explosives et al.

Re:LEarn the History

[jiheison]

Sorry, i missed the context.

However, I think that the feeling of insecurity that Israeli's have in their own home, never being sure that they won't be the next victim of a bomb blast, must be far more terrifying than the killing of their countrymen overseas.

Israeli's are more secure outside their country than at home. Pretty cold comfort.

Re:LEarn the History

[Poligraf]

It depends.
One of the hostages taken by Hesbollah was taken in Switzerland.

Countries that fight terrorism (Russia, Israel) should be able to do so without yelping of the leftist Human Rights groups that protect only the rights of terrorists now.

Re:LEarn the History

[jiheison]

Doesn't the incident in Switzerland disprove your assertion then? Apparently, Mossad is not a deterant.

I am grateful for the groups that do such a good job of protecting my human rights that I can almost take them for granted. If more people on this earth could live their lives free of opression and persecution, there might be fewer desperate enough to resort to terror, or at least fewer willing to support them (there is no deterent for insanity). If that means giving due process to a few criminals, that is a worthy trade off. Terrorism pales in comparison to tyranny.

Re:LEarn the History

[Poligraf]

No, it doesn't. It was not a public action intended for scaring Israel like the murder at the Olympics was.

As for your second writing, you've obviously not understood what I told you here:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=21582&cid=22 91 125

You think in your leftist naivette that everyone is like you and thinks about the life of a peaceful Philistine (I don't know if it's a right word). I am sure that people like Che Gevara, Carlos "The Jackal", Osama Bin-Laden and Arafat would become terrorists whatever the environment would surround them. There are these who act of desperation, but they are the ones who explode themselves, not the ones who give them explosives and direct them. These others are professional terrorists, and Israel is now trying to eliminate this kind of masterminds who make terror possible.

You don't need to go farther than your leftist collegues who can't protest peacefully at the globalist summits; they vandalize everything around and wound police just to prove their point. They cry about peace and law, but break the laws and shatter peace in the process.

I don't know if you like good science fiction, but if you do, try finding an old book called "Fury" by Henry Kuttner. Read it, and you'll understand that people like Sam (hero of the book) can't find themselves in regular life you're advocating.

Re:LEarn the History

[jiheison]

Whatever the cause, do you dispute that Israeli's are far more secure outside of Israel at this point?

It's obvius that you have not botherd to learn anything about these four figures, so I won't attempt to have a rational discussion with you about them.

Based on what do you presume to tar me as a "Leftist?" The fact that I don't support your blood-lust? The fact that I think that terrorists should be brought to justice, and not summarily killed? How is the WTO opposition's fetish for mayhem and desire to shout down their opponents any different from yours? You decry their disrespect for peace and law, and yet you support the circumvention of both to further your own agenda.

Terrorists can not be reasoned with. However, to attempt to destroy them without understanding their cause is like trimming a weed and leaving the roots in tact.

Thanks for the book reccomendation, I'll check it out.

Re:LEarn the History

[Poligraf]

I am not disputing the safety of Israelis abroad; it was me who told that Israeli delegations are now pretty safe there because of the hunt for terrorists that murdered their sportsmen.

I presume you to be a leftist based on your conclusion that "Everything is the fault of corporations and globalisation" ( http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=21582&threshol d=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=2288272 ).

Speaking of the blood-lust and laws, you don't understand the difference between the mob and the war. Mob should be dealt with by police according to the law. When you have an act of war, you deal with it by different laws. You don't need a jury decision to shoot an enemy soldier, and terrorists ARE ENEMY SOLDIERS. Period. BTW, I wholehartedly approve the actions of the US that decided to find the offenders first, and act second. I don't belong to 20% of Americans who want to "bomb anything right now".

And your post shows that you don't even want to understand my arguments about different values for different cultures (and I know at least something here because I lived in two different countries during the course of my life).

You just continue talking about understanding their cause. I'm trying to tell that some people are going to become terrorists whatever the cause and reason are. It's like the criminals - extrapolating your thoughts will produce an obviously false conclusion that all criminals are impowerished and oppressed desperados. Sure, some of them are, but your position will not explain the crime among wealthy and middle-class (and even some of the lower than middle class people).

If you can't discourage would be murderers and rapists in the wealthy America and Europe, you won't be able to curb terrorism just by giving everybody money and some form of freedom (it might look like a paradox, but the amount of freedom Arabs with Israeli passports have is higher than in any Arab country).

Re:LEarn the History

[Poligraf]

Also, I've looked at your original post that started this thread.

And YES, Israeli actions has reduced the terrorists' ability to strike dramatically. They estimate that only a few percents of potential terrorists get to Israel proper. If it would not be for the Mossad, the death toll among Israels' peaceful popuation would become unbearable thus prompting a full-scale military intervention (like it happened in 1956).

Re:LEarn the History

[jiheison]

I am not disputing the safety of Israelis abroad.

Nor am I. I was simply drawing an obvious conclusion from your own counter example to your earlier statement.

I presume you to be a leftist based on your conclusion that "Everything is the fault of corporations and globalisation"

Read my comment in its entirety. Then listen to what bin Laden is saying. The longer you fail to understand their motivations, the longer you will fail to stem the hatred that they represent.

When you have an act of war, you deal with it by different laws.

Without an enemy you can identify, declaring 'war' is just rhetoric. It is an attempt to pre-justify indiscriminate mayhem and destruction. It allows us to rain bombs and missles on foreign lands without so much as a shred of proof that the people we are killing are in any way responsible for the crimes committed in this country. We are simply lowering ourselves to the level of the terrorist who declared war on us first. In both cases it is just a an attempt to rationalize violent extremism.

And your post shows that you don't even want to understand my arguments about different values for different cultures (and I know at least something here because I lived in two different countries during the course of my life).

I have lived in two different countries as well. How you could live outside the US and recoginze the cultural differences that exist and fail to understand the animosity towards America is quite puzzling.

There is no deterent to madness. But there is to desperation and resentment, and we should be doing something about it. The only alternative is to ignore the causes and hunt down the perpetrators after they do their damage. As is evident in Israel, even the most ruthless efforts to exterminate our enemies will not eleimiate them all. So next time only one jetliner will be crashed into a skyscraper?

Last of all, keep in mind that I fully support the prosecution of any terrorist or conspirator. I simlpy suggest that in addition to this, we address some of the causes from which these people draw support. Writing them off as madmen will solve nothing.

Re:LEarn the History

[jiheison]

Cold comfort for those who continue to lose loved ones because Israel's reactionary extremism fails to address the root of the vendetta against them.

Re:LEarn the History

[Poligraf]

Address the root of the problem?

You mean, disappear from the Earth? :-(
Arabs won't stop unless Jews disappear ...

Re:LEarn the History

[jiheison]

Arabs won't stop unless Jews disappear

From the land they took from Arabs.

Re:LEarn the History

[Poligraf]

"From the land they took from Arabs. "

Land that belonged to Ottoman Empire of Turks?
Land that was changing hands many times - through Romans and Crusaders? Land that could contain both states?

Now I understand. You question the legitimacy of Israel at all. So, be kind enough, please, to return California and Texas to Mexico; Florida to Spain and everything that is left to Native Americans.

Re:LEarn the History

[jiheison]

Land that was taken by force as reparation for crimes commited against Jews by Europeans, not Arabs. Land which the Israeli's are no more willing to share in any meaningful sense than Arabs.

You are right. Than land has changed hands many times. Maybe it is time for it to change hands again. I do question Israels legitimacy. Their has presence destablized an entire region and their conflict is spreading rapidly. As far as I am concerned, no one's seperatist religious ambitions are worth the price the world has paid to prop up Israel.

Do you think that the plight of Native Americans is more similar to that of Israelis, or Palestinians? Mexico was a creation of Spain, which took it and Florida from the same Native Americans that you insult with your specious rhetoric. If you are going to be glib, at least be thorough and get your history straight.

Re:LEarn the History

[Poligraf]

Hey, man! Do you know what is your biggest problem? It is yuor self-righteousness that leads you to grand delusions and prevents you from seeing what is going on on this Earth.

"Read my comment in its entirety."

I've read it again. There will always be terrorism and violence _unless people change_.

Hatred is unconscious irrational thing that LOOKS FOR RATIONAL EXPLANATIONS to present itself.

It looks like I'll send you to another reading quest. Read as much as you can find about Ethology - the science of instincts - and you'll understand that we're not that far from monkeys. It tells that racism and national hatred are just an instinctive (read: unconscious) program gone awry.

All the other in that post is pure and undiluted leftist dogma.

"Without an enemy you can identify, declaring 'war' is just rhetoric. It is an attempt to pre-justify indiscriminate mayhem and destruction."

It is more than rhetoric. It means becoming aware of the seriousness of the problem and making steps towards resolving it.

Also, do you know the difference between berserk (sp?) and samurai? You can fight without fighting or being hateful or violent.

"I have lived in two different countries as well. How you could live outside the US and recoginze the cultural differences that exist and fail to understand the animosity towards America is quite puzzling. "

What countries, at what age, for how long?

I can explain the animosity:
1) "They are different" - CLOSED-MINDNESS (study ethology).
2) "They are big and powerful" - FEAR.
3) ENVY.

America, certainly, is not sinless, but most of the crap is in their own minds; it's almost always true for any hatred. Example: these 21% of Americans who want to "bomb something right now" just demonstrate their fears and denial.

"There is no deterent to madness. But there is to desperation and resentment, and we should be doing something about it. The only alternative is to ignore the causes and hunt down the perpetrators after they do their damage. "

This is one of your biggest assumptions that is just plain wrong. You can do NOTHING with their desperation and resentment because you can't give everyone everything they want. As soon as they get something they wanted they are going to demand even more. What you will achieve is just increase their appetites. Two examples:

1) Hitler and Czechs. Bastards Chamberlain and D'Aladie (sp?) thought that appeasing Hitler and giving him Czech areas of Sudet mountains will satisfy him and make him stop the expansion. You know the result :-(

2) Arafat. In 1993 he has got anything but his own state and the dynamics since then were giving him more and more land.

His actions - stealing money from his own people and building a terror infrastructure. He has given NOTHING in return! After he got the most generous offer possible he started the terror campain.

Your misconception (tipical American one) is that compromise is the attribute of the strong. Guess what - in Middle East as well as in the East it is considered an attribute of weak. If you don't show an image of force, you're screwed. This is why I think that peace between Israel and Arabs is possible only after a war where Israel beats the crap out of them (the way it happened in 1977 with Egypt that would not be possible without Israel's win of the 1973 war). While they think they can win a war, they won't go the peace route.

"As is evident in Israel, even the most ruthless efforts to exterminate our enemies will not eleimiate them all. "

Even the most ruthless? Are you out of your mind? "Most ruthless" is Pol Pot, Stalin or Hitler, all of which were able to exterminate any opposition (The only opposition to Hitler appeared towards the end of the War when Germany was losing).

Re:LEarn the History

[Poligraf]

Land where enough Jews were living even before the WW2.

Israelis ARE willing to share as long as they are left alone.

" I do question Israels legitimacy. Their has presence destablized an entire region and their
conflict is spreading rapidly. As far as I am concerned, no one's seperatist religious ambitions
are worth the price the world has paid to prop up Israel. "

You know, buddy, if Arabs can't resign themselves to Israel's existence and live peacefully with the Jews, they won't be able to live with any other culture, and they just don't deserve getting appeased.

And you're supposedly coming from the country that talks about diversity and understanding everybody ... Conclusion: all your righteous words are just words.

Native Americans would like to share and live peacefully with Whites. It was Whites who wanted to have everything. They were stronger technologically and and took everything for themselves.

Jews would like to share and live peacefully with Arabs. It was Arabs who wanted the world without Jews. They thought they were stronger and tried to butcher Israelis many times, but lost.

See similarities? ;-)

Re:LEarn the History

[jiheison]

Israelis ARE willing to share as long as they are left alone.

Left alone to grab even more land? Left alone to bulldoze Palestinian settlements? As I said, not in any meaningful sense. Israel is the only part of the world where anyone even makes a feeble attempt to rationalize this kind of imperialism.

There were plenty of Native Americans who did not want to share their land with Whites. Are you sure that you are not a Leftist? I mean, talk about liberal propaganda!

Jews would like to share and live peacefully with Arabs.

Sure, as long as they are in control. As long as they can take any land they want, regardless of who is living there. As long as they can cut off resources such as water to Arabs when there is not enough to go around. Funny how now that you are talking about Israel, you think it is okay for the powerful to bully the weak. I say cut of US military support to Israel, and lets see who is really weak. Seems like a great way to leave them alone! Since they are so righteous and powerful, I'm sure they can survive cut off from the US welfare roles. And its good to know that you would support the Arabs, should they manage to win against an Israel without US weapons and money. I was beginning to think that you were a hypocrite.

Re:LEarn the History

[Poligraf]

"Left alone to grab even more land? Left alone to bulldoze Palestinian settlements? As I said, not in any meaningful sense. Israel is the only part of the world where anyone even makes a feeble attempt to rationalize this kind of imperialism. "

Bullshit.
Majority of Israelis dream about leaving these territories. Everything they do is to uproot terrorists. BTW, read this:

http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/intimidation. ht ml

Also, you've forgotten about Chinese who say about "Tibet always being part of China" (but only China you think about is Chyna ;-). You don't think about Northern Ireland that Brits can't leave even despite they don't need it. You don't think about "Great Albania", about genocides in Africa. You only think about tiny piece of land where always persecuted and threatened by enemies Jews try to make a living.

Who are you after that?

" I say cut of US military support to Israel, and lets see who is really weak. Seems like a great way to leave them alone! Since they are so righteous and powerful, I'm sure they can survive cut off from the US welfare roles."

Study history, buddy.
You'll notice that such a support started only after USSR opened unlimited credit to Arabs for weaponry and military training. US had pretty much nothing to do with Israel before; Israelis were buying arms from France.

BTW, you speak about welfare. Do you know how much of American welfare Egypt is getting? Not much less than Israel.

And unlike Egypt, Israel is paying America back. Do you know how much of the most advanced Soviet military technics was given to the US by Israel who was able to get it through bravery and military skills? Do you know how much money were Amerecans able to save on that?

Re:LEarn the History

[jiheison]

http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/intimidation.ht ml

This is partisan nonsense that glosses over equivalent behavior on the Israeli side. Let's not forget that Iraeli's side has vastly greater and more sympathetic coverage. This is as laughable as the claim that the US media is controlled by a liberal consipracy.

Also, you've forgotten about Chinese who say about "Tibet always being part of China" (but only China you think about is Chyna ;-). . .You only think about tiny piece of land where always persecuted and threatened by enemies Jews try to make a living.

For the record, I think that Chyna is rather hideous. Moreover, I think that China needs to leave Tibet and Taiwan alone. In fact your, assumption that I support any of these imperialist actions is baseless. It is you who is making excuses for this behavior on behalf of Israel.

You'll notice that such a support started only after USSR opened unlimited credit to Arabs for weaponry and military training. US had pretty much nothing to do with Israel before; Israelis were buying arms from France.

Well the USSR is gone (maybe you should brush up on recent history). But that is besides the point. Sans foreign military aid on both sides, the Israelis would not have a chance agains the Arabs.

BTW, you speak about welfare. Do you know how much of American welfare Egypt is getting? Not much less than Israel.

If it isn't for humantitarian purposes, I say cut off Egypt too.

BTW:
Egypt = 1,000,000+ sq miles, 67,000,000+ population
Israel = 20,000+ sq miles, 5,800,000+ population

Please explain to me how Israel is entitled to more aid. (Maybe you could brush up on geography as well.)

And with the benefit of hindsight, all that military intelligence proved to be pretty worthless. Thanks anyway though.

Re:LEarn the History

[Poligraf]

"This is partisan nonsense that glosses over equivalent behavior on the Israeli side. Let's not
forget that Iraeli's side has vastly greater and more sympathetic coverage. "

BS again.

Israel is democratic country, and press is free. You can write about everything sans military secrets. Compare that to Arabs who censor everything.

Read this site (especially, how it started): http://www.honestreporting.com/

"In fact your, assumption that I support any of these imperialist actions is baseless. It is you who is making excuses for this behavior on behalf of Israel. "

It is you who attacks Israel without even trying to understand it a bit because your words about "understanding everyone" are just words. You prefer "trying to understand" Bin Laden.

"Sans foreign military aid on both sides, the Israelis would not have a chance agains the
Arabs. "

Keep dreaming, buddy. ALL wars were won by Israel not because of the military help from the US (USSR provided Arabs with much more help), but because of bravery and military prowess of Israelis.

"If it isn't for humantitarian purposes, I say cut off Egypt too. "

It is not for humanitarian purposes; it's the same military help as Israel is getting.

"Please explain to me how Israel is entitled to more aid. (Maybe you could brush up on geography
as well.) "

If you think that aid is provided by the territory size or the population numbers, you're just not that bright. I'll give you a couple of hints about Israel:
1) State-controlled media does not call US State Secretary a fool in Israel; it also doesn't make fun of the US Ambassador's religion;
2) The angry mobs don't go on rampage and pillage McDonalds' franchises as symbols of "American Imperializm" because they disagree with the American policy. No Anti-American histeria in Israel.
3) You might be familiar with the concept of loyalty. Israel stands by the US all the time (I can give you examples), and not just pays a lip service to it. Israel genuinely griefs about the barbarian act in NY, and not sends a half-hearted condolences while significant parts of its population cheer.
4) Israel is a true Western Democracy and not a puppet regime whose army "discourages" parts of the population from voting.

Need more?

"And with the benefit of hindsight, all that military intelligence proved to be pretty worthless."

Dirty lie. Newest Soviet military equipment that the US got helped US not to lose in the arms race.

BTW, do you know why I don't consider myself Leftist?
1) I'm not an idiot who believes that everyone thinks like me;
2) I'm not an idiot who believes that free speech and free beer is enough to satisfy anyone;
3) I believe in personal responsibility.

Re:LEarn the History

[jiheison]

BS again.

How about producing an impartial source? If this ironic, sanctimonious pap is all you read I can see where your attitude comes from.

It is you who attacks Israel without even trying to understand it a bit because your words about "understanding everyone" are just words. You prefer "trying to understand" Bin Laden.

I can practically see the flecks of foam in the corner of your mouth. The fact that zealots like you are the only ones standing up for Israel is proof enough of its illegitimacy.

Keep dreaming, buddy. ALL wars were won by Israel not because of the military help from the US (USSR provided Arabs with much more help), but because of bravery and military prowess of Israelis.

[Que laugh track]

It is not for humanitarian purposes; it's the same military help as Israel is getting

Like I said. If this is the case, cut them both off.

If you think that aid is provided by the territory size or the population numbers, you're just not that bright. I'll give you a couple of hints about Israel:

I never said that was how aid is calculated. I merely wonder why such a statistically insignificant country deserves any aid at all, let alone more than one that is orders of magnititude larger.

Hints 1-3 boil down to one fact. Israeli's kiss America's ass becuase they know that they are history if they ever lose our favor. Deal with it.

Point four is true, insofar as Israel pays lip service to "liberty" and "democracy" while persecuting its troublesome detractors and
threatening any one who stands in the way of its Imperialistic ambitions. Congradulations.

Regardless, as Israel becomes more and more of a strategic liability, none of these reasons will help them.

Newest Soviet military equipment that the US got helped US not to lose in the arms race.

No one lost the arms race, genius. The cold war was not one by military superiority.

1) I'm not an idiot who believes that everyone thinks like me;

You are an idiot who thinks that everyone who does not think like you is wrong by definition.

2) I'm not an idiot who believes that free speech and free beer is enough to satisfy anyone;

You are an idiot who thinks that only you and your partisans are entitled to either.

3) I believe in personal responsibility.

You are an idiot blindly supports a country that can claim no responsibility for its own survival or even its founding.

Re:LEarn the History

[jiheison]

Hatred is unconscious irrational thing that LOOKS FOR RATIONAL EXPLANATIONS to present itself.

I guess you are off the hook then. None of your explanations are rational.

It looks like I'll send you to another reading quest. Read as much as you can find about Ethology - the science of instincts - and you'll understand that we're not that far from monkeys. It tells that racism and national hatred are just an instinctive (read: unconscious) program gone awry.

Thanks, I'll look into it. Frankly, I suspect that your argument is to Ethology what Social Darwinism is to Darwinism. That is, a specious attempt to justify your arguments based on an analogous scientific theory. Basically, an attempt to exuse morally abhorant behavior based on science. Not surprising really. You probably think that Israwli's have better guns because they are genetically superior. Some of us recognize that we have developed the will to overcome our base instincts. Apparently you have not. If (as you insist) this is true of Israel, that hardly lends to the legitimacy of their state.

But even if we take you assertion as fact and apply it to all humanity, one must conclude that Israeli's are no more moral than Palestinians.

Also, do you know the difference between berserk (sp?) and samurai? You can fight without fighting or being hateful or violent.

Actually, I do (and if you thnk that samurai fought without hatred or violence, clearly you do not). I am all for a rational and justifiable fight against terrorists. I am not for nuking the Arabs or carpet bombing Afghanistan, as are many of the reactionaries on your side of this argument. I am not for responding to rocks with bullets and responding to bullets with shells. I am not for using air to ground missles to kill alledged criminals. I am not for suicide bombings. All of this madness is of the same vein. None of it is worthy of a civilised people.

You can do NOTHING with their desperation and resentment because you can't give everyone everything they want.

If removing our troops from their holy land and reliquishing our military influence over their countries is what they want, then yes we can.

As soon as they get something they wanted they are going to demand even more.

I don't recal Arabs asking the US for anything until we showed up on their doorstep looking to protect their interests. The Israeli's however are forever begging for more money and more guns to further their murderous tyranny.

1) Hitler and Czechs.

Israel will soon find itself on the wrong side of this comparison. By your logic it is past time to revoke Israels carte blanche to occupy other peoples lands. There quixotic quest to maintain their state will never suceed until they exterminate all of Palestine, which is what they are trying to do.

This is why I think that peace between Israel and Arabs is possible only after a war where Israel beats the crap out of them

You said it dude. Israel is a warlike state that can only survive by being a perpetual aggressor. If it were big enough to be worth protecting, that would be fine. As it stands, all that war is hardly justifiable.

Even the most ruthless? Are you out of your mind? "Most ruthless" is Pol Pot, Stalin or Hitler, all of which were able to exterminate any opposition (The only opposition to Hitler appeared towards the end of the War when Germany was losing).

Are you out of your mind? I'll let history speak for itself on all three of these monsterous failures.

Re:What can be done about terrorism? - We help

[kaltan]

Yesterday, within 24h after the first crash, Belgium sent their top experts in fire wound handling with a military airplane to NY. (They are the best from Europe). Other countries also sent their best expert people to help you.

Europe has declared (article 5) that it considers itself also as attacked by these terrorists. Not many Europeans are happy about this because when the US go into war, we go into war and we did not forget our wars yet (WWII, Jougoslavia). So it was not an easy decision

Yesterday evening, i was discussing with my friends about what happened. And, yes, the foreign policy of America was believed to be *a* cause of the hate against America (look at the Palestinians, they consider each attack of Israel as an attack of the US). So ! Did we decide that it was your fault and we shouldn't intervene ? No ! Like i said before we have not forgotten our previous wars, so America will be our friend and ally for a long time.

But we still believe we should together look for a solution to :

1. Stop the terrorist leaders (elimination)

2. Stop the hate

You can not imagine how the Palestinians start hating America when Israel has in the past build illegal colonist settlements and fired upon them, and America does not even say that Israel should stop these actions. They feel they are underdogs (and they are).

Another case, when American fighters bomb iraq, we get a small article somewhere in our newspapers, but overthere, the news is front page, and covered for several days how "the coward americans attack civilian targets" (indeed, the US blow up a radar post, the iraquee say it was a farm)

Uncareful intervention leads to hate.

The world is an interacting system, when you pull a string in the middle east, something will move in America. So pull carefully.

What An Idiot!

[Poligraf]

Your problem is that you judge the entire world by your views as many leftists do. You think that "free speech and free beer" can make anybody view the world and behave like you do.

Guess, what. One of the main causes for this attack was the arrogance of idiots like you who don't want to see that the world consists of different cultures, and many of them laugh at your values and don't care about them. You can give them tons of beer and free speech, but they will just consider you a weakling and murder you in a cold blood because it's the way they are raised and educated.

Hopefully, the Western world makes the right conclusion from this tragedy and finally understands that diversity is not just two Americans who have different skin color or religion, but cultures that are completely different in their view of life.

And they will understand that you can't expect of everybody to behave like you and repeat all your dogmas and mantras.

And they will properly evaluate the threat of terrorism and show that it will not achieve the terrorist's goals.

Re:What An Idiot!

[MentalPunisher2001]

Just like we were SOOO tolerant towards communists, right??
Oh, wait, we are always right - nevermind.

2nd amendment!

[Julian Morrison]

Here's a totally contrariwise view to the mainstream: to prevent terrorism, allow weapons on planes.

Not guns (depressurization, fuel, fancy electrics and hydraulics that don't take well to bullet holes) and not tazers (fuel sparks) but such things as knives and tranquilizer dart pistols should be allowed, even encouraged. All staff should be prominently armed and trained in weapons use as a matter of course; it would be much harder to take over a plane full of passengers and staff armed to the teeth. "More guns less crime" works groundside, and I expect it would work airborne too.

On as positive note, "don't sacrifice freedom" is already spreading as a concept well beyond the confines of slashdot: witness this fox news article: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34300,00.html

New satellite image

[zardor]

Here is an IKONOS satellite image of the disaster area. (from yahoo news)
The image was taken on 11:43am EDT September 12.

More satellite images

[zardor]

Check out thespaceimaging web site for more satellite images, including 'before' and 'after' pictures of the WTC and the pentagon.

American companies != American people only

[Dwain_Snyders]

I work for one of the largest producers of Microprocessors in the world, based in the United States, but I was born, raised and educated in South Africa.

Know your enemy

[Simon Brooke]

One of the most foolish things you can do in a conflict is to under-rate your enemy.

A few terrorists lost their lives, to perform a dispicable and cowardly act, this is not bravery.

When our soldiers are involved in a war and embark on a mission which they know is going to lead to their deaths, we call them heroes - whether they succeed or not. The people who engaged in this attack - whatever you may think of their motivation - were in the highest degree professional, disciplined, competent and courageous. They carried out a mission behind 'enemy' (their enemy) lines. Their security was not breached. Three out of four of their targets were hit, two were destroyed. And they died, as they knew they would.

That makes them an elite military unit. Yes, we don't like what they did. Yes, we don't agree with their motivations. But if you think of them as 'cowards', or any other belittling term, they will hit you again and again because you will not set up defences which are proof against elite professionals. Belittling your enemy breeds complancency, and complacency leads to defeat.

Respect these men. They are supremely disciplined, superbly organised, totally unafraid. If you do not respect them, you will not beat them.

A bit of a naive statement on your part.

[Dwain_Snyders]

You're assuming here that these (American) companies are confined to a talent pool located within the United States. I can assure you, as an individual raised and educated in South Africa and now working for one of these (American) companies, that this is not the case at all.

Re:A bit of a naive statement on your part.

[JAVAC THE GREAT]

Point taken.

Waiting 14 seconds to post..[...x20].. oh now it's a "junk character post" AND NOW I NEED TO WAIT ANOTHER 6 SECONDS and now it's a junk character post AGAIN, deleting periods..

Re:A bit of a naive statement on your part.

[DivineOb]

My good friend dwain... got bored fooling mods with fake computer architecture language so now you're claiming to be from south africa?

Another group of idiots

[Poligraf]

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=21582&cid=2291 125

Re:What can be done? Nothing.

[Water Paradox]

They are extremely rational. They are some of the brightest, deep-thinking people on earth. They resort to terrorism because they feel they have no voice, and because they have not learned how to think through the long-term consequences of their actions. Most of us have that liability.

Let the terrorists kill each other. Some wear uniforms, some live in camps in the hills of Afghanistan. Some attack civilians, some don't. There is no need to join with terrorists; they will kill each other, given time.

You, and you alone, have the choice about what you do in your own life. Be no terrorist.

The meek will inherit the earth.

-Jared

Light a candle

[QuickFox]

At this Norwegian site you can light a candle for the victims.

Even Better Way

[Poligraf]

If their bodies will be recovered, they should be buried in a pig's skin that will automatically make them ineligible for Heaven. IIRC, Brits were using this method for discouraging potential Muslim terrorists.

Re:Why the Surprise?

[hanwen]

If the world hates us so much why have the Canadians, Russians, British, and even the Palestinian leaders all expressed their sorrow and sent their sympathies?

This disaster is so bad, you wouldn't want it to happen to your worst enemies.

Peace in the midst of chaos

[Water Paradox]

What makes this terrorism is that the citizens who were bombed were 'innocent.'

If we agree to bomb them back, we are no longer innocent. We will polarize the world in ways incomprehensible.

This is why Jesus said to turn the other cheek; thereby our innocence will last longer than the sting of death.

Who is inspired by violence? The violent. Who fears it? The fearful. We meek tolerate it, with eyes ever on more eternal things. There is always room for charity, all the way up to the throne room of God. Put charity first, and the things of this world will grow strangely dim.

Please do not attack back. Let us die, rather than kill. And that is the only thing worth dying for.

Father, help us be kind to the geeks who drive airplanes into buildings. Only a geek could be that single-minded. Help us find you.

Re:Peace in the midst of chaos

[pkesel]

What a remarkable troll. What you propose is to abandon all hope that the world can be salvaged for the living. You abandon all the innocent souls of all those who might know the peace and love of life and brotherhood. You forget that through this act the world has already been polarized. They have brought the wrath of the good people of the world together against them, Christian and non-Christian alike. Do you ignore the support and solidarity that the nations of the world have expressed? Do you discredit the statements of those non-Christian nations who have expressed sympathy? If you would open your eyes,ears, an heart to those around you rather than hide in your blinding faith you might see that this is also an opportunity to bring forces to drive the head of this serpent deep into the ground. Look in Deuteronomy 19.

[Deut 19:18] the judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely,

[Deut 19:19] then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother; so you shall purge the evil from the midst of you.

[Deut 19:20] And the rest shall hear, and fear, and shall never again commit any such evil among you.

[Deut 19:21] Your eye shall not pity; it shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

All this for the charge of bearing false witness. Those who have caused this have certainly brought false witness against those innocent people, condemning the innocent as the cause of their suffering. And in Deuteronomy 20 the rules of engagement are also described:

[Deut 20:10] "When you draw near to a city to fight against it, offer terms of peace to it.

[Deut 20:11] And if its answer to you is peace and it opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall do forced labor for you and shall serve you.

[Deut 20:12] But if it makes no peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it;

[Deut 20:13] and when the LORD your God gives it into your hand you shall put all its males to the sword,

Or if you prefer, Matthew:
[Mat 18:8] And if your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better for you to enter life maimed or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire.

[Mat 18:9.9] And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire.

There will be no peace with these perpetrators. They are to be thrown away, as they are the epitome of sin agains all people. When these people who stand in the way of peace and dialogue have been eradicated we will have the opportunity to sit down with one another and work for the peace that all good people deserve.

For the record, I am not a Christian. I follow no religion. But should you provoke me with Christian morals and ideas, I will respond in kind.

give to those orphaned in the WTC disaster

[Syre]

The New York Times
9/11 Neediest Fund

The New York Times 9/11 Neediest Fund is a one-month campaign established to collect contributions to relieve the suffering of families struck by death or injury in the World Trade Center calamity, both civilians and rescue workers.

The campaign is being managed by The New York Times Co. Neediest Cases Fund, which will, as with the annual Neediest Cases campaign, cover all administrative costs.

Contributions will be accepted through October 11 and then be allocated to the seven social service agencies which disburse funds in the annual Neediest Cases campaign, plus three foundations representing the uniform services. These are the Fire Safety Foundation, the Police Foundation, and the John Jay College of Criminal Justice Foundation, on behalf of Port Authority, Sanitation, and other agencies.

You can contribute online: http://prodpub.wavesys.com/cw/donations.asp?charit y=neediest911

Donations can also be sent to:

The New York Times 9/11 Neediest Fund
P.O. Box 5193
General Post Office
New York, NY 10087

Your Allegations Are Just Stupid

[Poligraf]

You think Israel will risk its only ally that is equal to its existance for simplifying its fight with terrorism?

Big NO. They are not THAT stupid. Also, European leftists will continue its policy of "Don't touch innocent Palestinians".

If you want to look at other big winners:
1) Russia. It does pretty much get a cart blanche for continuing eradicating the Chechen terrorists. Also, chances for the Bush's ABM system are getting much slimmer.

2) France.
French are rolling shit at Israel because they hope to displace Americans as the supplier of arms to Saudis and other less extremist Arab regimes.

Try to think how they will welcome the US retaliating against Muslim terrorist and contries that support it.

Re:You're right...and here's what to do.

[21mhz]

Osama likes to use cell phones

This reminds me... The Chechen separatist leader Djohar Dudaev was wiped out by a Russian missile tuned in to the signal of his satellite phone. At least, that's the most established public version.

The bastards tend to like tech toys of the very civilization that they hate. Maybe they should learn how these toys can kill?

Everyone with PVR rips, put them up on WinMX

[tgd]

Any shows you've got on your PVR -- if you can rip them, Divx encode them and run WinMX... get the files out there. People should search for them and download them. Keep them spread out.

The PVR idea is great. But widely distributing this historical record is just as important.

Right Of Return is BullShit

[Poligraf]

Didn't you know that after the creation of Israel not only about 600,000 Arabs ran away from what became the 1949 borders of Israel, but also about 600,000 Jews were necessary to leave everything behind and run from Arab countries to Israel?

Their property left was estimated at $30 BLN. So, this entire refugee problem was the result of Arab states not letting the Arab refugees out of the camps.

Unlike Arabs, Jewish refugees were able to live as a citizens of Israel with all rights according to this status.

BTW, Jews who decided not to leave Arab countries were persecuted and many of them were executed.

Microsoft Relief Effort

[Anonymous Coward]

This story says: SEATTLE (Reuters) - Microsoft Corp. (Nasdaq:MSFT - news) said on Thursday it is giving $5 million in cash and $5 million in software and services to help relief groups and government agencies deal with the devastating attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon (news - web sites). The cash would go to the September 11 Fund set up by the United Way of New York and The New York Community Trust, Microsoft President Rick Belluzzo told employees in a memo made available to Reuters. The twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon -- the U.S. military command center -- were hit by hijacked commercial airliners on Tuesday, leaving thousands of people believed dead. Microsoft, which makes the Windows computer operating system, also encouraged its 44,000 employees to make personal donations, for which the software giant would make matching donations of up to $12,000 per year, Belluzzo said. The Redmond, Washington-based company was also working with local blood banks to organize a campus blood drive soon, he said. Microsoft was assembling response teams to help customers in New York and at the Pentagon rebuild their computer networks, Belluzzo said. With a cash pile of about $31 billion, Microsoft is one of the richest corporations in the world. It donates tens of millions of dollars in cash, software and services each year to help charities and nonprofit and relief organizations

A chilling message from the enemy -

[emxbkk]

Consider the events with the following angle, and then maybe it could be argued that whoever has commandeered this is sending an hidden warning that more is to come.
1. It has been established that at many US domestic airports it would be easy for determined attackers to smuggle weapons on board.
2. The terrorists who sponsored this attack obviously have sufficient funding. They could have smuggled in lots of expensive and sophisticated weaponry. They didn't.
3. They knew that all their tactical options were likely to get partially compromised during their execution, as pilots report mayhem and flight controllers detect unauthorized change of flight plans.
4. They must have planned that partial coverage of the audacious way the hijackers seized the plane would leak out to authorities and media.
5. They have - according to the world medias at 11:40 GMT - only used cutlery. Knives, razors, cutters, that's all. 3 to 6 people on each plane according to police reports.

MESSAGE FROM THE ENEMY:
" Look at what we can do with a few knives. Wait until you see what we can do with more offensive weapons and more cunning plans you are not prepared for. "

Re:What can be done? Nothing.

[Water Paradox]

Do not listen to the man who is not willing to suffer with you.

Aye, you struck on the very essence of Christianity.

Jesus resurrected so we could all realize that standing there "being killed" was bearable. He did not tell people to do more than he did. He asks a lot--your heart broken, your spirit contrite... do you REALIZE what it takes to break a heart?

Lift up your cross. Otherwise, I will die for you, too. For I will not lift up that gun. A true Christian could never be convinced to drive a plane into a building. We would all rather be killed first.

-Jared and Jesus

I am sick of all of this bullshit....

[FirstNoel]

First off I am a US citizen and proud of it! MY country is the best damn country in the world. If any other Americans don't think so then GET THE FUCK OUT!!! We don't want you here!!

People can bullshit all day long as to hopw the US had this coming...This is ludicrous, utterly!

We in the US have it very good, even some of the very impoverished are still 10X better than the lowest low in other countries. We do our damndest to help. And all we get from the world is stabbed in the back. I'm not saying we're perfect, but we always try to help.

For example:
World wide catastrophes:
Any time there is an earthquake, volcanoe, drought, hurricane (typhoon), anything...We the US will be there to help. Pouring Billions of dollars into the problems of the world.

When was the last time someone helped us? The Los Angeles earthquake. Who helped? if you can name me another country, you are a better man than I. I can't remember any. All the tornados that go through the central US every year flattening towns...who helps? No one. We handle this ourselves.

After WW2...who propped up Europe, providing Billions in loans that never were repayed (even the interest was forgiven) The US that's who.

We are not a perfect country. Our government has mad grievious mistakes in the past, BUT that does not give anyone EVER the right to fly in here and attack the innocent civilians.

During the Gulf War Schwarzkof said we took extreme care to avoid collateral damage, Our intent was not to harm civilians. Hell, you could see it when the ground troops were rolling in...the soldiers were surrendering...did we shoot them? NO, we gave them better care than thier own goverenment.

To quote Gen Schwarzkof "...these bastards come in here and take out as many civilians as possible" it really makes you question our judgement.

If the US would pull out of the world stage...What would happen? total chaos...this world would be in ruin. What do you honestly think that China or Russia could do our part? If you do you are an idiot.

We do so much for this world...and we get spat on. Like I said are we perfect? Hell no! But we do have the best thing going...

I love my country and I hope we continue our ways of helping out everyone else.

I' am afraid that this time these assholes have "awoken the sleeping giant" and this giant is PIST.

So get off your high horses and realize the magnitute of Tuesday.

Sean D.

Sorry about the rant, but I am sick of assholes dissing my country. Also sorry about the spelling.

What people aren't saying about Tuesday

[magnetHEAD]

I had read some reports that the Isreali government was consider reports that the attacks at the wtc and pentagon were backed by Saddam. Why is no one talking about this?

It seemed like the two or three places I read about this were credible (cnn, cnet, others) and it does seem to make that creepy logical sense that you find in situations like these.

In life most times what you think is going on, 99% of the time ends up being what was actually going on. Sure I could see this being the work of Laden, but aren't alot of those groups just mercenary establishments for hire? In that case, the people flying the planes could have been (at one point) connected to bin Laden, and then just moved to a different area or seperated themselves and been hired by another government.

I keep drilling my brain trying to find out who benefits from these activities, and surely this is not about one man's ego (or mistaken belief in a righteous god that demands this action) Or maybe I'm naive and a god like that really does exist.

Makes me think of that scene in The Last Temptation, axe in the sand after an evening with the devil.

*holds breath as he's moderated under*

too many failures !

[dario_moreno]

let's sum it up :

the FBI arrested one month ago an Algerian,
and the french secret service warned them
that the suspect had a "pedigree long as an
arm" linking him to Bin Laden, he also
had Boeing manuals and related stuff

The hijackers at Boston airport matched several
of the criteria for suspicion, and were not
searched : Arabic names and passports,
4 one-way last minute tickets bought by the same
credit card. One guy looked for several minutes
at an X-Ray machines and avoided eye
contact with the staff.

The authorities had almost one hour to
react between the first and the last crash,
and did not scramble at least one jet
to just "follow" the hijacked planes,
as occurs in other countries.

I am on the verge of thinking that
someone wants a war with Irak in order
to secure approvision in oil, or at least
to make huge benefits of rising prices.

Donations go over $2 Million

[Captain_Simian]

This truly shows how generous people become in times of need, with internet donations alone amassing to such an impressive amount. Also judging by the common donations made by Gates ($5 billion to the William H. Gates foundation in 1999) a $25K donation would seem very, very strange. The outpouring of emotion for the victims of this horrendous act of cowardice has been high all across the world. I live in Australia, and many, many people I know have broken down over this and are angered by comments about the Nostradamus quote. I share their sentiments on this topic, people who use the loss of these people's lives to feel clever because they can quote a long since lost person are a disturbed group, I have only feelings of contempt and disgust for these people. CS Enough of my ranting the world has more important issues.

How hard is it REALLY to secure a plane?

[EvilNight]

Ok look, I'm just getting sick of people saying you cannot secure an aircraft against hijackers. That is total bullshit. We can make those things as secure as tanks and military jets, it just requires a little paradigm shift in airplane design. For example...

Separate the cockpit/flight deck from the rest of the airplane. No way through, period, and make the bulkhead that separates them capable of withstanding just about any attack. The flight deck is entered from the OUTSIDE of the plane via a separate door. Once in the air there is no way in hell anyone can get from the passenger area into the flight deck or vice-versa.

True, this doesn't make it impossible to hijack, however it makes it several of orders of magnitude harder to do, and a bunck of knife wielding psychos are not going to be able to hijack an aircraft with that kind of design. It would take a well equipped military team to hijack something like that, and we'd notice that kind of equipment going on board.

Probably wouldn't be a bad idea to have closed circuit television that allows those on the flight deck to view what is happening in the rest of the plane. We might even want to transmit that data back to the airport now, we have the technology to do it.

What if the pilot has a problem? The flight crew is usually 5 people isn't it? We have a pilot, co-pilot, and an engineer at least? Hey, if all three of them somehow suffer a fatal heart attack the flight was doomed from the beginning, I'll take my chances with that one. The odds of that are a lot less than the odds of what happened on Tuesday happening again.

And why in hell isn't there a GPS transmitter or similar device in the standard "black box" that makes it easy to locate? AFAIK they don't do that. It would make them awfully easy to find...

A Question for you, sir. . .

[Fantastic Lad]

Thanks for your comments. I spend a great deal of time painfully aware of just how unreliable the state of news coverage is in the West. The level of propaganda here is sickening, and worse, the level of naivete in regard to it.

But keep in mind that Israel is probably just as bad. -This seems clear given the tone of your message, where you spend significant energy vilifying the Palestinians. People are people, and for the most part, we all have the same basic set of emotions and reactions to the same stimuli, with the only differences being linked primarily to the level of cultural and propagandic programming we have undergone. It seems that both sides in Israel have been set up to perpetuate pain and suffering.

Anyway. . . From the perspective of one who has been there, what is the real situation with the native Arab Israeli population? In the West, we are lead to believe that there is a significant level of unfairness and hatred felt by Jews toward this portion the Israeli population. Almost an apartheid situation. What is the situation from where you stand?

Thanks.

-Fantastic Lad

Re:A Question for you, sir. . .

[Jethro]

I'm sorry if I sound harsh with regard to the palestenians. I guess I just got so tired of the anti-Israeli propaganda that I came on a little strong.

When I, personally think about Palestenians, I do not think in anger or contempt or hatered, but in sorrow. A few posts above I describe how the situation was when I was groing up (20-20 years ago). Palestenians amongst Israelies were a common sight. We'd just come out of the last war, and people were starting to trust each other.

How it all exploded I do not know. I was too young.

As for what the situation is like. Well, I haven't been to Israel for three years, and the popular outlook seems to have changed since then, largely due to terrorism (witness Sharon being elected prime minister, replacing the peace-oriented government before him).

I always assumed most people, Israelies and Palestenians, want peace, want to simply be allowed to live their lives in peace and understanding. However, there are evildoers and war-mongers on both sides. Dissidents who cry War, Destruction, never forgive. These people get through to the easily influenced, and I'm afraid to say it looks like that's a lot easier to do in the Palestenian side. You could not easily convince an Israeli teenager to go blow himself up in a Palestenian marketplace because then he'll get 7 Maidens in Heaven. But you can teach him to fear and hate. And sooner or later he's going to be issued a uniform and rifle and given training and permission to use it.

I also believe now there cannot be Peace as long as Arafat speaks for the Palestenians. The Israeli government is less of an issue since that can get replaced on a regular basis - and hopefully the next one will be a peace-oriented one. I used to give Arafat the benefit of the doubt, but he's proven to be unwilling or unable to control terrorism.

Again, both sides have their assortment of noisy MORONS who do not want peace, because they don't know what a real war is. I'm personally content not to find out. I'm certain that if there was some soft of infrastructure (read: internet access) where YOUTHS from both sides could meet and talk, there would be a much better understanding. The war is caused by Old People who don't even remember what they're fighting for.

Red Cross needs our help

[DShor]

An article on TechTV says that the American Red Cross in Greater New York is putting out a call for help from techies. Anyone in the NY/NJ area with spare hardware/software should send them an e-mail. Please refer to the article for a list of needed hardware and software as well as contact information.

Red Cross Needs Tech Equipment!

[daoine]

techtv is reporting that the red cross needs tech donations -- by means of computers, equipment, and services.
Try not to slashdot it, and they also ask to only send in your contact request in once, since their mail server is overwhelmed.

Re:Friday's "Worldwide Caution" from Dept. of Stat

[msheppard]

That is interesting.

To those who think the intelligence agencies are doing nothing: I would be suprised if the FBI poseted every fact they had about their investigation on the internet and told CNN correspondents everything they have found our or knew.

If ?Laden? did warn us in any way about the details of the attack, it would have been very easy to thwart this particular attack.

I imagine the FBI has quite a bit of information, and they are already acting on much of it. I'd love to know the details, but I don't need to know so I'm glad I don't.

Authorization?

[CybrGuyRSB]

I thought there had to be some form of authorization before you can manually control an aircraft.

Maybe that's a good idea, but in this case (and most hijacking cases) the plane was already flying when it was hijacked.

Re:Authorization?

[Wolfier]

Hm...isn't the plane on autopilot as default?

Re:Authorization?

[CybrGuyRSB]

Based on this map it looks like the planes weren't flying straight (except for the one which crashed in PA) which makes me think that they were being manually controlled at the time.

Re:Arm Pilots - WITH GAS - KNOCK OUT EVERYONE

[graystar]

Why dont they just seal of the pilots from the passenger space. Then when there is a terrorist attack, simply release a gas. Just enough to knock out everyone within a short period of time.

Pilots land the plane. Police arrest drunk and groggy nuttos.

I guess the choice of gas would be important in terms of dosage. But im sure there would be something which is non-harmful but incapacitating.
Chemists? Doctors out there?

As long as you search for gas masks, can probably detect the chemicals in them. And make sure the oxygen things dont pop down.

Guns. . .

[Fantastic Lad]

My main problem with arming the population is that many of the people who are most likely to carry handguns are also morons who say things like, "Let's let the dogs of war loose on Afghanistan, nuclear style," and really mean it. (You can find that quote right here on /., not even on this story thread but on something completely unrelated.)

I know for a fact that if I'd been armed in highschool that I would have murdered one person over a stupid piece of nothing which seemed like a great deal more to my eighteen year old head space at the time.

If somebody could figure out how to only give fire power to wise, cool-headed people with no personal baggage or ego problems, then I'd be all for it. As it stands, I walk through the gay district in my city on the way to work each day, and one time some I was coming home late and some kid in a car lobbed an egg at me and caught me in the back of the head. All I could think seconds after was, "Jeezuz. That could have been a bullet." If I lived in a southern U.S. state rather than in a relatively crime free city in Canada, I might not have been thinking anything seconds afterwards at all.

Guns aren't evil, and I'd certainly like to have one or two for when my government tries to cart me off to a concentration camp for being too mouthy. But to be perfectly honest, I don't even trust myself entirely. And I certainly don't trust anybody who deludes themselves into believing that they are safe and cool and beyond error or the possibility of debilitating emotional outburst. And while one argument is that this very fear would enforce a level of politeness in society, I disagree with the notion. I'd rather live in a city where I don't have a constant tingle of fear in the back of my mind, where I can speak my mind without constantly having to worry about being shot by some low-ego wrestling fan with a legally carried handgun and something to prove.

-Fantastic Lad

Who profits from the attack?

[cernypetr]

Excuse my English please, I am not an American.
No matter weather the terrorists are Arabs, I would like to ask - who "operate" them? I do not believe that US secret service didn't know anything. Everybody is angry on terrorist but nobody asked, "Who is behind?" Who was interested to do such a think and why? I am afraid Usama Ibn Ladim has no facility to arrange such far - reaching conspiracy. If so, somebody had to "protect" him from disclosure. In Arabic world there is know tendency to terrorism and I do not wonder it. But there is no gain neither for Afghanistan nor for other to attack WTC.
I think, the consequence of this attack we can expect stronger laws. We can expect censorship, pursuance, monitoring of everything. The power of secret services will rise.
The society is changing. There are many problems as migration, climate change, etc. The society is under pressure and the pressure is rising. There is no democracy, no freedom if the society is under pressure (in the war for instance). I think the "coops" "know" it is necessary for the society to admit "unpopular" laws to survive. How to force an average American to agree?
No it is time to admit unpopular laws as SSSCA Carnivore installation, etc. If no, more terrorists are required to force Americans to change freedom against security.
The Orwell's word is rising.



Why I am reasoning this way:
1) Before the war in Caucasus, there war several bomb attacks on civil buildings. Several hundred people died. The nation has been unified against Chechen terrorist. In reality, KGB agents have done the bomb attack. Chechen people have no interest to do this. The nation has been unified, the war could begin.
2) During protests against WTO meeting in Prague in September 2000, some show-windows are destroyed. Everybody said: "antiglobalists = hooligans" Nobody has been interested in billions of Czech crowns spent for the meeting. Nobody asks. I see now.., everybody is angry..., "terrorists, let we judge them! , and nobody is interested behind visible.
3) It is called second Pearl Harbor. You know the history, the US Secret Service has been informed about the attack in advance. They did nothing. They had causes to do nothing.

Re:What can be done? Nothing.

[iphayd]

But there is not a lot of difference between those that created this, and Judas. There are also a lot of innocents that will die if we retaliate, and the crowd that called for the murder of Jesus (an innocent) could definitely be compared to the mob mentality of those calling for revenge.

We haven't even buried our dead, hell, we don't even know the death count, and our leaders are screaming revenge. They need to be calling for strength. They need to be calling for rebuilding. They need to be calling for reasonable security measures that would ensure that this does not happen again. They most definitely should NOT be calling for revenge before we can mourn our dead.

Sorry, but you're way behind the game.

[Fantastic Lad]

Your idea is certainly clever and genuinly intended, but I am willing to bet that the secret service people know exactly who and what and where. I think there is even a very strong possibility that they knew days, if not weeks before the attack.

In any case, the choreography currently unfolding is a piece of propagantic, manipulative garbage capitalizing on the deaths of thousands in order to install the first pieces of a world government. And that's not the sick part. The truly sick part is that the world government is already there and has been for years. This whole charade is just a giant P.R. maneuver/power grab.

Five years from now, you'll have many fewer rights, the poor & wretched of the world will be much poorer and much more wretched, and the power elite will be even better situated thanks to this latest chapter in their unfolding bullshit parade.

Watch and learn.

-Fantastic Lad

less SPAM for the past 2 days

[Peyna]

I've talked with a few other people, and we've all noticed we've been getting a lot less SPAM in the past 2 days, even on hotmail accounts, and accounts which get at least 20 - 30 per day. Maybe they all decided to give it a break too.

Re:less SPAM for the past 2 days

[shaitan_dawns]

Maybe people have decided SPAM is an act of terrorism and their afraid of the FBI and slashdotters with nukes? Could be?

Well Said

[Ars-Fartsica]

I have no idea why the international community gives one iota of legitimacy to Yassir Arafat. This man is without a doubt the biggest bold face liar to emerge on the international scene in years. The West Bank is a breeding ground for terrorists, with Arafat's support and consent.

By the way in case any of you get caught up in "Senator" Clinton's rhetoric condemming the terrorists, I'll replay some commentary for you in which she gushes nearly ceaslessly for Arafat.

Education and nation building

[MrBlic]

Two things that must happen:

Separate Church and State all over the world using gentle education. The reason that militant
exteremeists get violent is that they want all people in their Islamic theocracy to act Islamic. They don't beleive that anyone else is welcome. There is a simple association between teritory and religion that must be broken before there is room for understanding and tolerance of other beleifs.

The other thing that we can do about terrorism is to admit that we are vunerable. Terrorists see George Bush arguing for missile defense systems, and arrogantly thinking that we can defend against catastrophic attacks by building up our arms. The terrorists take this as a challenge. The terrorists know that they can get through any missile defense with a box cutter. The more we build our walls (draw lines in the sand if you will), the more tempting it is for our enemies to cross those lines, and show us our mistaken attitude.

I fully support the investigation of the individuals involved, and the punsihment of any that we can prove had a hand in the attack. At the same time I don't beleive anything will be accomplished in the way of future quality of life until simple tolerance and humanity that we take for granted in (most of) the free world is truly universal.

Thanks Slashdot! Without Slashdot, I wouldn't be seing all sides of the story.

-Jim

next time

[__aasblx7268]

With Tuesday's terrorist strategy brought to the world's attention, and the widespread fact that those guns are already on all Israeli flights, it seems likely that there could be an example soon.

Honey, did you find the map?

[twelvetwenty]

Where is the map detailing which buildings have fallen, which are damaged/unstable, which are cordoned off, and basic information about each? And to a lesser extent where is the map showing street closings, pedestrian access, mta access, and civilian auto access? Not one agency has provided such maps. If anyone can point me to a map with Hagstrom type or better detail it would be appreciated. AA

Re:military jets and authorities not reacting?

[variable26]

IMHO

Flight 93 was shot down

Go away, futile!

[Denny]

The moderation system is dynamic - before you'd even finished posting your comment, the score of the post you replied to may well have changed (up or down). Long after you posted, it may still change. What a waste of effort then to post a comment exhorting any particular moderation decision...

Yes, I know, this comment is meta-pointless... but at least I realise that.

Regards, Denny

Re:Rebuild the towers : Slave labor

[Kharny]

Shure, do the same as we did to germany in WW1, then a new war will shurely be prevented. Think IDIOT, i'm all for catching the bastard who did/planned this, but think first.

Re:An eye for an eye

[Denny]

I read a good comment on this quote on advogato today:

"An eye for an eye" does not mean that if someone takes your eye, you should take their eye... it means that if you take someone's eye, yours will be taken.

Worth some thought, in my opinion... of course, I'm in the UK and therefore not quite so inclined to be thinking about blowing up the middle east right now.

My sincere and heartfelt sympathies to all touched by the events of this week.
Denny

Re:What can be done? Nothing.

[Kharny]

Another analogy for you:
Would it be the same when my friend killed several innocents with the gun and i gave him more bullets?

it can't be muslims

[yahiatt]

there is a rule in islam that forbids muslims from killing innocent people ,so when any man who carries the name of muslim do such a crime we can't call him muslim any more cause he disobeyed islam rules .and i hope they are not palastinians, cause am a palastinian and i don't think this is the right way to show the world that there is someone stealing our land .

Re:think about your words before you use them

[the_wesman]

I believe that capitalism is a gross, horrific abomination that produces this sort of terror.

I don't think you understand capitalism. Capitalism is, essentially, the concept of each person exchanging money for goods and/or services. Greed and corruption will fuck up capitalism, just like they will fuck up socialism and any other economic/political/social system. Don't place blame where blame doesn't belong.

Re:What can be done? Nothing.

[Nail]

You are absolutely right.
My friend would not then be at fault.
The responsibility would be mine, and mine alone.

Or, are you implying that we would share responsibility? And what would the split be? 50/50? 75/25? 90/10? How would "partial responsibility" be delegated? Who would be the judge? How would we be punished? Along the same split?

It really doesn't matter, I suppose, unless someone actually holds you responsible, justly or unjustly. Too bad everyones opinion of what is just is just a little bit different from everyone elses. Well, that is until something comes along to unify their ideal of justice, for however short a time.

I think something like that just happened...

Re:Why the Surprise?

[loosenut]

[whine mode]So now posting something contraversial gets me modded as a troll. There were some important points in there that I felt needed to be brought up. It's not like I said "ha, ha, fucking new yorkers suck anyway".

I fart in your general direction.

Re:hitler Re:rational p.o.v.

[mimbleton]

Really ?
Poland fought desperately, so did France, GB, Belgium, Norway and Greece.
The only country that opened its borders was Denmark.
Frankly, I don't know what are you talking about ...

Re:The architect said no such thing...he's dead

[sudog]

Yamasaki *and associates* did the architecture you dumbass.

Re:think about your words before you use them

[jiheison]

Capitalism is, essentially, the concept of each person exchanging money for goods and/or services.

Sorry, but that is not correct. Just about any modern economic system involves exhanging money for goods and services.

Capitalism is based on the private ownership of resources. Note how this encourages greed. The more you own, the more leverage you have in the market and in society in general. Even a cursory glance at America's power structure will confirm this. As such, it pits each member of the system against each other. Is competition a beneficail result of this? Yes. However, selfishness and greed are also part and parcel.

Re:How about the IRA

[crush]

I agree that nobody deserves what happened yesterday. I have a different view of WHY it happened though. I beleive that there are at least two guilty parties here:1. the evil bastards that planned and carried out the atrocity; 2. the people that created the evil bastards.
It is point 2 that is the one that many will disagree on. My take is that the creators are primarily the US/Western elites. I believe that in order to advance Western strategic interests our governments are doing sickening things all around the world that make the NYC/Washington horror a blip. That sounds like hyperbole. It's really hard to say and probably really hard to make you understand in your grief. But I'm sincere about it. I read Amnesty International's Urgent Action Bulletins - every month I get news of slow, deliberate painful torture of women and children inflicted by US/NATO backed dictatorships. My stomach clenches in the same way that it did when I saw those people jump from the buildings.
This all happens so that we can have cheap oil and disposable consumer shit. I don't think its worth it. And I don't believe all the shit about "freedom" and "the American way of life" that is being spouted now by jingoistic flag-wavers. There always people that try to capitalize on tragedy and make them selves seem bigger by harvesting emotion.
That's why I'm so angry when I read/hear people spouting off about stopping "terrorism". We've got to be serious about it, we've got to treat other countries and people decently. We have to be human.
Finally, I am really suspicious of the line that only the people/person that directly commits violence is responsible. What am I supposed to think about someone that cheers as someone is kicked to death in front of them? What am I supposed to think of someone that can't be arsed to go look out the window when someone tells them there's someone being kicked to death?
I'm genuinely sorry those people in NYC/Washington were murdered, but how much are WE all responsible? Did we care when civilians were bombed in Iraq, slaughtered in Nicaragua, tortured in Lebanon? Did we bother to find anything out about it? Have we created a bloody, vicious world for ourselves to live in? I believe so and I want it to stop. I want peace, dignity and prosperity for myself and all others. I don't think I can get it through violence, and right now there's a lot more violence in the world than the insane deaths of the people in NYC.

Re:How about the IRA

[Fesh]

No, I agree in principle on all counts. Our government does not need to be pulling the crap it does in our names, and I think it's absolutely deplorable. But I have to ask, how responsible can I or any other person-on-the-street American citizen be for something like Iran-Contra where the truth was actively kept from us in almost every way possible? We didn't have a clue what was going on until a C-130 full of weapons for the Contras pancaked in somewhere in Central America. And that sparked an investigation that should have led to the impeachment of a president, had we the evidence and the balls to pin it on him. Yeah, what happens eventually leaks out, but far, far too late for any of us to do anything to prevent it. Personally, I burn with an impotent sort of rage when I think about the sort of crap that happened in El Salvador and Honduras just because our government didn't like the governmental system of Nicaragua. I just don't see how one solitary ant can be expected to move a mountain.

I guess I'm saying that you have to make the buck stop somewhere, or you'll conclude that every human being on the planet needs to be executed posthaste. The dividing line between active participants and and everyone else is a convenient and well-recognized place to do so, even if not absolutely 100% just in all cases.

Re:What can be done? Nothing.

[Dman33]

And one way is to punish and destroy completely those responsible so that those that do try to come along in the future think twice about fucking with us.

But how does this work when you are dealing with suicide bombers?

Don't get me wrong here, I agree with you but I am playing the Devil's Advocate so I can try to figure out what would be the most effective response so as to make this type of attack unappealing.

Re: (One of) The architects did say such a thing.

[sudog]

So if I were typing quickly trying to get what I knew to the rest of the /. community and used a slightly incorrect article ("the"), sue me.

Perhaps the primary designer was the underling and not Yamasaki at all? How do you know? The guy I heard on the radio claimed to be "the architect". Maybe he was just a nobody after all and was sucking in the news station with incredibly realistic and self-deprecating statements that did nothing to bolster his reputation nor fame as an architect?

Perhaps the interviewer used an incorrect term when referring to the interviewee and the interviewee didn't hear the introduction so he could correct him on the matter?

The source material was a radio interview, Tuesday afternoon around 6:00 p.m. PST, on a local (possibly CBC-affiliated) radio station broadcast in Victoria, BC, Canada. I may be able to track down the specific interviewer if you like because I recognize his voice and can probably do so again.

The interviewee was in California at the time.. possible Los Angeles? I forget the city, now. San Francisco "feels" more likely.

Re:Why the Surprise?

[JohnG]

Well, that's fair enough. But it only makes it more disgusting when our own citizens are heartless enough to say it was our fault because we are "Evil Capitalists"

Won't work

[DABANSHEE]

they beleive that 70 of their best friends & relatives will also be guarenteed automatic tickets to heaven by their sacrifice.

Re:What can be done? Nothing.

[jgerman]

The suicide bombers are not the only ones responsible. There is someone behind this who funded, organized, and led this operation. There are people somewhere in the world who were celebrating the success of their plan. Someone is left who must be punished.

The suicide attackers are nothing more than pawns in this situation. They are brainwashed morons who've been convinced that killing Americans is the path to heaven. I imagine they're quite warm where they are right now.

Washington, 1949

[chazR]

Did you vote for the government in power when the NATO treaty was ratified?

I know I can't speak for you. I'm not trying to.

NATO means a lot. For fifty years, the USA promised to fight with us against a common enemy

Now, unexpectedly, a new enemy has attacked the United States.

As a nation, we promised that we would defend any other nation that was a member of NATO.

We *will* do that.

Whoever you voted for, you are now part of the "we" thing.

We (yes, that includes you) are now at war.

Do you want to win?

Falkland Islands

[chazR]

Ho Hum.

I am a UK citizen.

We defeated the Argentinian forces in a war that has *already* gone down in history. Our victory was also the major reason thet Argentina is now a democracy.

It was an impossible war. Argentina should have kicked us out As an analogy, imagine that Hawaii was assaulted and taken by the $FOOBARS. And all you have is New York state. That gives a sense of the distances involved.

Our allies helped us *a lot*. The UK hasn't forgotten that.

The Falkland Islands are British.

But, cool one-liner troll.

Re:How about the IRA

[crush]

I find it hard to disagree with most of what you say. I just believe that there'll be more and more of this sort of thing _unless_ we have a popular movement to stop our "governments" from fomenting this hatred.
I agree with what you say about there being a problem with defining exactly where the guilt stops. I think that we can definitely extend it to a wider circle than the terrorists that planned and carried this out. We can also include the policy makers of NATO. That includes most of our political and business elite apart from those that have taken action, no matter how small against NATO/Western brutalities.

Re:One approach: Undermine them

[m_evanchik]

Terrorists thrive on one thing:
helplessness and stupidity.
Terrorist organizations are brutal outfits of thugs who cloak themselves in romantic populism while often brutalizing worse the people the pretend to represent.
Before Osama Butt Lardass' attack, this country could give in the the namby-pamby argument that terrorism is a result of injustice. With thousands of our countrymen now buried in rubble, we must see terrorism for what it truly is: unexusable evil.
Don't be a dupe and fall for their rhetoric. Look at their actions and ask how they could possibly claim to speak for justice.

Re:What can be done? Nothing.

[Kharny]

Indeed, we should make shure that:
A:these terrorists, and the ones supporting them should be punished adequately, without resorting to extremes.
B:there should be no reason to resort to terrorisme anymore. That means tell israel to finally give in to some of the more reasonble demands. Then, the terrorists cannot justify themselves to the general public of their homecountry, thereby forfeiting the support, ending it all.

Re:How about the IRA

[crush]

Which history books? Which facts are not straight?
What does your non-sequitur about multi-culturalism have to do with it? Also the US is more of a melting-pot than Britain.
It's time you stepped out of Little-Know-Nothing-By-The-Wold-Upon-Dickhampton

Re:Why the Surprise?

[crush]

Ah...Israels willingness to negotiate would be indicated by their occupation of Jericho perhaps? B.t.w. Arafat and his Fatah/PLO friends that we are trying to "help" regularly use torture and repression against democratic dissidents in their little statelet.
Third world countries ARE looking at their governments and they don't like them.....hence terrorism.
You are not naive, you are jingoistic, mis-informed and dangerous. Yes, stupidity and ignorance are dangerous. You have a responsibility as a citizen to become informed.

Re:Why the Surprise?

[crush]

No it's not ALL our fault.
It's partly our fault.
I too hope that people remember at the mass funerals that there is a large circle of blame. I hope that those funerals are not turned into a jingoistic carnival of grief.
How mind numbing it is to see people wrapping themselves in the flag, refusing to accept that things just as bad have happened and are happening in order to maintain an Empire. I condemn all terrorism, all bloodshed, all murder. I condemn the NYC terrorists and their supporters, I condemn the people that bombed Iraq and is starving it's people and I condemn their supporters. I condemn the people that invaded Chechnya and their supporters. I condemn the Indonesians and their supporters.
I condemn you for you support of all these things.

Finita La Comedia

[Poligraf]

It looks like talking to you means wasting my time.

Everything I say - both facts and logic - can't penetrate your thick shield of bigotry.

So, I don't intend to listen to your insults anymore, especially since you're not capable to producing anything else.

Good night (or should I say Laila Tiaba? ;-) and farewell.

LOL!

[phocuz]

People like you are the reason most non-americans dislike the us. Stupid brutes who think enough guns will subdue everyone. The next nuke you drop is probably gonna get the world against you, and then YOU are fucked. I just hope the situation never arises, since i dont really like the idea of nuclear holocaust.

This is silly

[phocuz]

People did die, yes, that is sad. But wtf, in accidents all over the world more people die vewry often, but noone cares, because the whole world is americanized.

IF, say gooses mopther was dead, i would understand. If cliffe died in wtc, id understand. But you dont show respect to the dead by doing just what the terrorists wanted, disrupting our lives. Every store thats closed, ever film they postpone due to this serves the terrorists. They wanted to fuck our lives, and they succeeded. They have made the whole world cry, they stopped the financial world, they halted our lives.

That was what they wanted. Let us not play the terrorist's tune, let us overcome this tragedy and get on with our lives.

People die, its shitty, but thats the way it is. What americans need to realise is that people do die, more people died from hiv in china last year than did now. 100 000 chinese people were infected with hiv (which, in china means death) by an error at a hospital. There are still people in vietnam who are crippled by Agent Orange, a chemical the us released over the jungles, which has had horrific effects. Not to speak about Nagasaki and Hiroshima, or the children in iraq who got bombed by the us in the war against saddam hussein. The US is NOT gods wonderstate, and every life is worth just as much as another.

I have serious problems with understanding whyt it is so much more of a tragedy when americans die from terrorism, as when equally innocent people die from other causes. Its morbyd, the cult-like fascination from people about this affair. I think it is terrible what has happened, but people need to see that the world isnt a good place, people die. Of course we need to try to make it as good as possible, but it isnt right now. The way to world peace is NOT through superior weaponry, but by dialogue and understanding. Obviously, someone thought they couldnt change what was wrong, and so they conducted this horrible act of violence. Violence breeds violence, when is the worldleaders going to understand that? By killing a terrorist, his children will grow up hating the us, and the bad circle is complete. War will continue forever as long as revenge is being performed.