You Cannot Turn it Off: News Addiction

BizangoBob writes: "In this time of madness, I find myself staying up later than usual, watching more tv than ever before, tracking more channels, with more open browser windows than even I did before. As though KNOWING more will somehow help. There's a great piece about news addiction in the Washington Post. It made me feel I'm not the only one."

Comments

VERY Addictive

[FModnar]

I just couldn't stop watching this stuff on Tuesday and Wednesday. Maybe since the events were so hard to believe and grasp, I had to keep watching for it to even seem real.

Re:VERY Addictive

[Sniser]

Maybe since the events were so hard to believe and grasp, I had to keep watching for it to even seem real.

Maybe you should have used the time you wasted with watching the same stuff over and over again, hearing the same emotional hypocrisy bullshit again and again, for READING UP on the last 50 years. Might help you understand where all this hate is coming from

News Addiction != Knowledge Addiction

Re:VERY Addictive

[weirdow]

I'm really wondering why so many people find it so hard and incredible to believe that something like that DID happen!

if you like to hear something, listen to Guns N' Roses - Civil war, maybe you can learn something from the lyrics, if not, then it's probably too late anyway to start thinking :)

---
Maybe we are through with the past, but the past isn't through with us.

Re:VERY Addictive

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that "Civil War" is one of the biggest exercises in hypocrisy in music ever, don't you?

I'm a big ex-fan of Guns, but they don't a shit for this sort of thing.

Re:VERY Addictive

[ncstockguy]

The BBC has had really good coverage. Global perspective, which is what we really need, but don't want to hear now. Local cable channel started carrying the BBC. They're good.

called in sick

[Anonymous Coward]

I called in sick Tuesday so I could watch all the events on TV. I believe world war 3 has started (not the end of the earth though) but over the next 5 or 6 years various countries will have differing opinions and stand up for their opinions. Then again I hope I'm wrong but I doubt it.
Treat Arab-Americans with respect. Treat terrorists with disdain, etc. Let law enforcement agencies decide who is suspicious and who isn't.

Re:called in sick

[Anonymous Coward]

"Treat Arab-Americans with respect. Treat terrorists with disdain, etc. Let law enforcement agencies decide who is suspicious and who isn't."

Excellent point. The sporadic reports of twerps beating up American Muslims and idiots calling in telephone threats to American Mosques should make everyone sick.

We need all the solidarity we can muster in anticipation of whatever the President is going to do to retaliate against these fucking low-lifes hiding like the fucking animals they are in the mountains of Afghanistan.

Re:called in sick

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF. Do we have fucking Arab terrorists as Slashdot moderators? Fuck you whoever moderated this down.

Re:called in sick

[mami]

Well, it's not that easy. If I wouldn't violate copyrights, I would lead you to the German article of the magazine "Der Spiegel", which describes the life of Mohammed Atta, who lived in Germany for a long time as a very peaceful and charming student, promoting even harmony and co-existence among different religions among the student community at the Technical University in Hamburg-Harburg.

I have lived over twenty years in the U.S. and Hamburg is my hometown. I asked all of my nieces and nephews, if they believed they could have recognized that this friendly person could have been engaged in some meticulous preparation work to participate in the WTC attack. If Mohammed Atta would have been a student here in the U.S., it would have been exactly the American Muslim you would want to protect from retaliatory reactions of Americans, who are not capable to resolve their emotions.

It would be easy, if we just could through some magic device see into the soul of a terrorist. Unfortunately we can't. They hide very well behind a split personality, IMHO.

How do you sincerely think the law enforcement agencies could probably recognize a potential terrorist among the American Muslims or for that matter any other group of people (including their own American terrorists) in this country or overseas any more easily than everybody else ?

Of course I would always urge anyone to not live out their anger against people, who have not engaged in any hostile activities against them.

Re:called in sick

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it was moderated down because people with Arab skin don't deserve to have their lives investigated by their neighbours every hour of every day.

I'm Canadian and I know I'd feel bad if Americans were looking that way at me. I mean, after all, Americans (possibly rightly so) are thinking there are some terrorsts living here. Who knows what Canadian is harbouring them?

For that matter, how many Americans can tell an Afgani from an Indian (from India)? Even people in a multicultural country like Canada often mistake Chinese people for Japanese (and it riles them up, understandably), so it wouldn't surprise me if most Americans ended up turning in Indians or Pakistanis rather than people who (might be) from the real enemy nation (which isn't totally decided yet).

Basically, slashdot isn't tolerating racist comments. As you'll see below (if you reply):

"Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated."

Racism is offtopic, inflammatory, always inappropriate, (in my country) illegal, and offensive. What more reason do you need for the comment to be moderated down?

This is what the original comment came across to me as:

"Hey man, the 7-11 owner looks like Apu. Lets tell everyone about him and watch him with cold stares until we decide he's a suspect! You know those Arabs have a tendancy to be terrorsts."

Sorry man, but at least in my country ideas like that don't fly. We decided we had enough of that after we wrongfully locked up anyone of Japanese looks during the war.

Re:called in sick

[ahaning]

For that matter, how many Americans can tell an Afgani from an Indian (from India)?

I admit guilt there.

During the past week, one thing I've thought about a bit is that I really wouldn't be able to tell an Islamic person from a Pakistani. Hell, I can't tell a Korean from a Chinese from a Japanese... And I ride the bus with them everyday!

Perhaps someone out there can lead me (and all the other ignorant Americans) to some information that would aid us in telling these foreigners apart. As much as I hate to be and feel ignorant, I also don't feel it would be proper to walk up to everyone whose race I couldn't tell and ask. However, if there was some information online that I could read that could inform me about how to tell them all apart, I'd really be interested to hear about it.

Re:called in sick

[muleboy]

During the past week, one thing I've thought about a bit is that I really wouldn't be able to tell an Islamic person from a Pakistani.

Well, first off, most Pakistani are Muslims.

I recommend watching or listening to the BBC instead of our own (I am American) corporate-beholden news carriers. I started doing this a few weeks ago, and the difference in quality and perspective is incredible. The BBC website is a pain to navigate when you first start, but give it some time to get used to it. You can get streaming audio and video of most of their shows and news, and their web-based news is also very good.

Myself...

[asphyxiaa]

I find myself watching CNN all day because there is constantly new information being discovered and announements of more possible attacks.

It is almost like watching a movie, but sadly, its all real... Knowing that something may happen doesn't seem too far-fetched at this point, as they have already stated that supposedly there are still terrorists within the US that may be planning to do more.

Sleepless week

[Anonymous Coward]

The article hit it pretty much spot on. I've watched more CNN since Tuesday than I did the entire time I worked for Uncle Sam.

My wife and I pulled out the couch to sleep in front of the TV, and I'm constantly either checking cnn.com or flipping amongst the myriad of news channels available to me.

I'm sure it will pass, but I don't think I'll sleep soundly until I know the patch of sand the culprits reside on has been melted into a sheet of glass by weapons of ludicrously massive destruction.

Re:Sleepless week

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you've been moderated up for the tip about pulling out the couch. We're all busy copying your setup.

Re:Sleepless week

[BravoXL]

you need the news rig that I have set up, TV, Radio, Computer for websites, BBC webstream, and IRC. I of course have all these things running at the same time. Is that info overload? who knows.

Re:Sleepless week

[LinuxHam]

I'm recovering at home from summertime surgery and asked last week to be allowed to return to work on Monday the 10th. They haven't processed my paperwork yet, so I was still at home on Tuesday when this hit. All day Tuesday my condo was like the Circuit City "soccer fan" ad, I had the living room tv, the downstairs office tv, the bedroom tv, and the upstairs office tv (tv card) all tuned to CNN so as I backed out of one room, I could snap turn my head and look at another tv in the next room!

That lasted until Tuesday night, when I finally setup my station in front of the big living room tv. I never tuned off of CNN from Tuesday morning until Wednesday afternoon just to watch the local news for a local spin on it. Sure enough there were about four or five victims from my tiny little town (Lower Makefield, PA).. including the captain of flight 93 that crashed near Pittsburgh.

I've always been such a news junkie though, that for a couple of years many members of my family would call me for little known facts about stories, local or otherwise. But with this, I truly became frustrated with my dialup access. It was bad enough that the news sites were slashdotted, but to not know if the slowness would have been at least a little more bearable with broadband really killed it for me. I've really been here more than any other site. /. is so freaking awesome, its beyond words. There are some real kooks here, but the functionality is just stunning.

Does anyone here still browse the VBI data from CNN? Are they still sending any? Did they send cool stuff like photo galleries? My tv card is running on NT server at this time, so there are no VBI drivers for NT from Hauppauge AFAIK.

Just heard on CNN.. AOL users have donated $6 **million** via the service. That's amazing no matter how you look at it.

im up now arent i...

[c4thy]

i mistakenly typed slashdot.org in my address bar, im sorry i meant to type cnn.com, maybe i really should goto bed

Re:im up now arent i...

[Anonymous Coward]

And I've been loving Cathy for the past couple of hours. When I'm done, you can have her back.

I know what you mean!!

[tester13]

I know exactly what you mean! Think about what we do here day in and day out. We talk about the incremental release of software as if it's the most important thing in the world.

We endlessly follow every possible civil liberties encroachment though /., mailing lists, Usenet, etc.

I read Slashdot compulsively. I also read Slate, Salon, and the NYT daily. Have I really learned anything important, or am I just wasting time? I tend to think more towards the later.

This is a timely topic in wake of the recent tragic events. I have been refreshing CNN and MSNBC's website obsessively searching for the latest (often wrongly reported) news.

OTOH what is the alternative? It seems today, it is important to process a lot of information quickly. I'm just not sure that I know what is important.

Re:I know what you mean!!

[Anonymous Coward]

We are looking for answers to what happened and we want them now. And we still don't know what's gonna happen tomorrow. The series of attacks, one after the other on Tuesday left us with the feeling of "what's coming next ?". We look for more answers, and that's why we cannot turn the TV off.

Re:I know what you mean!!

[BravoXL]

I really hear you about the checking slashdot too much, I check at least 20 times a day, maybe more.

Re:I know what you mean!!

[Sniser]

We look for more answers, and that's why we cannot turn the TV off.

That's tragic, because the answers will come from anywhere BUT the TV.

Re:I know what you mean!!

[DecoDragon]

OTOH what is the alternative? It seems today, it is important to process a lot of information quickly. I'm just not sure that I know what is important.

The alternative is to go outside and get some air. Breath a little. Most of the columnists in the Washington Post have been writing about how its to soon to do anything but mourn. My take is different. If this were a 'normal' week and something traumatic happened to you (friend/relative died) some other friend would try to take you out to dinner or a movie or something. It wouldn't feel right, but you'd go anyway. You might feel a little, if not better, relieved from the burden you've carried around. It'd give you some space to emotionally recover. Welp, for us American's, unless we invite all of Canada down or something, there's no one to do this act for us, but ourselves.

Sure, processing information quickly is necessary these days. But how much new information have we received of late? If it is true that we're in for a long-haul confrontation, then its particularly important for us to regroup a little bit, so we can make it through. As self-preservation.

From my military brat days, and living through other confrontations when I didn't know if people I loved and cared for were going to be alive or not at the end of the day, I can say that this wanting to *know*, to *understand* is normal (well, for people I know and who I've discussed this with in the past). I think calling it an addiction is an over simplification. During Vietnam, people were glued to the evening news. During the Libya thing and incidents prior to the Persian Gulf War, people who were directly affected couldn't get enough of what was coming out of CNN. We're at war, but as reservists are called up we might go to war. We don't know yet. And we want to know, crave to know, to understand, and to make sense. Most all of us have come to highly value information and data as a way to comprehend and make sense of our daily life, so maybe some of us just feel like if we hold out long enough someone will discover the key to make things feel normal again.

I think the way to feel relatively normal again is to turn off the TV, get some air, maybe exercise or do some of the things you usually do. It's not disrespectful to the dead or the rescue effort, and it probably won't completely take your mind off things. But, most of us would probably benefit from a break just to figure out how we do feel and what is important.

News Saturation

[Paganz]

Frankly, I feel the exact opposite. Although I want to know the latest as to what is happening in the rescue efforts and investigation, it seems to me that much of the news is simply the same facts being repeated. Particularly with the addition of one, or even two, news tickers, I am getting too much of the same news over and over again, at least on the major networks. It seems that Fox Cable News, CNN, and (C|MS)NBC break up the hard facts enough with experts to pique my interest.

Re:News Saturation

[Kargan]

I definitely have to agree. I can only take so much, although at the same time I want to keep abreast. Interesting phenomenon.

Re:News Saturation

[terri rolle]

Yeah, I keep watching and watching despite the fact that at the end of the day you realize you've really only learned a handful of solid facts.

What's truly disappointing is how much of what they've reported has turned out to be wholly false. Like that story of five fire-fighters being rescued from the rubble. Or the talk of many buried victims using cell phones to call for help. Or the report that several men who had been arrested at New York airports last night had knives and airplane technical manuals in arabic; and one man was falsely claiming to be a pilot. (Last I heard most had been released, none had any link to terrorism, and the guy claiming to be a pilot really was.) Or a tale that Atlanta was another intended target for the terrorists. ("Baloney" said one government offical.) Or the immediate assumption that explosions in Kabul were due to an American attack. (It was just rebels hitting an ammunition dump in Afghanistan's never ending civil war.)

Does anybody check their facts anymore? Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but isn't that something journalists are supposed to do?

Re:News Saturation

[Sniser]

much of the news is simply the same facts being repeated.

Facts. Yeah right. It's not so much what they tell you, but what they omit. Taken from http://www.zmag.org/solocalam.htm and posted without the authors consent:

We stare at TV screens and try to comprehend the suffering in the aftermath of terrorism. Much of what we see is ghastly and all too real; terrible anguish and sorrow.

At the same time, we're witnessing an onslaught of media deception. "The greatest triumphs of propaganda have been accomplished, not by doing something, but by refraining from doing," Aldous Huxley observed long ago. "Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth."

Silence, rigorously selective, pervades the media coverage of recent days. For policy-makers in Washington, the practical utility of that silence is enormous. In response to the mass murder committed by hijackers, the righteousness of U.S. military action is clear -- as long as double standards go unmentioned.

While rescue crews braved intense smoke and grisly rubble, ABC News analyst Vincent Cannistraro helped to put it all in perspective for millions of TV viewers. Cannistraro is a former high-ranking official of the Central Intelligence Agency who was in charge of the CIA's work with the contras in Nicaragua during the early 1980s. After moving to the National Security Council in 1984, he became a supervisor of covert aid to Afghan guerrillas.

In other words, Cannistraro has a long history of assisting terrorists -- first, contra soldiers who routinely killed Nicaraguan civilians; then, mujahedeen rebels in Afghanistan ... like Osama bin Laden.

How can a longtime associate of terrorists now be credibly denouncing "terrorism"? It's easy. All that's required is for media coverage to remain in a kind of history-free zone that has no use for any facets of reality that are not presently convenient to acknowledge.

In his book "1984," George Orwell described the mental dynamics: "The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt.... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies -- all this is indispensably necessary."

Secretary of State Colin Powell denounced "people who feel that with the destruction of buildings, with the murder of people, they can somehow achieve a political purpose." He was describing the terrorists who had struck his country hours earlier. But Powell was also aptly describing a long line of top officials in Washington.

Re:News Saturation

[uchian]

I watched the television non-stop for the first 16 hours or so, and then went to bed, to wake up and start watching it again, but then the news had dried up, and I turned to alternative forms of media.

For those who haven't checked, google has a news page which contains links to numerous news sites and newspapers from around the world. From these, you can get a view of what media from the rest of the world is saying about this.

Re:News Saturation

[micromechanic]

I agree that most of the news is repeated.

What i find most distressing is the way images of the crash are treated by the media. They treat them like scenes from hollywood blockbuster commercial, repeated endlessly. There are people dying as we see in that video. Real people like you and me.

Re:News Saturation

[Karl Cocknozzle]

Here in Chicago, the Fox affiliate has been broadcasting FoxNews network since Tuesday AM non-stop. The only pause has been for local news.

Do I really need to see Barbara Olson's husband interviewed on FoxNews ONE MORE TIME? I heard the same interview three or four times after work last night. At 10pm, after local news, I wanted The Simpsons.

Guess what? Another idiotic edition of "The O'Reilly Factor".

It's a shame that Fox is attempting to use this crisis to promote their half-assed news operation. They essentially repeat the same content every two hours on FoxNews channel.

A better name for FoxNews channel would be "Republicans Talking about Killing Ay-Rabs".

Re:News Saturation

[mimbleton]

"It's a shame that Fox is attempting to use this crisis to promote their half-assed news operation. "

They are not. I enjoy watching their coverage as opposed to watching sleazy and "feel my pain" Peter Jennings or others.

"Another idiotic edition of "The O'Reilly Factor"."

This guy, with his rough style is much closer to reality than Jennings or ABC guys will ever be.
If you don't like him , don't watch him.

Re:News Saturation

[The_Steel_General]

I really don't see how they are any different from all these other channels. Nobody has anything new, really. The most significant news was essentially over by noon on Tuesday.

Since then, there have been some heartbreaking personal stories, a few government actions, and an ongoing but mostly under-wraps investigation. The stations can either end their twenty-four-hour news feeds -- and no other networks have, AFAIK -- or repeat the same things over and over.

I'd prefer that they did the former, but understand why they do not. In any case, I just turn the TV on once or twice a day, see if there's anything new, then turn it off.

TSG

There is a greater darkness than the one we fight. It is the darkness of the soul that has lost its way. The war we fight is not against powers and principalities, it is against chaos and despair. Greater than the death of flesh is the death of hope, the death of dreams. Against this peril we can never surrender.

The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain. -- J. Michael Stracynzki

Religion is to blame

[Anonymous Coward]

As I look back over the tragedies that have occurred over the past six days, I can't help but think that stronger laws and policies governing religion would help prevent much of it. From the hospital-bombing Christians to the terrorist Muslims, religion inevitably causes that which it tries to eliminate: senseless violence and ruthless killing.

Re:Religion is to blame

[dangermouse]

What fool modded this as "insightful"?

Re:Religion is to blame

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to agree that if everyone was an atheist, there wouldn't be any "religious" war.

Re:Religion is to blame

[Skyshadow]

Of course, religion doesn't kill people. People kill people -- religion can just sometimes serve as a suitable excuse. Nationalism works pretty interchangibly well for this, as do items like feelings of racial superiority, etc.

We could go into all of this now, and I could explain why your "insights" are sadly shallow, but I suspect you're just trolling. Shame on you for doing so on the backs of 5000 innocent people.

However, on the off chance that your viewpoint actually is that shallow, may I suggest some basic reading: "The Battle for God" by Karen Armstrong. It's an excellent primer on the role of religion and root causes of fundementalism.

Re:Religion is to blame

[Anonymous Coward]

true, but more people have been killed for various religions than for any of the other causes you've listed; furthermore, religion usually enjoys the special immunity of "having god on our side". as an example, notice the laws against hate crimes, and try to imagine similar laws being passed against crimes with a religious motivation.

Re:Religion is to blame

[BravoXL]

you took the words out of my mouth.

Re:Religion is to blame

[dangermouse]

If everyone was apolitical, there wouldn't be any "secular" war, either.

Re:Religion is to blame

[Sniser]

Religion itself isn't to blame, it's used as a tool. Islam itself is strictly against violence except for self-defense. "If you kill a man, you kill the whole humankind" or something along those lines.

Re:Religion is to blame

[andynyc]

You have to agree that if everyone was an atheist, there wouldn't be any "religious" war.

If there were no cops, there would be no cop-killers.

Re:Religion is to blame

[tauntalum]

One possible problem with religions is the concept of Faith. Faith can be dangerous as it allows a charismatic leader to inject extra "truths" into followers' minds and modify their values, such that they may commit acts which are contrary to the teachings of the mainstream parent religion.

People can *know* that they are doing the right thing even while doing things like raping or killing; their proof is in their heart.

Re:Religion is to blame

[Anonymous Coward]

Replace religion extremism with bad science (i.e., blacks are less evolved than white people) and you have many of the same problems.

Re:Religion is to blame

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not so much the bad science by itself; it is like religion in that science can be used as an excuse. Basically for anything.

Re:Religion is to blame

[Anne_Nonymous]

Mod parent to Troll. Duh!

Re:Religion is to blame

[warpeightbot]

religion can just sometimes serve as a suitable excuse.

Both for some suicidal maniacs to crash aircraft into the sides of buildings, and for xenophobic maniacs like Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson to blame the crashes on people whose only crime is to insist that they be allowed to live according to the dictates of their own conscience, not harming anyone else.

Skyshadow's implication here is spot-on. Fundamentalism in any form is dangerous... the arrogance that comes from believing that your way of life is so much superior than mine that it gives you the right to impose it on me often turns deadly. I don't suggest for a moment that we should launch a pre-emptive strike on those two gentlemen's persons.... but bombing the bejeezus out of their credibility is something every sane American should do every chance they get.

Let'em talk... but make sure they're the poster children for the Fool of the Month Club.

Re:Religion is to blame

[feed_me_cereal]

yeah, but cops are a little more important than religions. I've been getting along fine without one for a long time!

Re:Religion is to blame

[Anonymous Coward]

That's just insane. Religion is not responsable for these horrible crimes. No matter what the people believe who committed these crimes think, they are not doing the work of God!

They just use it as an excuse, they hide behind religion. It's no different than how the Oklahoma City bombers hide behind patriotism.

In both cases we had people with perverted beliefs. That's all it is. You cannot blame religion just as you cannot blame a race.

The people who committed these crimes didn't know the first thing about religion, love, or God.

We must learn to keep things in perspective. These people were full of hate, they had no respect for what their religion taught and no respect for human life.

There is nothing hateful about religion. As a Christian I love everyone, no matter what religion you do or do not practice. And it pains me greatly to see religion attacked in this way. Especially the hate that seems to be directed towards followers of Islam.

In times such as these, we should all unite together and stand up against the evil in this world. All of us, no matter what faith or race. We're all in this together...

Re:Religion is to blame

[mlong]

One possible problem with religions is the concept of Faith. Faith can be dangerous as it allows a charismatic leader to inject extra "truths" into followers' minds and modify their values, such that they may commit acts which are contrary to the teachings of the mainstream parent religion

This is insightful? You obviously don't understand what "faith" is. Go look in a dictionary. The issue here is people twisting what a religion says to make it suit their needs (IE someone saying something and you hearing what you want to hear). The term for this is bias. These people are so filled with hate that they try to make a religion justify their actions when it really doesn't.

Re:Religion is to blame

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe Timothy McVeigh was an atheist/agnostic.

His final statement was a poem named Invictus, which mentions "I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul".

As an atheist myself I am not trying to target out atheism, but your remarks display as much narrow-mindedness and ignorance as some of the extremely religious nuts out there.

more please

[Anonymous Coward]

Somebody please post more links to stories about news addiction!

Re:more please

[DickBreath]

Yes. Please.

I find I am strangely addicted to such stories.

Re:more please

[Anonymous Coward]

:) that was funny.

but with regard to the main topic of this discussion, aren't news addicts the ones who watch the news all the time? this week we had big news: the people watching it are like sports "fans" who show up only for super bowls and world series. real addicts show up for games that don't count played in the frigid cold. it's the same with news addicts who stay up the same as usual (all night) every week to watch the Dominican Republic Parliament on C-SPAN on Sunday night.

Re:more please

[drdanny]

From the Guardian:

Blake Morrison on why the attack on America has transfixed us all.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,55 1618,00.html

Not a Problem

[jazman_777]

From all the time I spend on /., it was an easy transition to surfing countless news sites. The only problem I had was I couldn't moderate any opinion pieces.

Re:Not a Problem

[david duncan scott]

Wow -- after 30 years you finally fixed the Professor's coconut radio, huh? You've got some catching up to do. Here, now that you've digested Armstrong's death in 1971, I'll get you started:

• We're not fighting in Vietnam anymore
  
• The USSR is back to being Russia, and they're smaller now. We like them, mostly
  
• Nixon's dead
  
• Ronald Reagan was President for a while. No, really -- I'm not making this up
  
• People have computers in their homes now, and most everybody has color TV
  
• We found out that cigarettes are good for you, but only in suppository form
  
• Scientists suspect that penguins are the true dominant life form on Earth
  

Oh, and I hate to be the one to break this to you, but the Skipper and both the Howells passed away a few years ago, and both Ginger and Mary Ann will always think of you like a brother. Sorry.

Huh?

[TheSHAD0W]

Oh, I keep hitting websites every half-hour or hour, looking for more news; but I stopped watching the TV quite a while ago. It was getting too repetitive and depressing, and detailing positions I'd already got from the web. It's a terrible, thrilling event that has happened, but I'm already burnt out, at least TV-wise.

Suggestion

[vaxtor]

Kill Your Television...

Re:Suggestion

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck! I thought those fucking bumper stickers said "Kill Your Wife!" Now I'm in a fuckload of trouble.

Re:Suggestion

[eclectro]

OK. but there is always the radio

Re:Suggestion

[Ho-Lee-Cow!]

Interstingly enough, not having broadcast or cable TV, I found radio and the internet sufficient for my news needs. NPR didn't repeat nearly as much as the commercial networks, and CSPAN radio was quite informative of its own.

Even though I found myself missing access to live TV, I really have to admit that I was much more calm and at peace than many of my cohorts. It was the lack of live images and barrage of pictures. TV is designed to manipulate more than other media, freeze people to the couch, induce emotion, which is part of the reason why I let my cable subscription lapse. My kids go outside now. ;)

Re:Suggestion

[Anonymous Coward]

Prior to the events of the week, I had. Or at least I had put it into a deep coma. Six months ago, I cut the cable and satellite. My TV had no antenna and only saw use for an occasional movie. Tuesday night I scrambled through drawers to find an old set of rabbit ears which I stapled to an exterior wall and tied into the dormant cable. Like others, I stayed up late Tuesday and Wednesday watching. I don't know why, I just watched.

I've stopped now. Web news sources are providing enough current, in depth information to keep me abreast.

Re:Suggestion

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope this trend catches on. Television is built to deceive, and lull it's watchers into a zombie like state.
The closest thing between being alive and dead.

I was addicted like everyone else and tried the turn-off-tv-week , back in April and haven't looked back.

Re:Suggestion

[Anonymous Coward]

Shouldn't you be out looking for the real killers?

Whats the problem?

[norculf]

The word "addiction" implies that there is something bad and wrong going on. I think it is good that people want to be informed about what is going on.

But they even make it sound like a sort of stupor:

As you lie down to sleep, the images keep sloshing around, your mind a TV set. Not nightmares, though they are nightmarish. They have to be suppressed before sleep will come. But all you can think about is putting the set back on.

Click, click, click: Crane and rubble . . . Crane and rubble . . . "Cosby" rerun . . . Colin Powell talking . . . A man searches for his missing father . . . Crane and rubble . . . "Nothing burns fat like Stacker II" . . . Mayor Giuliani . . . "It sounds like they were able to bring the knives through security." . . . Crane and rubble . . . Candlelight vigil.

Anyway, I don't feel restless or weak (more than usual at least).

Re:I'm afraid we're just getting what we deserve.

[Skyshadow]

Slashdot Troll or American Spiritual Leader?

You make the call!

Waiting for more coherent news

[feed_me_cereal]

I was glued to the TV/computer the first day, and most of the second day too. I realized something the second day, however. Everything I was hearing was speculation. I figure that if I wait a week to really dig into the articles, things will be more coherent and more of the facts will be layed out for me. Once a real breakthrough is made, I'm sure people will be buzzing about it. I havn't stopped watching the news completely, but I'll save the rest of my attention span for something other than pictures of people jumping off of buildings.

why go far

[matrix0040]

if u want to see someone who's addicted to news .. then look at the fp posts on \. these ppl just sit there and wait for a story to come up so that they can get a fp ;-)

But seriously the graphic images of the attack that are being shown repeatedly can have a deep psychological effect on the ppl. watching it again and again (u can't help but watch!) can make a deep impression on your psyche and can even lead to extreme emotions and even depression.

The only solution is to talk about it ! even if no one knows the answers .. just talking about the problem can be of great help.

A suggestion

[Mike Schiraldi]

A comment i just sent to Rob Malda (after a short bit of praise for him and his team):

- Please consider making a "permanent" story -- or call it a forum. When i
want to post something about the tragedy, i'm forced to choose between three
options, none of which is great: I can submit a story, and odds are great
that you will have to reject it. I can post a comment to an old story, where
it will likely be missed since the story is off the front page and will
certainly be missed when the next update is posted. Or, i can wait for the
next update and hope i hit it early.

If you had one huge permanent story instead of lots of smaller ones, people
would sort by "Newest First" to get news, which is what they should do
instead of just waiting for the next story to be posted. It lets new +1 and
+2 comments have a chance regardless of how early they're posted.

Also, raising the maximum comment rating above 5, if technically feasable,
would really help in these stories, where dozens and dozens of comments are
rated at 5...

Re:A suggestion

[Skyshadow]

I like the basic idea, but that should make for an awful lot of comments to wade through, especially for those of us who try to read the unmodded comments.

There's got to be a better way than one *huge* forum -- maybe some sort of sidebar collection of stories and forums or something. Of course, that's moving towards violating the very straightforward paradigm that Slashdot's been following since way back in the day...

Re:A suggestion

[dR.fuZZo]

You remind me of our clients. "Hey, you know, couldn't you just completely change the way this product works?"

Remember: IF YOU CHANGE YOUR LIFE, YOU'RE LETTING THEM WIN!!! KEEP SLASHDOT AS IT IS!

Oh...I'm sorry. I've been watching too much tv, too. I don't know what came over me just then.

Re:A suggestion

[Chakat]

Reading your comments, and the responders gave me the perfect trial implementation for taco et al. They already set up one sort of testing/personal site (just checked the link, tacohell. Taco killed it when they upgraded slashdot to 2.2, why not set up another, call it wtcnews. Important true news stuff regarding the case can be brought to the front page for everyone to post to, and people who look for just the wtc information can go there, but updates, personal reactions, etc can take place on the subsite. As an added benefit, they could raise/lower thresholds so that more flexible moderations can take place, so that people could mod things up to eleven if they were so inclined.

Re:A suggestion

[shri]

I've got something like this setup on crisisforums.com .. strange how many people get the same idea in different parts of the world at the same time. Basically wanted it to be a repository of information about people from various sites. Then figured that it could serve as a larger site.

Re:A suggestion

[Orlando]

maybe this deserves a whole topic of its own?

orlando...

Re:A suggestion

[Conspire]

I completely agree with this. I did a little meta-moderating today, and although posters were offtopic and should be moderated as such, there should have been a place for them to post stuff about the tragedy.

Re:A suggestion

[Chiasmus_]

Hey, does anyone remember just a year ago, when the only thing anyone wanted to talk about was Napster and the RIAA?

No permanent story was created, but at least two stories were posted every three days. Eventually people were blocking all "music" headlines or going onto the newsgroups and spending karma just to scream to everyone that there were other things going on in the world.

We got by. The last thing I want is for Rob to stick a big vertical frame down the middle of Slashdot and caption one column "Technical news" and the other "Terrorism discussion". I'm sure that Jon Katz has enough hot air left in him to write us a fresh story to make fun of every day for the next three or four years until we run out of steam.

Re:A suggestion

[Anonymous Coward]

Funnily enough, the trolltalk hidden sid used to work in a semi-ideal way for this sort of thing.

Sort newest, and you'd get a running commentary on the state of slashdot trolling - and older comments would simply be swept up and deleted. Kind of like a scribbling wall that's cleaned every few days. Doesn't work if you want to keep the comments of course.

Naturally, slashdot couldn't tolerate something as funny, popular and subversive as that, so hidden sids were done away with in 2.2

Re:A suggestion

[Anonymous Coward]

They shouldn't cap ratings, IMO.

Re:A suggestion

[commodoresloat]

I've been watching too much tv, too. I don't know what came over me just then.

News addiction obviously.

The enormity of it all

[eclectro]

I find that news addiction happens to me around large events;

The the space shuttle Challenger accident

The Oklahoma city bombing

The death of princess Diana

The impeachment of Bill Clinton

And now the WTC destruction. This easily tops them all. It has truly been a mindwarping experience of how so much destruction has been brought about by so few. The news addiction happens because we want every shred of a detail so we can put the story together and understand what happenned. The story is large and in the front of our minds. Knowing the horrific beginning we want to rush and know the ending of the what, where, when and how.

It's curious - do we live in an era that such large spectacles can be counted on happening every few years??

Re:The enormity of it all

[IronChef]

Here's my question -- will this story be bigger than the O.J. Simpson trial?

I am not being a smartass. Please read on.

The OJ trial was the #1 story of EVERY news broadcast, EVERY DAY for about 2 years. Half of every broadcast was dedicated to OJ, it seemed. I used to think that was an LA thing, but people tell me it was the same way all over the country. You guys must remember this... it was insane how much coverage there was. If you used a TV or radio you could not escape it. Criminal trial, civil trial, custody hearings...

My friends used to joke about what might be a bigger news story. We had to come up with some pretty bizarre stuff before it sounded like it would beat OJ. And it all involved celebrities. Couldn't think of anything IMPORTANT that would get as much coverage.

I guess my real question is what the hell is wrong with us, where some washed up football guy makes the #1 story every day for so long? Are we truly only interested in shallow things like celebrities, or does real news like the current disaster have a chance with the people?

I will be very interested to see what the coverage looks like a year from now. Who will have the staying power, The Juice or Osama bin Laden? I want to believe that as a people we are not as shallow as we appear to be most of the time.

Unfortunately, now I will get to find out for sure. And I'm afraid I will find out that the world is right, that Americans are a shallow, forgetful people. Here's hoping I'm wrong.

For the morbidly curious, here's an OJ chronology. Insane how long it went on, and how important it seemed to people.

Re:The enormity of it all

[eclectro]

I thought seriously about adding OJ to my list. But since it was a "personal" list reflecting my own experience, I decided not to.

The OJ trial didn't have a hold on me, and thus "news addiction" didn't happen for me on that one. It didn't have that level of importance for me. This WTC disaster is another realm altogether.

It could be argued that large media was propelled by the sensational aspects of the OJ trial, just like it was with the Chandra Levy recently.

The WTC story is in an entirely different universe. You thought the OJ coverage was bad for it's excess, you ain't seen nothing yet.

Five thousand lives snuffed out on American soil in the worst terrorist act the world has seen, it deserves such coverage.

Re:The enormity of it all

[nomadic]

The OJ trial was the #1 story of EVERY news broadcast, EVERY DAY for about 2 years. Half of every broadcast was dedicated to OJ, it seemed. I used to think that was an LA thing, but people tell me it was the same way all over the country. You guys must remember this... it was insane how much coverage there was. If you used a TV or radio you could not escape

But the coverage wasn't like this; full-time news coverage with no commercials. I live in NYC, and every local network is the same way, with full-time news, and no commercials. The OJ trial wasn't anything like this.

Re:The enormity of it all

[medcalf]

It was a slow news year.

Re:The enormity of it all

[NewWazoo]

Yes, it was pretty sick that the OJ crap went on for sooooo long. But keep this in mind - at the time, it was the most interesting "news" item happening.

...and the fact that it was the most interesting really shows us how good we've got it. When we can afford to ignore what goes on in our Congress; when we can afford to ignore what's heppening elsewhere in the world, we've GOT IT GOOD. I can't speak for anyone else, but this event has really opened my eyes about how other people around the world have to live with Terrorism *every day*. And that little bit of extra vision really makes me glad that I do in fact live the U.S. of A.

As an aside, my girlfriend asked me last night whether I would prefer to live here or in Panama (which I visited and fell in love with). Before the attack, I would have said "Panama" in a moment. Now, I'm not so sure. Like I said, I'm starting to realize just how good I've got it.

Don't Tread on Me.

Brandon
(TheNewWazoo)

Jeremy Glick, from Dateline

[Mike Schiraldi]

The most powerful and moving coverage of Jeremy Glick's story, from Dateline NBC: http://www.msnbc.com/news/629077.asp

Please read. Please mod up so people will see.

Re:Jeremy Glick, from Dateline

[bendude]

Saw the interview on MSNBC. It was severely chopped up at key points. Still no description of the hijackers from any passengers (except that one scary one on de.indymedia.org which has since dissapeared.)

The guy was a hero, but from what I can tell of the descriptions of the final fight, and other calls from that plane, they died without making a difference.

Jeremy Glick was a real hero, he stood up and said "No", where many others would have hid and thought irrationally about their own safety. Don't let what comes out in the future change anyone's perception of that.

Re:Jeremy Glick, from Dateline

[Anonymous Coward]

The crash site should be a national monument like Gettysburg.

The crater marks the site of the first battle where Americans responded to this unspeakable evil. Glick, Burnett and someone else took action to limit the carnage armed with nothing more than a butter knife.

True heroism.

It's Horror!

[Anonymous Coward]

Zapping all the time and every TV Station has just those America-on-war Movie.
So, where is Burce Willis to Save the World? (And James Bond to get in touch with Bin Laden's girl?)

The method of my madness.

[jon_c]

The method of my madness.

1. goto drudgereport.com scan for new news
2. goto cnn.com, then msbnc.com for new news
3. goto Slashdot.org and shacknews.com for new news
4. Get frustrated that there is no new news and turn on the (freakin) tv.
5. Sit in front of the tube, clicker in hand looking for the news I want.
6. Get annoyed that I'm not hearing about shit blowing up in the middle east.
7. goto 1.

yes, i'm going nuts.

-Jon

Re:The method of my madness.

[rhyder]

I find the same method contributing to my insanity:
-Rhyder

Re:The method of my madness.

[Ratbert42]

Mine's similar:

1. Check My Yahoo! for news.
2. Flip on CNN.
3. Watch until either interviews with victims' families or Bobby Batista's crossed eyes gross me out.
4. Flip to Fox News.
5. Scan Slashdot.
6. Stare at my huge backlog of work.
7. Close all the browsers and the tv tuner and try to work for 30 minutes.
8. Goto 1.

Why do I do it? Honestly, I was halfway expecting to hear news of a special forces raid on bin Laden. It still wouldn't suprise me if that story broke, hopefully after the fact, in the next week.

Morale

[gutier]

The piece is suggestive of something: instead of proudly being an American by being fully aware of all that is taking place, proudly be an American by doing something to help instead of sitting around watching TV.

Re:Morale

[Chiasmus_]

I can't for the life of me think of what I could possible do to help this situation.

The media suggests that we all donate blood to help the victims. However, at last count, USA Today reports that there are 2,326 wounded, split between the Trade Center and the Pentagon. Most people involved in this attack were, by Wednesday, either unscathed or dead. It occurs to me that we're going to have something like a quarter-million blood donors; I don't think everyone wounded in the bombing is going to need one hundred donors.

Beyond that, what can we do? Sign up for the military en masse, so we can kill people who had nothing to do with the attack? Go to school to get our contractors' licenses so we can help reconstruct the World Trade Center? Take a flig^H^H^H^Htrain to New York and try to dig victims out of the rubble?

There are people who are "doing something" about this tragedy because it is their job. Personally, my job is to monitor slot machines to make sure they don't break down. Sure, it doesn't sound very important, but if I and my 19 co-workers suddenly up and left for New York or Afghanistan, the State of Nevada could stand to lose hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue.

Maybe what we all *should* be doing is going to work every day and doing whatever the hell we want at night, whether that's watching the news, drinking heavily, or both.

Re:Morale

[archen]

"Most people involved in this attack were, by Wednesday, either unscathed or dead."

Yeah, the blood drive thing sort of struck me as awkward as well. I mean how many times do you have a tradedy killing so many, with so few people wounded (in ratio to those who were killed). Since the blood shortage in this country was approaching critical levels, this will hopefully be a small ammount of good that came out of this. Maybe those who are giving blood now will be saving lives that arent' related to this incedent.

Plagarism was Re:I'm afraid we're just getting...

[Anonymous Coward]

This comment was stated by Jerry Falwell, while being interviewed by Pat Robertson. The Slashdot posting is a verbatim copy from that interview.

It's not illegal to be misguided or callous but at least you could be original about it.

News?

[Anonymous Coward]

For every ounce of real news, there's a ton of inconsequential fluff. Hurts my head, it does. That's why my TV's been unplugged for years and the information I fill my head with comes from books and other sources of my choosing. Anything big occurs, I'll hear about it soon enough.

Media wants you perpetually on the edige of your seat and it's no mistake that you end up in that position. Better to absorb the content of commercials that way, when your neurons are all primed, ready to absorb info.

I suppose I've tuned out. Listening to an audiobook at the moment and am about as close to bliss as one can get.

Ridiculous!

[stevarooski]

I haven't read the article (and don't want to) but even the term 'news addiction' sounds idiotic to me. 'Addiction' implies a malignant dependancy, when in reality what everyone wants is to be well informed of whats going on, and whats going to be done about it. The author of the story says he's staying up late, etc. . .In my mind thats commendable, not an 'addiction'.

As to the state of internet and tv news right now, even given that there is a LOT more news repetition/misreporting/retraction than usual, almost everything is being fed to the public live--and non-preprocessed!! For the first time in a while, the American populace is getting more than ten-second interview bites and packaged reporting from our media. There's really no way they can dress this up, and everyone wants to know more. We are seeing real things happening and forming our own opinions. Look at the effect its having; we, as a people, are thoroughly pissed off.

Re:Ridiculous!

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't read the article (and don't want to)

Stevardipshit,

Please feel free post your opinions on any article you want without reading it first. You are such a fucking genius that you can formulate an educated opinion without gathering the facts. From know on, whenever I seen an article written by you, Stevafaggot, I don't even have to read it - I'll know it's written by an asshole. Please lock your lips onto my anal ring, and suck hot steaming fecal sludge down your throat. Then vomit it up and use it for lube when you jack off onto your mom's face.

Love,

Dad.

Re:Ridiculous!

[IronChef]

"Addiction" is a good term for some people. I may be one. Daily, I have a raft of web sites I have to read. Gotta keep up on the things I am interested in. If I don't get to, I get cranky. And that was way before the latest events. With a big story in the news, a story I care about anyway, I go on news binges like the article talked about.

The net has been a blessing and a curse for me. There are a million things I am interested in, with more coming up all the time. And now there is this wealth of info at my fingertips... It is often very hard to stop studying up my newest obsession and GET SOME DAMN WORK DONE.

Sounds like it could be an addiction to me, but i don't know the proper psychological criteria for the term.

mod this UP

[jon_c]

I agree, it pisses no-one off more then to post a passionate story only to get modded to "-1 Offtopic" because the inane story was about some stupid tech junk no one at this time honestly cares about.

Admit it, everything else is just a diversion so we won't/don't think about whets going on, but it is going on and we as humans in disaster need to talk about it.

I keep my office working

[jacobcaz]

I've managed to get appointed "news hound" for the office. I guess I'm good at absorbing and summarizing large amounts of information from various sources.

Anyway, since I work in a fairly small office, I seem to be the person who keeps up on news and keeps everyone else updated. That way at least some work is getting down around here.

Letsee. I have a TV, radio & a seperate computer to keep news stories open all on my desk now.

I must say, it's really pushing the geek factor up when people see the array of devices on my desk, plus I get to keep the office actually working and not sitting around the TV.

Reports of his death are greatly exaggerated

[Froobly]

I just searched every reputable news site I could thing of for details of Stephen King's death. There was not a single mention.

What is it with Stephen King that makes people so quick to pronounce him dead? I find this to be in terribly poor taste.

Maybe some good from this

[Kwil]

After a while, you start noticing the machinery at work, the old manipulation, as if the naked facts aren't enough.

If enough people start to pick up on the machinery, then maybe news addiction is a good thing.

I ain't smoke no crack

[voudras]

I ain't smoke no crack in two hours.

Re:I ain't smoke no crack

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell yea!

I kinda got sick of the stuff

[Skuld-Chan]

I'm not heartless bastard - and maybe its the fact that I'm unemployed and have been exposed to more TV of the events in New York then most people.

But I find myself looking at a channel - if its something I didn't already know I'll flip back to the simpsons.

Cathedral

[Mike Schiraldi]

Thank God: It's 3:15 am and every channel i get is replaying the Cathedral ceremony in full, which i've already seen. So i can sleep.

Re:Cathedral

[bendude]

No, you're not addicted. Your idea of getting some sleep is getting off the couch, turning on the computer, dial the net, log on, surf to slashdot, read the latest story, and make a contribution. Pleasant dreams....

News addiction?

[OmegaDan]

Since when is the intersection between piss poor journalism and bad taste in television an addiction?

Re:News addiction?

[terri rolle]

piss poor journalism and bad taste in television

You misspelled "Fox News Channel".

Re:News addiction?

[mimbleton]

Hehe.. You leftist simply cannot get over the fact that your point of views are no longer the only kind represented on major networks.

Re:News addiction?

[kubrick]

Hehe.. You leftist simply cannot get over the fact that your point of views are no longer the only kind represented on major networks.

As someone who lives in the town the first Murdoch newspaper was started in (News Corp. is named after the Adelaide News, now defunct), let me assure you that the concepts "Rupert Murdoch" and "quality journalism" are almost completely antithetical :)

Re:News addiction?

[terri rolle]

Relax, it was just a cheap opportunity for a joke. Over the past few days I haven't noticed Fox to be noticeably worse than CNN et al. In fact, I rarely notice any difference between Fox and CNN except in that:

• Fox keeps telling us ad nauseam that they're not part of the liberal media conspiracy.
• Fox never passes up an opportunity to cover a story concerning strippers, prostitutes, bikinis, or breast implants.
• No matter what topic is under discussion, Fox can find a busty blonde expert to comment on it.

Other than that, Fox News and CNN are two peas in a pod as far as I'm concerned.

Personally I prefer to watch ABC. Peter Jennings becomes kind of goofy after eight or more hours on the air. He gets this silly sort of half smile while discussing gruesome events. And the night before last he was practically making up conspiracy theories about the government knowing there were still more terrorist cells operating in the US but refusing to tell the media about it.

Re:News addiction?

[unitron]

Oh come on now, Fox is fair and balanced.

I know because they tell me this every five minutes.

Re:News addiction?

[mimbleton]

I watched ABC but could not stand obvious dislike Jennings has for the president.
These stupid remarks "he is still our president", these small references to his "escape" on 11th...
This is all personal preferences, for O'Reilly has obvious bias against anything coming from Democratic side but somehow it does not bother me at all :-)

Re:News addiction?

[Jazu]

What is the deal with the "liberal media" anyway? Where did this concept come from? Seriously, all news is screwed up anyway, now that they try to make a profit.

Re:News addiction?

[Zeinfeld]

As someone who lives in the town the first Murdoch newspaper was started in (News Corp. is named after the Adelaide News, now defunct), let me assure you that the concepts "Rupert Murdoch" and "quality journalism" are almost completely antithetical :)

Not so, the London Sun daily presents a pair of mamary glands of surpassing excellence and newsworthiness.

rm -rf /bin/ladin

Re:News addiction?

[Zeinfeld]

What is the deal with the "liberal media" anyway? Where did this concept come from?

It comes from two sources. For the ideological right it comes from the inbuilt belief that anyone that does not believe as they do must be part of an evil conspiracy. During the 1970s when ideologues were ascendent in the left the common complaint was the inbuilt bias of the establisment media

The more cynical right wing hacks use the claim in an attempt to intimidate news organizations into biasing news coverage in their direction. It is highly effective. Witness the treatment that Bush's lies over his DUI conviction were treated in comparison to Gore's mistaken reference to the director of FEMA rather than the deputy director.

Fact is that most journalists are not racists, homophobic bigots etc. and thus reject the social agenda that the likes of Falwell and Robertson promote. So to that extent there is a 'bias'. However most TV pundits are also paid very large salaries and their coverage tends to favor the interests of very rich people like themselves.

rm -rf /bin/laden

The Irony

[collar]

The irony of a story about NEWS addiction in a NEWS paper is increadible. I guess they know it will at least reach the target audience of people addicted to news ;)

Opposite

[tsa]

I had the opposite actually. On Wednesday morning I decided not to watch TV at all that day. I couldn't handle it anymore...

Stephen King, author, hoaxed at 54

[feed_me_cereal]

Stephen king's official site, as well as some fan sites and his radio station's site, say nothing of this. I would think they would be the first to display the news, probably with some sort of memorial. Man, its just hoax-o-rama right now, isn't it.

Wanting to do something

[UnifiedTechs]

I have CNN on the TV, WNBC on streaming video, and a Realplayer feed of the NYPD scanner off of www.penguinradio.com going as I type this. Plus I already called all my old Marine buddies who are still active duty to see if they know something I don't. I don't think it is addiction as much as a feeling of wanting to help but can't. Now I am just waiting for the phone call to put the uniform back on, then I will feel like I am doing something.
One more thing, all you who went to give blood for this tragedy please remember to give again in 4 months, the need for blood is a 365 day of the year thing, And I take pride in telling my co-workers and friends I can't go with them to give blood because I gave a week before the attack.

News

[cute-boy]

By writing this sort of article, the author merely continues the cycle of coverage, as do I, and other contributers do here.

Our reactions are out of our individual control, a powerful mass conciousness of our new globalised world we have created for ourseleves, where we see things like this when happen, even if we are not actually there.

We need to communicate better and understand each other more, and this experience of collective horror shows us how much more we have in common with each other, and how insignificant our differences.

When we are ready it will pass.

RG

News addidction a problem?

[mabs]

My solution was to listen to this great news station in Australia, ABC NewsRadio, hehe, we even have a newsradioaddicts list on yahoo :) I't great actually, part of the govt. funded radio network over here, and, IMHO, puts BBC in second place of my listening preference. For all of you people out there that are too far away from .au to hear, there is a live net stream on there web site: www.abc.net.au/newsradio.

I admit, I have been addicted to radio news for years, then newspaper, followed by tv, mainly because radio is so much more convenient than all other types of media, other than having it sent to your <insert hand held mobile remote data device here>, but I still like radio more.

I don't know about other countries, and other networks, but I am also an avid shortwave radio listener, and I also listen to BBC, RNW, VOA and a few others, if anyone knows of more, reply to this comment, and I might put a page together of radio news addict resources around the world.

You can go back to sleep now. Here's why:

[Wakko Warner]

Folks, this war is going to take a long time. This isn't gonna be over in days or weeks or months, and the resolution is not gonna be on tomorrow's news. Once we find out who these people are and who their superiors are and how everything works (CNN reports that one of the guys we picked up in St. Louis tonight on a train is telling the FBI a lot about that shit), we have to go in and take out the Taliban "government" but do it in a way that doesn't kill many Afghani people, since they're not the ones who did this either. The Taliban is a fundamentalist regime, and those are bad and need to be dealt with. (Look at Iraq for an example of what happens when we don't and/or can't.) Going in and carpet-bombing the country isn't gonna be the way to do it though. I think that's why you haven't heard much about how or when or why we're going to attack parts of Afghanistan (and I firmly believe we will.)

Those who think we can't afford to kill innocent civilians there too, though, please take your rose-tinted glasses off. This isn't grade schoool and everything has a price in the real world. Freedom from the creeping tyranny of terrorism, though -- teaching those people that this is NOT the way to make friends and influence people -- requires some struggle and loss.

I am confident that, in the end, the good will far outweigh the bad in this thing. But it's going to take time.

- A.P.

Religion is NOT to blame

[Weasel Boy]

No religion with any significant number of followers advocates this sort of violence. Hatred is responsible for these crimes, and all who hide their behind any mantle of religion are traitors to the very religion they pretend to support. They are either liars or frauds.

No true Christian could ever possibly bomb a hospital. No true Muslim could ever possibly commit a terrorist act. Anyone who would do such a thing is a murderer, not a Muslim or Christian. The two concepts are not mutually compatible.

In order to end the senseless killing, we as a society need to do two things: Stop teaching hate, and effectively deal with mental illness. No other remedy will succeed. Well, maybe one other. We can always exterminate ourselves.

Re:Religion is NOT to blame

[Anonymous Coward]

methinks you are indulging in the "no true scotsman" fallacy. research and see.

Re:Religion is NOT to blame

[feed_me_cereal]

Although I am an agnostic, you do have a point. You can abstract the causes of these acts beyond religion. Underneath, the common and necesary factor is hate and intolerance. Religious fanatasism may help an individual justify murder, but it need not be present. The individual must, however, be so consumed with hate that, in thier futility and rage, can rationalize attacking innocent strangers over some petty difference. The difference can be nationality, religion, race, etc... Some people are able to hate individuals on the other side of some difference because they have not overcome thier primal instincts to fear that which is different from one's self. The real problem is getting people past this instinct.

Re:Religion is NOT to blame

[Anonymous Coward]

"No religion with any significant number of followers advocates this sort of violence."

oh really?...

Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
Exodus 21:24-25

He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.
Exodus 22:20

And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
Leviticus 20:10

A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.
Leviticus 20:27

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Leviticus 20:13

But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
Deuteronomy 13:9

et cetera

Re:Religion is NOT to blame

[Anonymous Coward]

I did. He did not switch his thoughts mid argument. Therefore the NTS fallacy is not a valid counter-argument.

Please read this for a counter-argument againts NTSF anyways:

http://www.theism.net/authors/pnarkinsky/nts.htm l

And note, I'm an Atheist, but still, I see the NTSFF argument as more valid than the NTSF argument.

Manufacturing Consent

[surfimp]

I've turned off my television and stopped visiting CNN.com and all the rest of the mainstream media outlets. I'm becoming extremely disturbed by the direction which they've been heading since rougly 20 minutes after the second plane hit, and (as I recall) even before the first WTC tower fell.

The talk is of reprisal, and how the United States is going to respond to the attacks. Granted, nothing can justify what has happened, and there is no rationalization for what was done. However, could we perhaps get a bit wider perspective or perhaps even some critical thought/discussion regarding what has happened from CNN?

Today there was a poll on CNN.com that makes my point perfectly: "If Afghanistan refuses to hand over Osama bin Laden, should the U.S. bomb Kabul?" 79% of respondents said yes, we should bomb Kabul.

Hello, my fellow citizens! The people of Afghanistan are currently living under the tyrannical rule of the Taliban, having just come out of a long and very punishing war with the former Soviet Union. Not only has all the major infrastructure *already* been bombed, but the people are suffering tremendously as it currently stands.

Even more to the point, what could "we" possibly gain by bombing Kabul, which is a CITY full of CIVILIANS, after all? Does it make any difference whether it's a cruise missle or jetliner causing the explosion? Do you think the Taliban government, the only ones with access to food and equipment, will still be in Kabul when the bombs start to drop? Hardly--they'll be off in the hills with bin Laden, and the only people left to suffer the brunt of such an assault would be the civilian population.

The point I'm trying to make is that the mainstream media is so caught up in the idea that we could bomb Afghanistan that they've forgotten whether or not we should. After all, the only real way that we'll get bin Laden (or whomever is responsible for these crimes) out is by _going_in_after_them_. That will cost American and NATO lives. And, it can be aruged that it runs the high risk of polarizing other Muslim nations against what they could only perceive as an invasion by the West.
And if you've actually read anything about what bin Laden is trying to accomplish with his terrorist agenda, it's EXACTLY that--a world war between Islam and the West. And remember, Pakistan has nuclear bombs at their disposal.

Where is there any discussion of these facts in the mainstream media? That is what I truly fear, more than anything else. The manufacturing of our consent to what amounts to acts of genocide against civilian populations--and that ultimately leads to only greater and greater violence.

Try: http://www.zmag.org

Re:Manufacturing Consent

[essell]

Yes, yes and yes. People have the taste of revenge in their mouths and they feel the need to attack... well, something. I'm guessing 50% of the people who voted yes don't even know what Kabul is...

Re:Manufacturing Consent

[motherhead]

Do Testify!

The only thing that cut through my slack-jawed numb shock of seeing the atrocity unfold on live TV, was about three hours later when each network had managed to have it's own unique theme music and spinning 3-D logos of "Day of Terror" or "America Under Siege" or whatever. (as if someone was selling tee-shirts.)

Apparently they still felt they had to sell us on paying attention to the gravity of the situation with market-weasel glitter. I found it abhorrent; it really bothered me that I was so distracted by it when I knew damn well that I was witnessing a calamity on a scale that could not be previously imagined.

Re:Manufacturing Consent

[ayjay29]

I agree, you have to look at who would profit from an armed conflict, among others, CNN. I heard that they were having financial problems a while ago as the 'Zippergate' fiasco was over, people were not interested in the election, and there had been no major conflicts for a few years.

Looks like they are getting what they want, millions of viewers, and all that advertising revenue...

Re:Manufacturing Consent

[Zoop]

And if you've actually read anything about what bin Laden is trying to accomplish with his terrorist agenda, it's EXACTLY that--a world war between Islam and the West.

Yes, but if you'd been watching the news carefully, instead of getting hysterical buried in counter-culture spinlications preaching their own brand of hate, you'd know that he's failed.

This is not a war between Islam and the West, but it is war.

This is a war in which you have to choose sides: do you support state-sponsored terrorism, or don't you? It is a war between those who do and those who don't. It is a war in which there is little conflict of interest between the U.S. and Jordan, Isreal, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, France, Britain, or any other government that has suffered at the hands of terrorism sponsored by outlaw states.

You've gotten too far from the news--using phrases like "genocide" and "nuclear bombs" marginalizes you. In case you didn't watch, even when a more convential air war was used against Serbia, most bombs did not fall on civilians.

Before you think yourself cluefull and everyone else in the world Pollyanna, let me state that most other people know that there will be civillian casualties in the coming war. But the main difference you fail to grasp is that it will be something we seek to minimize rather than the central goal, and that is the central difference this war is about. We will also ally with governments who do not have the respect for human rights that we have. It will be necessary to win the war.

Also, if you had been following the news, you would have learned that Pakistan is cooperating--contributing intelligence, allowing overflight, cutting off aid and supplies to the Taliban. If you knew more about the tensions in the region, you would know their nuclear bombs a) can't reach here, b) aren't enough to take us out and prevent retaliation even if they were smuggled in, and c) will be held on to because India has them, too, which is why they are there in the first place.

This is not a war in which sanctions will be allowed to work. They are, ironically, the non-war alternative proposed by the same left wing that complains about their effects on civilian populations. And they are historically ineffective.

This will be a war with few examples of Baghdad-like bombing runs. When we punish, or hopefully eliminate, the governments that sponsor terrorism, there will be such things. Occasionally a terrorist camp will be eliminated, at least in part, by such methods. They will be directed against government or terrorist facilities and with every attempt made to avoid places where civilians congregate--but only insofar as that attempt still allows us to remove assets that government uses in its campaign of supporting terror and repressing its citizens.

Most Muslims, even those in the Middle East, are not fond of terrorism because in the main, it has made life worse for them rather than better. What Western and left-wing press alike fail to realize is that they are frequently the victims of such things, as the terrorists decide that a certain government isn't "Islamic enough" for them. As long as we are careful to go in and get, as you suggest (and I agree) terrorists and punish or destroy the governments that give the succor, and as long as we then, AFTER we remove the threat, resume the long, painful path to peaceful co-existence, there will be no Islam-West conflict beyond the multifaceted but usually peaceful conflict of values we have now.

Re:Manufacturing Consent

[karlm]

Too bad they didn't then go on to ask each respondant what Kabul is. My guess is that 70% of the people polled believed that Kabul was a more legitimate target, and that CNN wouldn't even bother to ask if we should bomb a civilian target.

My guess is that most of the people thought Kabul was the name of a bin Laden hideout or a terrorist camp.

Ever see the show "Street Smarts"? Thare are lots of really stupid people out there. 78% of the American public probably couldn't name the Vice President. (Okay, I'm exagerating.) (Oh... it just took my GF a little longer than I expected to name him, and she's a grad student at MIT. Maybe 90% of the US population couldn't name the US VP in under one minute.)

Re:Manufacturing Consent

[unitron]

What advertising revenue? From their web site maybe? They are losing millions of dollars a day.

The problem with a story such as this (or the Gulf War) is that it can't be packaged into easily managed episodes with commercial slots as though it were "Friends" or "All My Children" or whatever gets ratings these days.

Re:Manufacturing Consent

[Sniser]

This is a war in which you have to choose sides: do you support state-sponsored terrorism, or don't you?

Holy cow, you're talking like the US/CIA hadn't a long history of supporting/training terrorists. You're talking like Osama Bin Laden wasn't an American creature, sponsored by the US in the 1980s to keep the Russian Army out of Afghanistan.

And to quote Powell, "people who think they can kill civilians and destroy buildings to achieve political purposes"....sounds like the US to me. Oh the hypocrisy.

American citizens might not realize it right now, you might really think this was an "unprovoked" attack on "liberty and democracy", but history *will* look down on you, if you don't use this opportunity to STOP, LOOK, THINK, and act rationally.

I'm not defending the terrorist attack in the least, I'm just saying you're not a bit better. When 700.000 children died in Iraq (according to the UN) because of the US embargo, you just shrugged and said "they have the choice, if they kick out Saddam the embargo will be gone 2 hours later". I don't know who is behind these attacks, but it could very well be that it's "you have the choice, stop fucking up the middle east and the terrorism stops".

Re:Manufacturing Consent

[Anonymous Coward]

The Taliban have to go ...

I also saw the poll yesterday and was very upset. People just want anyone to get a little "payback", whether they're responsible or not. It's almost certain bin Laden isn't in Kabul and most likely the Taliban leaders will leave and the civilians will stay. Not to mention the women who don't own a burqua and have a male relative who can legally "escort" them out of their homes. It's ridiculous - if Kabul is bombed we'd kill women who aren't allowed to leave their homes - exactly the people who could not be responsible for this tragedy in the first place. Bombing Kabul will accomplish nothing except killing civilians, getting the Afghani people upset (not like their lives are great anyway), and probably give more support to the Taliban.

Re:Manufacturing Consent

[Anonymous Coward]

Try the BBC - they seem to have more info about Afghanistan than just the Taliban - which is all CNN has (they're coverage acts as if the Taliban represent the Afghani people)

e.g. this article - definately worth reading

or for something completely different, see http://www.afghanradio.com/azadi.html e.g. this article written in August this year

For info on the Taliban, see this.

Re:Manufacturing Consent

[Tony-A]

The advertising revenue after things return to normal and people still want to get their daily dose of CNN. The Gulf War boosted CNN enormously, not just during the Gulf War.

Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

6 days witthout turning TV off barely slept 2 hours a day, sleeping pills completly ineffective.

(always been told to tune on CNN in case of big shit, een here in france, where terrorist attack are quite common, for example in 95 i had to take the subway to go to school it's a 5 station trip, and in few month 3 of these stations where partially destroyed by terrorist bombings)

Which lead me to one thing I think important, in December 94 an aircraft was hijacked from Algeria to france by the GIA (Islamic Army Group), it was forced to land in Marseille (south of country) after crossing the Mediterranean sea, but terrorists says after that their project was to throw the aircraft over Paris, similarities in these kind of behavior are disturbing... I don't understand why nobody made the link...
-I remember this nightmare because of my nearest relative went to Belgrad for vacation at the same time and knowing her alone, made me go crazy I was still completly ballistic 2 weeks after her return and developped addiction to antidepressors which is still unresolved

The Age of the Media Frenzy

[darkov]

I guess it's unavoidable in the age of TV and instant global communication, but when a big story breaks, must the entire (global) media go nuts and into a weird sort of paralysis? Non-stop 24 hour coverage on all free to air stations. Commentary about the event, about what it means, about why we did/didn't see it coming, who's to blame, then commentary about the commentary. Wild rumours flying about. It's almost like journalism takes a break. People report anything to fill the space. It might be interesting for a few hours, but goes on for *days*. Before the attack it was Princess Di dying and probably others I can't remeber. I generally want it to go away so I can watch meaningless drivel and turn off my brain, espacially when it's something as horrible as this, I really don't want to think about it 24/7. And I wonder if others should either given the emotional response: unjustified attacks on Arabs on the street and their churches, ramapant nationalism and talk of going to war. For all the horror of the situation, this sort of fervour is what drove the fanatics to park a couple of Boeings in the WTC in the first place.

Works for me ...

[martin-k]

As though KNOWING more will somehow help.

It does for me. I feel insecure in events like these as long as I don't know everything. After absorbing as much news as possible, it settles in and I accept it. THEN I feel better.

Call me a news junkie, but that's the way it works for me.

-Martin

Re:Works for me ...

[mlong]

As though KNOWING more will somehow help.

That's right. Everyone knows ignorance helps, not the pursuit of knowledge.

Brain Under Attack.

[Pentomino]

This kind of news addiction is the precise reason that most network channels are on 24-hour news-barf mode.

To be truthful, when I absent-mindedly flip to the news channels, I hope that they're reporting on something other than the tragedy, or at least something new. I'm always disappointed.

It seems as if there's a nationwide effort to not let us think about anything else. Our minds aren't designed to take in that kind of horror for 24 hours a day, four days straight. Thank God for the Cartoon Network.

coward.

[jon_c]

I shouldn't respond to such a cowardly attack... but anyway.

A: I'm only about 50% sure that killing/scaring/generally pissing more people off is the best action. I logically see this as an un-fightable war much like the war on drugs instantiated by the Reagan administration.
But to explain my comment, as an American I very much want to see retaliation, it's illogical irrational and emotional but it's (more then anything) what I want to see.

B: to echo millions; I before Tuesday I was not a patriotic person, I was cynical and felt no connection to the rest of the county. Now I am ready to fight, with a gun for America.

-Jon

Re:coward.

[Gordonjcp]

I shouldn't respond to such a cowardly attack... but anyway.

OK, I wasn't the AC that posted the comment (I've never posted as AC and I'm not about to start), but it sounded fair enough to me. If you want to see stuff blow up in the Middle East, *you* go and do it. Join the army. Don't expect to sit about and have someone else's child die to support your sense of outrage. Go fight them yourself.

I'm only about 50% sure ...

I'm even less sure than that. Two wrongs have never made a right, and I don't think they will now.

as an American I very much want to see retaliation, it's illogical irrational and emotional but it's (more then anything) what I want to see.

George W. Bush keeps telling us how America is a Christian nation. Calling for massive retaliation without any kind of investigation into who committed these acts of terrorism isn't very Christian, is it?

My thoughts go out to the families of those involved. No-one can imagine what it must be like for them now.

But please, don't just go and jump all over the Middle East. You won't win that way.

Re:coward.

[zulux]

Don't feel bad that your were not "Patriotic" before the terrorist attack. It's easy to be patriotic when times are easy: You find yourself one with America when it counts - when times are tough.

News from Australia

[Richard_Alston]

Keep watching the news folks, it will include interesting bits such as the Australian Government psychofantically (that's how you spell it isn't it?) jumping onto the 'More Internet Regulation' bandwagon. Clearly, these guys used free internet encryption and anonaminity to smuggle plastic blades and bomb threats onto these planes.

You people can rest assured that we will remove every one of your liberties necessary to preserve ours. What a coincidence that the media has spun this low tech attack into a call for tighter internet regulations. It almost turns their fight from a battle to protect DVDs and CDs to a battle for our lives.

Anyway, repeating that news, ludicrously tight internet restrictions will be announced for Australia. The government is currently rubbing it's hands together and dreaming up all sorts of things. And we'll finally be able to get that grubby little arsehole that's been impersonating me on slashdot too.

Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha wheeeeze ha ha ha ha ha ha cough

News sources

[SONET]

I, too, have become addicted. I literally hadn't watched TV since 1995 until this happened, now I can't stop watching it. I am impressed (perhaps 'blown away' would better describe it) that most cable television news networks have dropped advertising altogether in this great opportunity for ad revenue. Come to think of it, on the web side even x10.com changed and in some cases removed their annoying ads, though I still wouldn't buy anything from them after all the ads I have had to close.

I must admit that I probably still wouldn't be watching TV if it hadn't been for the fact that I have been disappointed with the news coverage on the web. Even web sites such as cnn.com have nowhere near the detail of their television broadcasting counterparts. And the worst part by far is that it takes quite some time for information to make it to their site, and when it does, it really is lacking depth and detail that TV coverage offers. I have found this to be true with all news-related web sites. I realize that data entry and formatting takes time, but it seems to me that there is much room for improvement.

The web has proven to be an excellent source for discussion, as always (both slashdot and Kuro5hin have had some excellent threads over the past few days). And finding background information on different subjects is and probably always will be unparalled. I've probably been to Google a hundred times since Tuesday.

With all this free time I have found myself with, I have been visiting web sites of different companies to see how they have responded to the tragedy. Many sites (apple.com comes to mind) have messages displayed prominately on their sites. Others, particularly companies based in Asia for some reason (honda2001.com comes to mind), have no mention whatsoever. I also found it disappointing that some companies seem (in my opinion) to be using their philanthropy, though generous, with the alterior motive of boosting their company image and earning brownie points. In my eyes this is evident on some web sites immediately. Whatever the case, be sure to visit some of your favorite and not-so-favorite company web sites and see how they are handling things. Whether you're planning to invest in a company or just buy a candybar from them, I think it's always good to have an idea who you're giving your money to, and in some cases this might be a good indicator.

As another aside, I am sitting here in southern California, USA at 11:40pm PST listening to people sounding their car horns like there is no tomorrow. People are on the street corners and islands in major intersections all up and down the streets, waving American flags and holding candles. There are hundreds of people - some corners must have 50-100 people each. There were what looked like thousands of candles that people had brought set up at the pier here. I found it interesting that, from talking with my grandparents, this patriotic attitude is similar to the level experienced during WWII.

I just realized how tiring watching TV can be... 'nite.
--SONET

Pray. There's more out there...

[1skywalker1]

There's more to life then this... more to life than what we see. It amazes me that an entire nation can go through the motions and yet have so many people continue to miss it. Prayer.

Today America prayed.

This nation was founded as a Christian nation on Biblical principles. We are a nation that built a government to protect freedom and liberty through a system of laws that God created.

if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
2 Chronicles 7:14

Have you ever actually read the Bible? Ya know, the most translated, most printed book in all of history... You ever actually read it? I used to be the standard hypocritical WASP that /. so diligently flames... until I read that book for myself.

Our lives are made up of more than cable TV and broadband internet. Everyone is searching for a meaning, for destiny and a purpose. The purpose of the creation is only found in the mind of the creator. Have you talked to Him lately?

Prayer.

Don't nock it till you've tried it.

GOD bless America.

it can be of help

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess I am a 'news addict'. I don't spend hours watching TV over & over though, but I trawl daily through Slashdot, bbc.com & various other sites. It is not that I am afraid of missing something, just that againing more knowledge - & therefore more understanding makes me a better person.
It has been worth it; I know who I am, I understand the world, I understand myself, I am at peace with myself.

It's the Commercials

[aoeuid]

Or lack thereof, rather. Everyone knows television is super addictive, its just that the relentless advertising finally takes its toll on our brain and we are forced to turn it off. Think about it, when was the last time you've seen four straight days without an ad in sight?

It's probably NEVER happened before and this is what's causing the widespread television addiction. Full length interviews, they don't force the callers off the line because they have to "take a short break". Im dead serious about this folks.

Re:It's the Commercials

[Anonymous Coward]

Well you're dead wrong too. In many countries, such as mine (sweden), we have state-run television channels
that have no commercials, and they are just as boring as the normal ones.

This addiction is different. I had a bad case of it this time, but it regularly happens to me during US presidential elections and it happened during NATO vs serbia and World vs Iraq as well.

I'm not sure what links those events, other than they're big.
/August, who forgot his password.

Re:It's the Commercials

[beardcz]

The BBC in the UK has no commercials, ever, and it's still hard to turn off (especially now). I'd say rather that the current topics fill many people's needs for visions of violence, suspense, drama, intrigue, paranoia, etc... They don't even have to pay Hollywood to produce it for them.

I wonder whether movie attendence is down, as people may not need to get their fix there...

Re:It's the Commercials

[aoeuid]

actually, i saw on the news this morning that box office sales this weekend were consistent with the norm. Whatever benchmark they use I have no idea because i hate most movies anyway

Re:You can go back to sleep now. Here's why:

[jinx90277]

Actually, the tenor of the comments from the government these days seems to indicate that they almost feel forced to do something on a short time scale. It doesn't change the fact that there will not be a quick resolution -- or any resolution -- to this situation. But if there is not at least a first act in an American military response in the next week, I will be stunned. The people want someone else to hurt, right now, and too damn bad if it ends up being exactly the wrong move in the long run.

Politicians are professional poll puppets, and if 79% of the people want the U.S. to bomb Kabul, I'm sure the government will find a way to justify it.

News vs. Knowledge

[Skyshadow]

This whole incident has started to cement something for me (hang with me, I'm working this out as I go):

News is not knowledge. News is a thin layer that rests atop the mountain of our experience and knowledge.

This is why some people can't understand why we didn't just shoot down the second WTC plane while it's pretty obvious to me. This is why people blame religion or, conversely, discount completely the role of religion in this sort of event.

People who are news addicted tend to know what happened but lack a very basic understanding of why. I have seen a lot of these people lately, and I've experienced a lot of frustration trying to point out seemingly obvious mistakes in their logic.

Maybe, then, we need news reporting closer to that of the BBC or newspapers, where at least some depth is included (of course, at the cost of speed). Maybe we just need a better educational system -- hell, I took college-level philosophy classes without reading a page of Locke or Descartes, psych with no Freud of Jung, history without Gibbon.

Maybe I'm ranting -- it's late and I'm tired.

Re:News vs. Knowledge

[zzyzx]

What was so obvious to you about why the second plane wasn't shot down? Reports from yesterday said that they were just too slow.

Re:News vs. Knowledge

[Skyshadow]

Basically, that's exactly it. I had one of out semi-intelligent guys arguing that they can fly above mach 1, so they had to have been able to get there.

I just pointed out that you had to add reaction time from chain of command, scrambling time, target aquisition, etc.

Re:News vs. Knowledge

[sconeu]

This is why some people can't understand why we didn't just shoot down the second WTC plane while it's pretty obvious to me

CBS reported that fighters were scrambled, but were 70 miles away when the second plane hit.

Re:News vs. Knowledge

[mlong]

News is not knowledge. News is a thin layer that rests atop the mountain of our experience and knowledge

Certainly some news is heresay or opinions. Other news consists of hard facts. And facts ARE knowledge.

Has anyone noticed?

[Anonymous Coward]

9/11
12/7

9 + 11 = 20
12 + 7 = 19

Damn, I thought I saw a pattern. Sorry for wasting your time.

Exhausted of News

[3ric]

I don't mean for this to sound uncaring, but after the second straight day I found myself getting more and more tired of the news simply because it seemed as if they had exhausted all avenues. I'm glad that people got a chance to describe loved ones, etc, who are missing, but it seems that every other story is practically tired. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm wishing for some normalcy in television world.

Re:You can go back to sleep now. Here's why:

[terri rolle]

CNN reports that one of the guys we picked up in St. Louis tonight on a train is telling the FBI a lot about that shit

Yeah, and we'll see if this item of "Breaking News" is true for a change.

we have to go in and take out the Taliban "government" but do it in a way that doesn't kill many Afghani people, since they're not the ones who did this either.

The reason the Taleban is in power is because there are significant numbers of Afghanis who support it. And even the factions that are opposed to it detest the US just as much. If we go to war against Afghanistan, we have to accept the fact that lots of people who were not involved in terrorist activities are going to be killed. If the government is destroyed, what replaces it might be just as bad. I'm not saying we shouldn't attack if that's what needs to be done, just that we have to be prepared for the consequences.

The Taliban is a fundamentalist regime, and those are bad and need to be dealt with.

I hope we don't have to deal with all fundamentalist regimes. They're not the only one.

Look at Iraq for an example of what happens when we don't and/or can't.

Iraq does not have a Islamic fundamentalist regime, if that's what you meant to imply.

Going in and carpet-bombing the country isn't gonna be the way to do it though.

Afghanistan is a particular problem. If you count the invasion by the Soviet Union, and the civil war that ensued after they sent the Soviets home with their tails between their legs, Afghanistan has been at war for 22 consecutive years. There's little there to bomb. The cities are full of rubble, and roads are muddy ruts. There are thousands of experienced and fanatical guerilla warriors. If we attack Afghanistan, we have to be prepared to get our hands much dirtier than we did in the Persian Gulf.

I think that's why you haven't heard much about how or when or why we're going to attack parts of Afghanistan

I think the reason we haven't heard about how or when or why we're going to attack parts of Afghanistan is that it's just not good military strategy inform the enemy of your battle plans.

lots of us

[NMerriam]

I'm doing it too. Its 4 in the morning, and what the heck am I doing up? I'm reloading CNN, reloading slashdot, reading more comments, reading foreign papers, watching TV in the background, I have NPR on the radio.

I keep expecting to find something new, and every now ad then am rewarded. A new insight, a new discussion, a new way to start a ground war, a new way to keep the peace.

What started it all was when it was happening. Just when you thought you new, another thing happened. A plane hit the tower. When you absorbed that, another plane hit the other tower. When you absorbed that, a plane hit the pentagon. When you absorbed that, F-16s were rushing off to intercept ANOTHER plane heading towards DC. It just kept coming, every 15 minutes there was something new, something big. Another plane crash, another plane missing, the president is in florida -- no, he's in Louisiana, wait he's at the bunker.

Always something new, then we heard about the phone calls, the personal stories. i imagine the people on that last flight making the decision to fight back. I keep waiting for another piece of news -- it was too painful to realize I had missed something if I went to the bathroom that morning. If you stopped listening for a minute, you'd tune in again to hear that another plane was down.

Now I keep expecting to hear about an attack somewhere, like the gulf war, started at night where our superior technology gives us sight while the others are blind.

I don't want to wake up and know that I missed the first 6 hours of what happens next.

Having been there -- Cannot turn it on

[kidblast]

I was about 4 blocks away when the World Trade Center collapsed. I saw people falling from the (North or South, can't remember) building, and saw it collapse. The day started out as any normal school day. It ended with my entire school being evacuated to use as a hospital. I have only been able to watch about 5 minutes of the news a day since it happened. I think I am still in shock, and can't stand to see what is going on. It makes me feel so insignificant and fragile to be reminded of the tragedy. I dread the days when Ill be able to return to school and will have to face the new reality every time I look out the window or go to or from school.
I guess this is me still in shock and denial
Sorry if this is offtopic or whatever
I still don't know what I'm doing since I saw this

There are other forums than Slashdot

[juggleme]

Although the tragedy is still the focus of the nation and probably will be for some time, it's good to see that some news sites aren't just repeating the same facts (that everyone already knows) and throwing in their 2 cents worth of speculation.

Also, there are still other forums that exist. Usenet, Yahoo, and other random discussion boards that exist at almost every site on the web. If all you want is a forum to discuss on go there.

If you must post to /., try making your own discussion. (scroll all the way down) I haven't played with it myself, but it looks like what you're looking for.

Re:There are other forums than Slashdot

[dachshund]

Usenet is too slow. Yahoo is too full of bigots and idiots. Other random discussion boards don't seem to be getting the number and quality of posts (yes, believe it or not, Slashdot's news quality has been quite good if you ignore some of the junk.)

Ever since this thing happened, I've been getting a lot of up to date information off of the Slashdot stories, browsing Newest First. I can assure you that the local news, CNN/MSNBC/BBC.com are not as quick to get this information out there.

It'll pass

[Courageous]

I gone for a year and a half now with nary turning on the T.V. at all. Tuesday morning a buddy called and told me to turn on the T.V. and I've now been glued to the set. I was so fixated on events, I didn't even go to work nor bother even calling in until quite late in the day.

I went through something similar during the Gulf War in new addiction, although back then, it was more paper. It'll pass. Truly.

C//

Re:It'll pass

[flacco]

I've now been glued to the set. I was so fixated on events, I didn't even go to work nor bother even calling in until quite late in the day.

Yep, me too, I've been to work about six hours total since Tues, e-mailed in to take some vacation time.

I REALLY have to drag my ass in this weekend or I'll end up unemployed....

It's all I have done, not good.

[BravoXL]

I have been watching it pretty much non stop since the event. The most of the entire days news I have missed is 3 to 4 hours for sleep. I don't know why i am obsessed so much with this, I think because it is such a huge event with so many ramifacations. Maybe addiction dosen't even describe it, perhaps unhealthy obesession.

A prediction

[bl968]

Going by the fact that Bush has ordered flags to be flown at half-mast until the 21st, I suspect the first attacks will start early on the 21st. What could be better than the day America stops officially mourning than to start dealing some major damage to the instigator(s) of the terrorists attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon!

Re:A prediction

[Zero__Kelvin]

(Setec Astronomy == No More Secrets) for those who either never saw 'Sneakers' or couldn't recall this.

Re:A prediction

[psych031337]

Going by the fact that Bush has ordered flags to be flown at half-mast until the 21st, I suspect the first attacks will start early on the 21st

I just checked the CIA WFB 2000 on Afghanistan. Gives a pretty bad image of the country, but what the heck. I figured it would be neat to kick back on them (in whatever way conceivable) on a national holiday. Unfortunately there are only three of these days and all have already passed for this year.

But taking a look at their average lifespan (around 46 years) and the high rate of infant deaths it might just be easier to lock down all borders and wait till they have perished.

Back on a more serious track, please check out the fact book link below. Knowledge is power, as we all know. And knowing under what circumstances these people are living might be the first to resolving the situation. Terror stems from hate and hate is a good friend of poverty.

Afghanistan has an literacy rate of just 35%. Roundabout 100.000 radio receivers and about the same amount of TV sets in the ENTIRE country. Now, this is a people to be led into misbeliefs easily...

Ethics of reporting & news coverage

[Anonymous Coward]

I know that the media has a responsibility to cover important events (and nothing is more important than this right now) but the coverage is reaching disturbing proportions. There are banner ads on web sites, TV channels, everywhere, all asking for donations. Even if I wanted to, I don't think I could escape it for a few minutes. Hell, there were even two women outside of Fry's today selling ribbons so that people could "show their support". They said that they were going to donate the money they made, but should we take their word for it? Do we need more ribbons? It made me ill to even think that someone might use this for personal gain.

But isn't that what the networks are doing? Why does a non-news network stop its normal programming (or supplement it w/ banners) rather than leave the news to the actual news networks? I'd imagine they keep those banners there so people don't change the channel. Or at the least they give the public the warm fuzzies that the channel is doing "everything they can".

Now I don't want to seem insensitive, I'm not. My former employer lost an office right across the street from the WTC. That hit close to home for me personally. If this had happened a year ago and I could have lost many friends. It scares me shitless.

I don't pretent to even fathom how we as a nation (world?) should react or how horrible this tragedy is for the victim's & their families, but I can't help but be disturbed by the grandstanding, sensationalism and capitalization of this event.

Re:Ethics of reporting & news coverage

[slockhar]

While I agree with you to some degree, I'm not so sure this is a bad thing.

I'm in Europe, physically far away from NYC, but there are signs of it everywhere: people handing out leaflets declaring candlelight vigils, literally thousands of people outside cathedrals standing together in respectful silence, non-Americans singing The Star Spangled Banner, flowers and flags piled high at embassies and monuments, and words of condolences to our brothers and sisters when we hear their accents during our daily travels.

We, on this side of the pond, are standing in solidarity with the United States of America, sharing every moment of grief, pain, and hope through the wonders of the Information Age. It's truly an unprecedented event.

Peace be with you.

Re:Ethics of reporting & news coverage

[gnarly]

Well Put AC. In addition to the "ethical lapses" of the news media you mentioned consider this: The best way to demoralize, depress and terrify the American Populace is to constantly and repeatedly subject them with terrifying demoralizing IMAGES, which sadly is just what the TV media do at times like these. Is this not EXACTLY what the terrorists want?

Top 3 rules of being a pseudo-intellectual

[Anonymous Coward]

Insult someones intelligence directly (use words like shallow or short-sighted

suggest a book to them

be a karma whore

Some News Addiction here

[MegaFur]

Usually when something bad happens that I want to know about, I just get enough info so that I know what happened and that's that.

This time though, every time I wake up, I'm like: I wonder if they've attacked anything else--quick! turn on the news to make sure the *world* is still there. I suspect this impulse will fade with time though.

(Btw: did you know you can get RealPlayer feeds from http://news.bbc.co.uk ?)

Please note: Search is down at the moment. In the

[Anonymous Coward]

Please note: Search is down at the moment. In the meantime, you may wish to search Slashdot through Google:

hahaha man slash sucks ass, and I ain't talking about GnR either. Kiss my puckered asshole, Malda.

Re:You can go back to sleep now. Here's why:

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree with your remark about not killing too many Afghani people. The reason I disagree is based on historical precedant.

We used nuclear bombs on another quasi-religious country of kamakazi fanatics - Japan. We overwhelmed them with the terror of our might, our mighty atomic bomb. Do you think the war would have stopped if we had made "surgical strikes" on Nagasaki and Hiroshima? Do you think if we only targeted military leaders in Hiroshima and Nagasaki that the war would have ended? No, of course not. What we did, to put it into the language of The Godfather, was to make them an offer they couldn't refuse. Now is the time to make Afghanastan an offer which they can't refuse.

Thought it was just me...

[kstumpf]

Glad to hear I'm not the only one glued to the news lately. I can't stay away from the TV. I just keep watching and waiting for the next development, no matter how minor it may be, that brings us closer to justice or resolve in any way. Since I am 2000 miles away from my family, following this situation closely makes it easier to cope.

For me, it makes it feel less real

[Anonymous Coward]

It makes the tragedy feel like it didn't really happen -- it's just something contained in my television and computer.

IRC - The other news source

[ChipX86]

IRC has proven to be a fairly good source for news coverage the past few days. Volunteers on the #wtc-confirmed and #worldtradecenter channels on irc.openprojects.net have been watching various news channels and sites, posting the latest news regarding Tuesday's attacks and the aftermath.

There's even an article on LinuxWorld.com about these channels.

I'm one of the volunteers in that channel. News has been fairly slow lately, but we do welcome people to sit in and listen or participate.

He was a prom king... why was _that_ mentioned?

[TheMidget]

These high school sweethearts, 1988 prom king and queen, married five years last month, brand-new parents, seemed to be saying farewell.

Did those journalists really have to bring that one up? The guy did a great act of heroism, why did Jane Pauley think it necessary to mention that he was a jock and a prom king in his highschool days? "Popular" jocks often have the habit of pushing their geek classmates over the edge, up to the point were they are ready to commit rather extreme acts.

Hey Mr Glick was probably an exception to the rule and has probably been very respectful of his classmates that were less "popular" than he was, but why did this silly journalist have to bring up this "prom king" stuff, which has absolutely no bearing to the story, and which conjures up rather ugly images of a different tragedy?

Re:He was a prom king... why was _that_ mentioned?

[NDPTAL85]

Actually, Mr. Dork, prom kings are usually looked up to by "normal" people. Thats excluding the geeks and nerds they pick on. Prom kings and jocks usually got all the girls, friends, favors and attention so they were HONORING him by mentioning that he was a prom king not disparaging him.

Re:He was a prom king... why was _that_ mentioned?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, Mr. Dork, prom kings are usually looked up to by "normal" people. Thats excluding the geeks and nerds they pick on.

Oh great! So all the "normal" people are united in their quest to pick on "geeks" and "nerds"? That's what the jocks like to make their victims believe. But unfortunately, if their victims do believe this, it makes it so much easyer for the downtrodden to get revenge: just target a place which houses 50,000 "normal" people. No need to worry about innocent victims, because according to you, all "normal" people share the same discriminatory mindset anyways!

Moron!

Re:He was a prom king... why was _that_ mentioned?

[NDPTAL85]

The amount of revenge the geeks get isn't enough to offset anything. The "normal" people still outnumber them by a significant amount.

And no not all normal people are "united" against geeks. Its just when the alpha males/females take the lead in picking on someone the others just stand around and laugh or at least do nothing to help. Its just basic nature. After the bullying is done for the day the jock takes the girl home and has some really great sex with her, the geek puts an ice pack on his face and life goes on.

Re:He was a prom king... why was _that_ mentioned?

[jesser]

Hmm, so when a popular person does something bad, the media should mention that the person was popular, but when a popular person does something good, it shouldn't mention the fact that he was popular, because he was "probably an exception to the rule"? That kind of reporting would be guaranteed to bias viewers against popular people.

Re:He was a prom king... why was _that_ mentioned?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, so when a popular person does something bad, the media should mention that the person was popular, but when a popular person does something good, it shouldn't mention the fact that he was popular, because he was "probably an exception to the rule"? That kind of reporting would be guaranteed to bias viewers against popular people.

Well the media do it for other irrelevant details: if a child molester is arrested, the journalists feel the need to mention that they had a nice collection of porn movies, and o-the-horror, an Internet connection. However, if somebody does something good, no mention of his video viewing habits or whether he had internet or not. And there is no intention of bias there, no, not at all!

IMHO, media should leave out those irrelevant details out, these details serve no other purpose than to bias the readers one way or another. Who cares what pass-times the hero liked when he was in high school? Who cares what hobbies the villain has? But every so often, mention of such trivialities are abused by the media to paint certain hobbies or other items with a rather broad brush...

It's very sad that the media continue to play this nasty game even in these dire times. Even goatse has more decency, and replaced its usual disgustful front-page picture with a message mourning the victims!

U.S. government average killing: 100,000/year.

[Futurepower(tm)]

I'm feeling really uncomfortable with the lack of logic in valuing the lives of people, who happen by chance to have been born in the U.S., so much more highly than people who were born elsewhere.

The U.S. government killed an estimated 2,100,000 people in Vietnam and an estimated 150,000 people in Iraq. The U.S. has bombed 14 countries in 30 years, killing a roughly estimated 3,000,000 people. None of the people who were killed in any way directly threatened the U.S. These people had mothers and fathers, wives and families and friends.

The average killing by the U.S. government in the last 30 years has been about 100,000 people per year.

The recent terrorism is, like all violence, reprehensible. I grieve for my country, and I grieve for the people lost. However, if 5,000 people have been killed in New York and Washington D.C., that is only 5% of the U.S. government's yearly average.

I grieve for those killed by the U.S. government, also.

The Bush Administration was requesting $343.2 billion for the Defense Department in Fiscal Year 2002. Now the budget will be much more.

Would it be too much to ask to spend 1% of that amount on an initiative to try to discover how the U.S. could live in the world without killing? I've tried to pull together some ideas about relating to other people in a non-violent but powerful way in an article called, "What should be the response to violence?"

This Slashdot story begins: "In this time of madness, I find myself staying up later than usual, watching more tv than ever before, tracking more channels, with more open browser windows than even I did before. As though KNOWING more will somehow help."

Perhaps if this person had been aware of what his government was doing, he would have lost much more sleep. Knowing more will help.

Re:U.S. government average killing: 100,000/year.

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it just me, or are a lot of people on a real negative trip lately? Cynics abound! Good? Bad? Too much!

Re:U.S. government average killing: 100,000/year.

[Anonymous Coward]

Apples and oranges. You can't compare the life of some illiterate Cambodian living in a mud hut located 100 miles from nowhere with that of a New Yorker. Face it, some life is worth less than others. Educated, cosmopolitan financial brokers are worth more than some jungle-dwelling, bamboo-eating half-monkey.

Re:U.S. government average killing: 100,000/year.

[reflector]

You started off making some good points, and in general, I agree that violence is not the answer. And that instead of treating the symptoms, we should be looking at the malady itself.

HOWEVER, your Jew-bashing is unacceptable. To say that this, that, or the other thing is what Jews are like and what they think of Arabs is a gross simplification, and quite prejudiced. There are good people in every nation who view people of other cultures and religions with respect. And there are bigots and warmongers in every nation, as well. By saying that Jews are of the latter category you are adding to the problem, not the solution.

Re:U.S. government average killing: 100,000/year.

[ayjay29]

>>You can't compare the life of some illiterate
>>Cambodian living in a mud hut located 100 miles
>>from nowhere with that of a New Yorker.
>>Face it, some life is worth less than others.
>>Educated, cosmopolitan financial brokers are
>>worth more than some jungle-dwelling,
>>bamboo-eating half-monkey.

And you wonder why so many people hate the USA? A the majority of Americans are okey, but the ones that arn't tend to have a loud voice. If the whole nation thought like you I think I'd get an overpowering urge to do you some harm...

Re:U.S. government average killing: 100,000/year.

[Zoop]

First, your numbers are so rough as to be meaningless. They also aren't accurate. And you conflate military and civilian casualties--or you are simply wildly misinformed.

Knowing more would help, yes:

The CIA trained Osama bin Laden.

False. Widely-spread untruth by terrorist sympathizers, but false.

Once again, intelligence agencies were useless.

By not training him? No.
By enabling the Afghani people to kick out Soviet invaders? Last time I looked, the Soviets withdrew.

George Bush had increased U.S. support for Israel.

He reduced support for both sides as tensions increased.

Violence is assumed. An NBC poll says 83% of Americans want military action.

Violence has been committed. However, you notice there was no reflexive bombing campaign.

Weapons indicate weakness, not power. The best protection is being truly powerful.

To you, yes. To most people around the world, sadly, no. Would it were so but it's not, and that determines the nature of the conflict. Study the history of terrorism in the 70's and early 80's.

The U.S. government (not necessarily the U.S. people) has a history of thinking that violence is the answer.

No, sometimes a part of the answer. Most of that time was spent in the Cold War, which by the way, did not finally become World War Three.

The problems between the Jews and the Arabs have existed for 3,300 years.

Finally, you got one right.

Violence is caused by mentally de-centered people.

No. There are reams of psychological research on this subject. Any arguments based on this premise are therefore wrong.

Does the U.S. really have a place in a dispute that began 3,100 years before the founding of the country?

They seem to think so. And much as I'd like to move the Jewish state to Florida, it won't happen. As long as you deal with reality, the U.S. is always asked to go into places we have no direct involvement. The alternative, isolationism, has not been successful and is also the coward's way out of not trying to influence the world to something better. The fact that we haven't been perfectly successful means we're still human.

The U.S. has a history of secret interference with the governments of other countries.

Most of which happened 30 years ago. We have a history of wearing powdered wigs, too.

There is in the U.S. very little attempt at understanding other cultures.

Yes. Like all things, that varies by individual, but then I've been called a fascist for suggesting we overturn the government educational system that creates it.

Under the stress of conflict, people show how they truly think.

No. They react more extremely than they normally would. Both to the good (Red Cross donations) and bad (bomb now). On sober reflection, they go back to donating less and not wanting indiscriminate conflict. You'll notice the government you condemn did not take the easy bomb them the first night and make ourselves feel better route.

Answers?

True power is not adversarial.

Check. But if you don't include some ability to threaten those who threaten you or others, things turn out badly. Try living in a place without police if you don't believe me.

Don't let personal anger be a problem.

Our government is doing better than our people here.

The average American cannot be held responsible for the violence of the U.S. government.

And you propose letting people who do so get away with it. Bringing them to justice in any form will require force.

The bottom line

...is that we live in a world, not a college classroom. It can be a harsh and brutal world sometimes. What's coming will not be good, but it will be less bad than the alternative. Study world history 1976-1980 for an abject lesson.

Re:U.S. government average killing: 100,000/year.

[KilljoyAZ]

Christ, anybody who has any inside knowledge to what goes on in the State Department will tell you that foreign policy is making a decision which bad choice out of 100 bad choices is the least bad choice, with "doing nothing" frequently one of the worst. It's time to stop thinking of the world in absolutes, that all people can be reasoned with, and that we won't be hated if we just shut up and mind our own business.

Re:U.S. government average killing: 100,000/year.

[Futurepower(tm)]

"HOWEVER, your Jew-bashing is unacceptable."

There is no intent to "bash" anyone. There is only an intent to try to describe why the two cultures have been killing each other for millenia. There must be some reason! If you don't like my attempt, please supply your own description.

Jews are not fragile. I learned to think the way I described partly by listening to Jewish friends talk about other Jews.

Re:U.S. government average killing: 100,000/year.

[Anonymous Coward]

Such self-abuse...

Re:U.S. government average killing: 100,000/year.

[zulux]

To add to your 100,000/year quote - don't forget all the people we killed with our Polio vaccine. OH, I shreak in horror of all the people we kill with our food aid.

Re:U.S. government average killing: 100,000/year.

[muleboy]

> The U.S. has a history of secret interference
> with the governments of other countries.

Most of which happened 30 years ago. We have a history of wearing powdered wigs, too.

The difference being, many of the same people running the show today are the same ones running the show 30 years ago.

Not too many people in government now who wore powdered wigs when they were younger.

Re:U.S. government average killing: 100,000/year.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right. It's okay for me to kill dozens of people a year as long as I also give to charity.

Re:U.S. government average killing: 100,000/year.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right. It's okay for me to kill dozens of people a year as long as I also give to charity.

Great, who let Noam Chomsky in here? Idiot.

Re:U.S. government average killing: 100,000/year.

[mgblst]

To add to your 100,000/year quote - don't forget all the people we killed with our Polio vaccine. OH, I shreak in horror of all the people we kill with our food aid.

You have got to be kidding. Does that make you feel any better about things! The odd aid bundle, which almost every wealthy country in the world also gives to! Even if yours was the only country, it wouldnt make up for this killing. I suppose if Osama bin Laden sent over a few McDonalds vouchers that would square everything?

Re:U.S. government average killing: 100,000/year.

[zulux]

Does that make you feel any better about things! ... . I suppose if Osama bin Laden sent over a few McDonalds vouchers that would square everything?

Great job of building a straw man and knocking him down. Well done brave man!

Charity is measured by results and not motives, and the USA has saved an incredible amount of lives thought medical research and crop efficiency research. In fact, the Medical research of the Western world is so good, and so many lives have been saved, that the some consider the word over-populated because of it.

Of course the behavior of USA could be better, but apparently you think you're pretty cleaver for figuring out that one, so I'll give you credit to make you feel better.

Re:U.S. government average killing: 100,000/year.

[mgblst]

Your grasp on reality is weak at best. There are a number of things that the US has done that improve the world. But you have a very narrow view of your country, if you can not see the tremendous damage it has also done. From the incredible amount of pollution your country puts into the atmosphere, to new genetically modified crops doing who know what, to the huge pile of nuclear weapons, numerour new ways you have designed of killing us, i could go on for a while...

The world would love to be able to reject these wonderful things you have bestoyed upon us, if you would kindly take out all the crap you have forced upon us.

Re:U.S. government average killing: 100,000/year.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm posting this as an AC, a we are offtopic, and I get the feeling that I being baited by someone in the EEC who is having spasms of self-lothing due to the absolutly horrible way europe has conducted her affairs in the past 200 years. Yes the US has done damage - you're pretty darned smart to have figured it out. Wow. Now run around pointing it out - other people probably aren't so smart as you. You need to inform them, smart boy.

What you fail to grasp is that countries should be judged as a whole - if we, as Americans, didn't do that ourselves we'd have nuked half the world in disgust. I'm proud our county is smart enough to take the bad with the good. I'm proud we are peace loving.

I'm pound that my ancestors broke the chains of imperialism, of slavery and of prejudice. Hopefully, you'll break the chains soon. Good luck.

Re:U.S. government average killing: 100,000/year.

[reflector]

There is no intent to "bash" anyone. There is only an intent to try to describe why the two cultures have been killing each other for millenia. There must be some reason! If you don't like my attempt, please supply your own description.

OK, to be more specific, you say:
"The Jews say that Arabs are descended from an illegitimate child of the Jewish tribal founder, Abraham, and a slave girl that he owned."

Most of my family is Jewish, and some of my friends are, as well. I've never before heard anyone say anything of the sort about Arabs, and in fact, your website is the first time I've heard anything of the sort. I would be offended if I'd heard someone suggest that Islam is not a valid religion because of the heritage of its founder.

There is also a right way and a wrong way to understand "chosen people". The right way is that the Jews were chosen to have a certain connection to God, to have certain responsibilities, and to live a certain way. The wrong way is to think that it means that Jews are superior to others, or that they are the One True Religion. This kind of erroneous thinking exists in followers of all religions, such as Christians with their "only begotten son of God" routine.

It is not difficult to understand that it is annoying to live near people who claim that you are a descendent of a bastard and that God doesn't like you as much.

Though I've never lived in Israel, I'm sure it's also annoying to have your Arab neighbors on *ALL* sides claim that your nation is illegitimate, and attack you repeatedly, with the help of the USSR, with the intention of destroying your homeland and commiting genocide against your people, as has happened in Israel since its founding in 1948.

The territories that Israel now occupies, such as the West Bank and Gaza Strip, came under Israel's control not because Israel attacked its neighbors, but because it WAS attacked, and won. Given the aggression Israel has faced from its neighbors, I can't fault it for wanting to retain control of those areas that were previously used as launching points for attacks.

You're right, the Arab-Israeli situation is a difficult and complex one. Both sides have acted in ways that are less than exemplary.

My objection to what you wrote is that it misrepresents the Jewish viewpoint. You say that "The Jews say..." and ascribe some viewpoint to Jews that's untrue. What Jews say that?

Damn world tv

[zeda]

First it started with CSPAN, then CSPAN started showing BBC, and I started to know when the British were awake and having breakfast, then CNBC was live from Singapore, Australia, Germany and London. The the House of Commons was live.Someone please make the timezones stop. Why do people have to be awake all the time. Don't the Asians and Europeans know that we need some sleep.

As far as the internet, CNN keeps screwing things up so I started on the yahoo AP and Reuters wires. That's like crack.

Cronic Info-addict

[Anonymous Coward]

Definately a true article (for me at least.) I found humor in how accurately it described my 'crisis TV viewing habits.'

...Of course realize that this opinion comes from someone who feels the need to check the UPS tracking page every half-hour when expecting an order to arrive in 4 or 5 days...

Patriotism is inherently evil

[Anonymous Coward]

In order to be patriotic, one must define the group they belong to. Geographic location is irrelivant: if you move two steps east, or just over the border into Canada that doesn't change it. Class is irrelivent, sex is irrelivent, age is irrelivent, etc. What IS relevent is being able to identify others IN your group that you can be patriotic with. This is equivalent to deciding who is OUTSIDE your group. Not surprisingly, "patriotism" is often sparked when someone acts in a way you disagree with, and you want to re-enforce the fact that this person/group is not a part of your group. This is called discrimination. And of course to prove to yourself and your group that you belong, you must be ACTIVELY patriotic.

Think of it this way. There is only one group: human beings. Who do you attack now?
What did you do after the Oklahoma bombing? Go to Oklahoma and start killing this guys family and frinds, and the guy who rented him the truck, and the guy who sold him the fertilizer? Or maybe the French and the Brits and the Germans should have killed everyone in Oklahoma to save the rest of the world.

A group of people did some very dipicable things on the 11th. They are dead along with those whose lives they took. Where this happened geographically, and where these people were from geographically and what sex they were, and what socks they wore and what book club they belong to and their favorite movies ARE ALL IRRELIVENT! These facts do not change what has happened.

There is only one solution. Treat everyone with compassion and simply accept the fact that some people are fucked in the head. Or you can become exactly what you hate so much, and perpetuate bloodshed.

Read "Finite and Infinite Games" by James P. Carse to find out exactly why opposing evil is in itself evil.

I'm sorry for everyones loss. Lets end it here.

Re:Patriotism is inherently evil

[EastCoastSurfer]

What did you do after the Oklahoma bombing?

We went and found the guy that did it and put him to death.

Go to Oklahoma and start killing this guys family and frinds, and the guy who rented him the truck, and the guy who sold him the fertilizer?

If his friends and family started shooting at the police officers when they went to arrest him then they probably would have been shot back at, and tried as accessories to the crime.

The evidence that we have is pointing to Bin Ladden and his group. The Taliban are making it clear that they are willing to go to war to protect Bin Ladden. I personally think that the U.S. should give the Taliban 48-72 hours to produce Bin Ladden for extradition. If they refuse then we make it clear that we will go in and retrieve him. This puts the fate of the Taliban/Afghanistan in their own hands.

Re:Patriotism is inherently evil

[Anonymous Coward]

First off - what evidence is linking to Bin Laden ?

Secondly, where did you get the idea that Taliban is willing to go to war to defend him ? What they said was - show us some evidence and we'll hand him over.

Lastly, why not go after the people who armed, trained and funded Bin Laden. Or at least the person in charge of the agency which made that decision (before Russia invaded Afghanistan). Who was responsible for getting Bin Laden started in terrorism (director of CIA in 1979). Maybe also get the person responsible for policies that infuriated Laden and his supporters to the extent that they would kill themselves and as many US civilians as possible in protest (US president in 1990). Bush needs to find these two, oh wait, it was the same person, oh wait, it was my dad, shit, bummer.

Yeah, this guys a spook.

[bendude]

Wakko Warner's MO:

Make some sort of semi-comforting message, then, lace it with a subtle poisonous twist.

Re:Yeah, this guys a spook.

[Wakko Warner]

I wish. Then I'd get to run Carnivore more often.

Re:Pray. There's more out there...

[NDPTAL85]

Ok great. So we pray. Then what? Do prayers put food on the table or stop people from killing you? In any case once we DO pray then what? Stand around and pray all day?

it's the newspeople

[Chris Siegler]

It's not just the news, it's the newspeople. We're spending hours, even days with them. We become attached. They put themselves before us, we can't help but hurl our bitchy judgments back at them. Please, Katie Couric, brush that distracting lock of hair out of your eyes! Please, Peter Jennings, get some sleep! Hey, Ed Bradley, does the gold earring really work right now?

Jennings is really good at talking live; Rather struggles but is interesting nonetheless; Brokaw is slightly better than Dan but knows when to quit. Dan will just keep talking until somebody pushes him out of the chair; you've got to admire his tenacity.

Re:it's the newspeople

[motherhead]

My money is on Forest Sawyer and Aaron Brown, all class and niether would make a good leading man in a movie.

Re:Bravo.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, legal limitations on religion would be different in that they wouldn't offer their adherents carte blanche to murder, which, make no mistake, is a huge difference between dogma and law.

pointless OJ comment

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm an American, but when the OJ trial finally ended I was halfway through spending a year in Spain. Although I heard about the verdict pretty quickly (hard to get away from what every US news source is concentrating on), the best communique I got was a postcard from my mom, reading simply, "the juice is loose."

Excellent article linked to by the story, on a side note. After seeing a pictures of a person falling from the Twin Towers, I stopped looking at related images. The only news source I've been using recently is cnn.com, entirely because I can avoid all the rumors and gratuitous pictures that TV tends to focus on. I know that they need to have fresh news, and for that reason are more suceptible to rumor. Even cnn has links to plently of image galleries on their front page, but after seeing that one picture and talking to friends who saw the same thing in real life, I can't trivialize what happened by watching it like a movie.

Apologies for the personal rant.

--tyriphobe

Re:You can go back to sleep now. Here's why:

[nomadic]

Those who think we can't afford to kill innocent civilians there too, though, please take your rose-tinted glasses off. This isn't grade schoool and everything has a price in the real world. Freedom from the creeping tyranny of terrorism, though -- teaching those people that this is NOT the way to make friends and influence people -- requires some struggle and loss.

The problem is that every side in the middle east; us, the Palestinians, the Taliban, the Israelis, ALL of them-- are convinced that if they just hit the other side hard enough they'll fold. It just keeps the violence going, though. Look at Israel. They retaliate, their enemies retaliate, they retaliate back, it keeps going. The only way I think we can get some measure of security is to

a) hit bin Laden and his organizations, and similiar groups, because they fund and train these terrorist networks. With them out of the picture the will to terrorism may still be there, but actually carrying it out will be harder.

b) actually engage the Arab world in something other than warfare. As long as Afghanistan is in a state of near anarchy, and the threat of perpetual starvation hangs over it, terrorist groups are going to have a ready pool of applicants. If you want to overthrow the Taliban, fine. But don't leave another void so another Taliban will come to power. Build up infrastructure, create some sort of economy. Hell, turn over governance of the region to Pakistan if you can't think of anything else, with promises of financial support if they'll prevent terrorist groups from reforming. Don't think bombs will dissuade anything; these people have been living in a state of anarchy for 150 years, nothing we can do to them will be anything new.

Re:You can go back to sleep now. Here's why:

[-brazil-]

Congrats, Mr. coward. You've just proven yourself to be a sicker bastard than guys who hijacked certain planes on tuesday.

sycophantically...

[Macrobat]

...is how you spell it, although I've never actually seen anyone use the adverbial form of the word "sycophant." Better to say, "obsequiously." Or even better, "ass-kissingly."

learn to fly a boeing 777 for $50

[Syre]

We already know that MS Flight Simulator is so authentic that a new Navy Pilot who'd never flow a plane before performed so well his instructor wanted to know how much previous flying he'd done. (See: http://www.microsoft.com/Games/FSIM/usnavy_navytim es.htm)

Now, here's a write-up on an add-on that lets you learn to fly commercial jets. This one is for a 777, but there are others for just about any model you want.

Do-it-yourself terrorism, without even going to flight school. The possibilities are really scary!

One dealer: http://shop.store.yahoo.com/fsc/77prof.html

Excerpts from the product description:

Authentic instrument panel with fully operational pedestal and overhead panels that include 4 multifunction LCD's (Liquid Crystal Displays), MFD (Multi Functional Displays) dimmer controls and multi-page EICAS (Engine Indication and Crew Alerting System) and Honeywell FMS (Flight Management System).

Includes 2 comprehensive printed manuals! A fully illustrated aircraft manual explaining among many other areas, instrument panel controls and FMC (Flight Management Computer) operation, and a second manual with aircraft performance tables

Includes the following airline variants: British Airways, Air France, Delta Airlines, United Airlines and Aeroflot.

What the experts are saying about 777-200 Professional:

"I had the pleasure of testing this package and found it to be as real as it can get for a computer simulation. If you were wondering what it would be like to command the 777, this package will give you all that and more. From its greatly functional cockpit to the aircraft flight dynamics, sound and graphics, I found it to be a rewarding experience to fly and highly recommend this package to all." John L Carbone SR (Retd.), Former - 777 Captain

Minimum requirements: Microsoft Flight Simulator 2000, Pentium II 266 PC, Windows 95/98, 32 Mb RAM, 250 MB Hard drive space CD-ROM Drive, Sound Card.

Re:Bravo.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, if you're going to make your own definition. This is a very common fallacy. A common sentiment is that blind faith is bad and we should think for ourselves. Cults are the extreame side, and most popular religions aren't a lot better. I mean, do you honestly think that the crusades were either "not moronic and barbaric" and or "not caused by religion"? This stuff happens all the time. Grab a history book; Or at least a book on logical fallacies.

Re:Pray. There's more out there...

[Sniser]

This nation was founded as a Christian nation on Biblical principles.

Yeah RIGHT. Try the State/Church Quiz, might clear up a thing or two.

my name is fred and i am a news addict

[Barrow_Boy]

i can tottaly relate to that, since i heard on tuesday wherever i can i have either the radio, web or tv on. i am sure i will stop soon but not yet!

i think next week will be when people start turning off, when the world goes back to work

In other words?

[tm2b]

Kill the Messenger!

Off Topic

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking of news, there is a Taliban site
http://www.azzam.com/

that I would love to see some of the 733t hackers around here destroy. If you can't do it yourself, maybe you know someone who can.

Re:Off Topic

[cyberdonny]

Sorry, my hacking skills are rather lame, and all I have it this lousy whois listing, which clearly shows this is hosted by a company on American soil. Given the current outrage, I think a single e-mail or fax from a concerned citizen to the hosting company should suffice to shut azzam down asap.

> telnet www.azzam.com 25
Trying 64.33.12.151...
Connected to www.azzam.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
220 amor.host4u.net ESMTP Sendmail 8.8.5/8.8.5; Sat, 15 Sep 2001 xx:xx:xx -0500
quit
> whois host4u.net
Registrant:
Host For You (HOST4U-DOM)
4 Trefoil Drive
Trumbull, CT 06611
US

Domain Name: HOST4U.NET

Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
Networks, FastDns (GD184) reg@FASTDNS.NET
FastDns
3080 Ogden Ave
Lisle, IL 60532
(FAX) 630-357-8545
Billing Contact:
Billing Department (BD4586-ORG) billing@AXXS.NET
FastDNS
4 Trefoil Drive
Trumbull , CT 06611
US
999-999-9999
Fax- 999-999-9999

Record last updated on 29-Mar-2001.
Record expires on 31-Mar-2003.
Record created on 30-Mar-1997.
Database last updated on 15-Sep-2001 06:56:00 EDT.

Domain servers in listed order:

NS.HOST4U.NET 209.150.128.30
NS2.HOST4U.NET 209.150.129.3

Re:You can go back to sleep now. Here's why:

[Wakko Warner]

b) actually engage the Arab world in something other than warfare. As long as Afghanistan is in a state of near anarchy, and the threat of perpetual starvation hangs over it, terrorist groups are going to have a ready pool of applicants. If you want to overthrow the Taliban, fine. But don't leave another void so another Taliban will come to power. Build up infrastructure, create some sort of economy.

I happen to think this is the best way to go about it too, but I worry that the risks of it, if done improperly, would be worse than what's going on now there... Imagine a nation of *wealthier* pissed-off people?

- A.P.

Re: jungle-dwelling, bamboo-eating half-monkey

[kryptik_79]

I spend my time in front of a computer most of every day (work @ work and then work @ home). Many of those days I think it might be wonderful to be a "jungle-dwelling, bamboo-eating half-monkey"...

The funk of depression

[gordzilla]

I promised myself, I was going to rent a comedy or something from the video store to try and break out of this surrealistic dream that this week seems to have turned into. I've still not made it as far as the video store but did manage to catch a learning channel show about the USS Trueman which made me feel a little better.

TV News is Junk

[Jesus IS the Devil]

Here are a few things to think about when you watch the T-R-A-S-H that is television news:

Peter Jenning's network had to pay Richard Jule millions of dollars for their irresponsible reporting of the 92 Olympics. Remember him?

After the Oklahoma bombing, tv news focused on Middle-Eastern terrorists. Later it was found that Timothy McVeigh was the real culprit.

To me, TV news is there to keep its audience and make money via ads. To make you loyal they must make you happy. So they are often saying and reporting things in such a way as to mislead the American people into believing what the viewers want to believe in, NOT what reality truly might be.

But, they can't lie. So that's why they always use crafty and clever language, such as "alleged" or "might". After using words like to to qualify what they're about to say, they then spend the next hour on these "alleged" theories, until your mind reaches satisfactory orgasm.

Re:TV News is Junk

[stripes]

To me, TV news is there to keep its audience and make money via ads.

You'll note they haven't been showing commercials (at least most channels haven't).

I do think TV news is (normally) mostly crap, newspapers are better, but still not so hot. I don't know of much better then that though. TV news never seems to go in depth, has way to many puff items, and loves the tease ("Is a normal household item killing you? Find out at 11!"). It's not as bad this week though, on the flip side it is about all you can find on TV...

Re:TV News is Junk

[Anonymous Coward]

If their only motive was advertising dollars, don't you think one of them might have put in a SINGLE advertisement in the past ONE HUNDRED HOURS? And yet none of them have.

Re:TV News is Junk

[dickens]

and then the 90 second piece on the "deadly household item" airs at 11:26. Damn I hate that.

Re:TV News is Junk

[mlong]

Here are a few things to think about when you watch the T-R-A-S-H that is television news:

Peter Jenning's network had to pay Richard Jule millions of dollars for their irresponsible reporting of the 92 Olympics. Remember him?

After the Oklahoma bombing, tv news focused on Middle-Eastern terrorists. Later it was found that Timothy McVeigh was the real culprit.

To me, TV news is there to keep its audience and make money via ads. To make you loyal they must make you happy. So they are often saying and reporting things in such a way as to mislead the American people into believing what the viewers want to believe in, NOT what reality truly might be.

But, they can't lie. So that's why they always use crafty and clever language, such as "alleged" or "might". After using words like to to qualify what they're about to say, they then spend the next hour on these "alleged" theories, until your mind reaches satisfactory orgasm.

You're so right. Everyone knows the news media are robots and incapable of mistakes. How dare they deliberately misreport the news!

'Net better than TV

[fleener]

This event has made me realize that web-based news is more extensive and informative than anything coming from corporate media. There is a ton of information that escapes mention or gets scarce coverage on TV news, including tidbits such as:

• the CIA's training of Osama Bin Laden,
  
• the USA's funding of Afghanistan ($43 million this year),
  
• how oppressed Afghanistan's citizens are,
  
• the nature of Isreal's 30+ year military occupation of Palestine,
  
• the many incidents of hate being directed toward Arab-Americans by their hate-filled neighbors,
  
• the false alarms and racial profiling since the security crack-down,
  
• the inaccurate jumping-the-gun reporting of the TV networks,
  
• and that not all of America is blood-thirsty and calling for war.
  

Re:'Net better than TV

[mdouglas]

i would heartily agree that internet based news sites have a much smarter and deeper analysis of current events. check out :

www.tompaine.com
www.motherjones.com
www.counterpunch.org

current tv and radio coverage has degenerated into a commercial for the defense budget, reenforced with blind nationalism.

Re:'Net better than TV

[mimbleton]

There is also tons of information about aliens, two-headed monsters etc ...
Please gives us some links so we can judge the source.

"the false alarms and racial profiling since the security crack-down, "

Racial profiling will have to become standard way to eliminate potential suspect.
After these events, it is common sense that Arab entering the plane is more likely to be a deadly fanatic that that funny looking guy from China.
The bubble has been burst.

Re:'Net better than TV

[fleener]

Most of my readings have been from the BBC. Ya know how much the BBC loves their aliens, huh? Even the AP has good stories, but they don't get much further beyond the raw feed. I don't see these stories in newspapers or TV.

Its getting old fast

[t_allardyce]

Does slashdot count? if so, that describes my life everyday - getup, slashdot, dilbert, register, bbc news. As for the weeks events, i'm starting to loose interest. The crash shots were pretty amazing as far as crash shots go, but after seeing every single angle 20 times each, and vid-capturing them for my FreakyShit directory, they've gotten old. I'm more pissed off with the tv stations over here, they've been going over the schedule for the week and canceling every single program that has a hint of causing offence - a voyager episode where they get taken hostage, a futurama rerun where mom takes over the world, and too many action films to count, its starting to piss me off.

How I Kicked the Habit

[The Cunctator]

Actually, the subject's kind of a lie, but it's also kind of true. I was just talking about this very issue with my friend earlier, who's been getting very depressed about news addiction. We both live in New York City.

I've made sure that each day I go out into the city, talking with people, learning their stories, taking pictures.

Then I put them up.

<p class="Katzian">
What prevents the downward spiral of information-void-despair is becoming a white hole, sending out information as well. What we nerds/information Morlocks are good at is processing information--if all we're doing is storing, compiling it, it'll drive us crazy. It's crucial to find a way to create something with that knowledge.
&lt/p>

What I've been doing with a bunch of other people is to build an open, free site in memoriam of the event and the victims--ostensibly as part of Wikipedia. That way the emphasis is on super-efficient information delivery, and it works just great as a balance on the news gathering addiction.

Of course, I'm currently having the apposite problem of overcreation, having spent the last 10 hours straight on it, but I'll deal. I'm making sure to get together with my friends, away from computers and hopefully televisions.

Speaking of which, radios seem to be the equivalent of the nicotine patch. They give me the info-dosage I need without trapping and obsessing me; a soothing buffer of bits instead of a mesmerizing stream.

So if you want help yourself, and you want to help--because telling the stories of the victims, or creating a definitive repository of knowledge, is so very helpful to everyone else--go to wikipedia and flood their servers with all the knowledge and analysis you've gleaned. Or figure out how to take over the information already used to make an even better site.

I'm hoping that I'll be able to get my fix from just this one site, so I won't have to ever be searching.

I decided I had enough

[teatime]

I have decided for my own mental health that it is time to move on and attempt to spread as much support and peace as I can. I have been occupying my thoughts with what can be built on the spot where the trade center stood and the healing of the citizens of the world after this atrocious and sickening occurence. Another thing that I have started doing is listening to classical music.

parade of maudlin moments

[beanerspace]

Well, what did it for me is the press rolling out everyone who's suffering, and exploiting it for ratings. Husbands who've lost wives, mom's who've lost children. Certainly we have compassion for these people, but to spend a half hour filming their unthinkable grief ... the only thing worse is watching it. It's exploitation of the worst kind.

Re:parade of maudlin moments

[Anonymous Coward]

for americans: maudlin ~= sad

Re:parade of maudlin moments

[mlong]

Well, what did it for me is the press rolling out everyone who's suffering, and exploiting it for ratings. Husbands who've lost wives, mom's who've lost children. Certainly we have compassion for these people, but to spend a half hour filming their unthinkable grief ... the only thing worse is watching it. It's exploitation of the worst kind.

Hmm, the whole time I watched the news I never thought of exploitation. I thought they were sharing the grief of others with me and I did indeed emphasize with the victims' families and won't to help. But then again, I am a very optimistic person. I don't go around trying to see the bad things in situations. And so I was thinking about the tragedy, not the ratings and exploitation.

Insightful ? you must mean inciteful !

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it's that most wonderful time of the year ... U.S. bashing under the guise of passificism.

Thanks for kicking us while we're down. Especially when you compare apples to oranges. It really shows what you're made of.

Re:Happy Birthday Dylan!

[NDPTAL85]

That is amazing. Great link.

Excessive News Coverage == Win for Terrorism

[Masem]

Just like several other things like loss of civil liberties and increased security at places, extended news coverage is yet another victory for terrorism. It's very understandable that for few days from the incident for the major networks to be filled with news as the events break, but we're at the point were 1) we're very unlikely to find any new survivors, and 2) any investigation and future planning should be done without much public information as to maintain state secrecy. Thus, news coverage since Friday has been simply repeating the same events over and over and filling the screen with talking heads. In addition, the net equivalent seems to be happening at the major news sites; too many analysis, very little pro-active stories. And yet as the base article indicates, we're too much drawn to it. At least up to Friday, my productivity at work for the week and at home is way down since I feel like I'm continually checkign these sites, but as news is no longer flowing as fast as it did Weds, I think I'm over that bilge.

The longer that these news outlets contrinue to push this 24/7 news schedule, the longer it will take the rest of the american (and other countries as well) people to return to a sense of normalicy, which is what we ought to be striving for to show the terrorists that this attack did little to stiffle the American spirit. Sure, I'd expect to have soem expanded news coverage as events break, but we should be watching regular programming at this point. Particularly this weekend, as families have a chance for family time, it's important that the networks offer fare that the entire family can enjoy as opposed to more news coverage.

And yet another sign that terrorism has won a bit is the fact that several movies, TV shows, and video games are being pulled for the time being or revamped in the short term to accommodate the loss. In some cases, such as Anrold's new movie or FOX's "24" or the video game Majesty, this makes sense; events are too close to reality that pulling them for the short term just makes sense. I also being not holding the bulk of sports events this weekend is also a reasonable step (both emotionally and technically; how do you get all those people from one side of the country to other with air travel only just starting to get back to normal?) But then you also have cases where, for example, a new Tim Allen comedy in NYC is pulled since it simply involves the WTC, a new Jackie Chan movie being pulled and revamped completely despite the amount of footage already shot since Chan's character in it was a window washer for the WTC, C&C Red Alert 2 being pulled since it shows NYC on fire on the cover of the box, Microsoft immediately altering the next version of it's Flight Sim to remove the WTC from the NYC area (and in the UK, the flight sim being removed from shelves as it was claimed that the terrorists could have learned to fly from that), and numerous other examples which are more knee-jerk than thought out. Again, each of these knee-jerk actions are wins for terrorism, because that's the type of lifestyle that we've come to enjoy and expect, and now, at best for the short term, that's gone.

Yes, at least according to the President, we're in a National Emergancy, so I expect some parts of our lives to be distrupted. But it is much more important to show that the American resolve and spirit cannot be broken as easily as it was, and thus, we must strive to get back to normalacy in our lives, and unfortunately, the constant barrage of news is not helping.

Kim Schmitz aka Kimble

[psych031337]

Some of the german readers will have heard a bell chiming when reading this name.

For those unknowing: Kimble is a "hacker" (as in script kiddie) grown up. He started out on AMIGA warez boards, turning SysOps in to the german police, showing off "phreak" tricks like blueboxing on public tv and stuff like that. He does actually not have a lot of friends in the computer scene. You can read about his latest scoops by searching google for "Kim Schmitz" and or "dataprotect münchen [munich]".

This guy is a basic annoyance in the bit-literate german world. He uses fake press releases to push up dying dotcoms (like letsbuyit.com) for a last round of financing and stuff like this. Almost always immoral and sometimes also right-out illegal. Also a guy to pop up everywhere you put a TV cam and/or a microphone.

Now, what does this man have to do with the events in New York? Easy. HE DOES NOT EVEN HAVE THE DIGNITY TO LET THE NYC CASUALTIES REST IN PEACE.

Just a few hours ago, he posted a modded FBI wanted poster to his website (kimble.org) which claims (kimble.org/mostwanted.html) that he will pay $10million for clues leading to the arrest of Osama Bin Laden. THAT IS $10 MILLION HE DOES NOT HAVE. THIS IS A DAMN BIG, INSANE AND SHAMELESS MEDIA STUNT. EGO-WHORING. This man is always first to shape his profile in the face of the media.

BUT FOR MY TASTE HE HAS GONE WAAAAAAY TOO FAR NOW. I am insanely mad and furious. An hour ago i disliked him a lot. Now I hate him enough to dislocate a shoulder or two.

I am sorry I am posting this mad rambling here - it just makes me crazy to have this damn web page up on his server, serving the single purpose of a media stunt in the face of literally THOUSANDS of people dead or missing.

I hope this will be the last madman surfing this wave, and I hope for you that no one in the States is stupid enough for that. I can't tell you how mad I am.

If you feel like reading up on this guy, use google as described above. Or directly email reward@kimble.org and tell him what you think of this. This is not a call to mailbombs or DoS attacks on his server.

The entire bunch of slashdot readers adressing him with their opinion and concerns is WAAAY more helpful.

Go ahead, mod me down. I don't care about the karma. I care to get this off my mind.

About Bloody Time!

[Fantastic Lad]

Whoever modded this post up, thank you!!!!

Reasonable minds have been modded into dust recently. All I've been reading on /. the past few days is the ranting naivete, and uninformed blood lust of the lowest common denominator.

What blows me away is not how insultingly obvious the propaganda is, but how people continue to suck it up as though it were nectar. Remember how pissed off the media community was after Desert Storm closed its curtains? --Oliver Stone's 'J.F.K.' had just came out, demonstrating just how easy it is for the media to be duped into becoming a bunch of dancing marionettes for the military/intelligence community. I watched news anchors react to Stone's charges by crucifying interviewees over the next three weeks, as though by gutting a bunch of nothing stories, (Man Bites Dog), they could somehow recapture some of the integrity news gathering had back in the sixties and seventies. -Not that there was much even then, but at least reporters had to be threatened, bribed and carefully manipulated to keep them quiet. Today, news hounds come out of the kennel with Adobe Brain Damage 4.1 (tm) and Microsoft Media Corruptor 6.2 (tm) already installed.

My advice: You only need your television on 5 minutes each day to stay 'informed.' If the world stage is ready for you to watch the next act in this hideous performance, I guarantee you won't be able to shut it out.

-Fantastic Lad

That the intelligence community wouldn't have been aware of the terrorist plan weeks or months ago is frankly, unbelievable. Ask yourself: Who profits five years from now, and how?

Lack of Religion is to blame

[Teun]

No religion I've heard of has ever condoned or even advocated this type of behaviour. (The attacks)
Most religions DO mention the possibility of this happening but it's generally contributed to The Devil. (He is a concept known to religion, not of religion)
For the religious, Christians or Muslims, people like the perpetrators of this attack are The Devil.

i do too...

[ash2]

I find this too, I constantly have many browser windows open/mail client/irc client/radio on. My friends cant keep up when they are here and complain.

I think its about processing information as fast as possible. I open 1 window read it and open more from it and finish reading the first while the others load.

It something do to with having a high IQ or something probably

Facts are facts

[Anonymous Coward]

That your cognitive dissonance can't deal with killing humans beings as no different from killing Americans shows only your warped world view.

It's Jon Katz!

[trelyle]

When did he start writing for the Washington Post?

Why News addiction?

[Veteran]

Because knowledge is power.

People do understand that fact on some level; learning about something does give them information to act upon.

Here is some information which has not been reported in the general news: guess who the commander-in-chief of the Afghan military is.

I'll type the article in in part since it is on an extremely slow server even without the slashdot effect.

"MOSCOW, Aug 30 (UPI) - Russia's Foreign Ministry on Thursday condemned the appointment of Saudi terrorism suspect Osama bin Laden as the commander-in-chief of the armed forces of Afghanistan's ruling Taliban regime, the official RIA Novosti news agency reported."

I am not setting this up as a link because for some reason the Slashdot editor (in Netscape) insists on putting a space in the number 216037, and I can't get the link to work. If you wish to see the original - copy and paste the address into your browser and delete the space.

http://www.vny.com/cf/news/upidetail.cfm?QID=216 03 7

Several comments:

• Note the date on the story: almost 2 weeks before the trade center attack.
  
• I first saw the link on www.drudgereport.com
  
• Appointing someone as your commander-in-chief qualifies as somewhat more than harboring - don't you think?
  
• The original source of the report was Pakistan's 'Nation daily'.
  
• The story - like everything you read - might be false. But since it predates the current furor - I tend to believe it. Chances are -before the crisis - the UPI wouldn't have published it without checking sources
  

Re:Why News addiction?

[Alsee]

After a fairly extensive web search I am unable to find any comfirmation for the story "appointment of Saudi terrorism suspect Osama bin Laden as the commander-in-chief of the armed forces of Afghanistan's ruling Taliban regime"
Vetran's post gives this link for the story:
http://www.vny.com/cf/news/upidetail.cfm?QID=216 03 7
(note: for some reason /. is currupting the link. Copy the link and past it in your browser. Delete the space before the 7 in the number 216037)

Repeat: I CANNOT find any this "UPI" report anywhere else on the web.

Can anyone confirm or discredit this story??

Re:Why News addiction?

[Veteran]

Here is a follow up report. The Russians did say what the UPI story says BUT

" Rising numbers of Arab mercenaries have reportedly flooded into the country this year, allegedly taking part in civilian massacres against minority Shia Muslim communities in Hazarajat, central Afghanistan, in the
first months of the year. Analysts believe there are up to 12,000 foreigners - a quarter of the Taliban's military force - fighting in Afghanistan.

At least some analysts said the development of this so-called "foreign legion" may be the source of reports, issued on 30 August 2001 by the Russian Foreign Ministry, that Bin Laden was named the "commander-in-chief" of the armed forces of Afghanistan's ruling Taliban regime. Although unconfirmed by Western intelligence sources, the allegations are certainly indicative of Bin Laden's financial support for and "clout" with the Taliban. "

So the story I posted seems to be a true story; but the Russians may have gotten it wrong - . or it could still be true - the Russian foreign ministry seems to have believed it when they said it.

link to story

Re:Why News addiction?

[Andrew Miklos]

I have emailed to CNN asking if they could either confirm or deny the validity of the story. I haven't received a response yet. Hopefully I will be able to have a response back soon. when it is in, I will respond again.

Re:Why News addiction?

[macaddict]

I found an article on Pravda's site, dated August 1:

http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/2001/08/01/114 87 .html

Not only the date, but also the time!

[Anonymous Coward]

Scroll down to Dylan Klebold, and see that not only was he born on 11th of September, but also at 9:11 am!

Eric Harris, on the other hand was born on the (yet..) uninteresting date of April 9th, but the time was 2:37 am UTC, of Stephen King fame (The Shining).

Re:Not only the date, but also the time!

[NDPTAL85]

Sounds like these guys were truly some "Evil Mystical Geeks"

Naked Newscasters also help drive addiction rates

[Conspire]

Yeah, really easy to get addicted when watching Naked News!

Harpers July Index says they have 6 million visitors per month. And apparently, the are the first net cast to go cable cast as well! Now, I finally have a reason to watch the news.....

My email addiction

[4thAce]

• Replying to people writing asking about my safety and that of my family (I'm in Northern NJ).
• Writing to people I know to find out about their safety.
• Checking to see which of my "friends" hasn't written..
• Debating on some yahoogroups newsgroups about what this means for the future.
• Deleting chain letters from the well-meaning.

Rarely do I spend a lot of time in front of the TV. It's the other electronic communications channel which occupies the most part of my time these days.

I was already addicted...

[crashnbur]

As someone who believes it to be every person's (age 18+) responsibility as a participant in a democratic government to keep up with the events surrounding the country and its government, I have been addicted to the news - really information in general - since I was about sixteen.

Maybe that's the advantage of being a computer nerd... The information is easier to get to, making it easier to become addicted... Er, maybe that's not an advantage. :)

Why the Middle East defies logic

[UberOogie]

b) actually engage the Arab world in something other than warfare.

Although US foreign policy has certainly played a key role is being targetted by terror groups, consider two things:

1) Unless we are at active warfare with the state of Isreal, there will be right-wing Islamic groups ready to die to kill us.

2) We are currently being targetted by the most extensive terrorist campaign against our country in history because of arguably one of our most positive foreign policy action in the Middle East in the recent past. Because the United States-led coalition kept the citizens of two strongly Islamic countries from slaughter by a military dictatorship that has practiced religious persecution and execution of Islamic minorities, a citizen of one of the protected countries is using the fortune that we saved to kill our people.

I defy you to apply logic to any of it.

Radio

[Orp]

Yesterday I went out and bought an old tabletop radio at a garage sale just so I could listen to NPR and the scary AM talk radio shows in my home office while at the computer. Tomorrow I'm going to put up my shortwave radio antenna (we moved recently) so I can broaden my news sources. We currently don't have a TV and right now I find this to be a blessing after having seen some of the CNN footage the day of the attack and the online video clips on some web sites.

If you're getting burned out on the TV news try out some of the "alternative" news sources. Sometimes it can be refreshing to listen to another country's perspective, or that of folks far from the mainstream. However I find at some point I just have to take a break from all of it and do something distracting (like drink beer at a bluegrass festival this afternoon). But much of the joy has been drained from daily activities and somehow I doubt this is going to change anytime soon, as horror shifts from the attack to our response to it.

Umm, maye you should think

[N8F8]

Could it be possile that the military doesn't pick it's targets baed on CNN polls?

Re:Umm, maye you should think

[_xeno_]

Could it be possile that the military doesn't pick it's targets ba[s]ed on CNN polls?

Yeah, but it's quite possible that Commander in Chief George W. Bush might. Don't forget, ultimately, the military gets their orders from Congress and the President.

Basically, Congress has to give permission for the President to use military force (which I believe has already happened), and once that has happened, the President is in basically complete control over the direction the military compaign goes. Which means that it's quite possible that the politicians will decide that bombing Kabul is the best choice of action to please the people.

Which would be a very bad thing indeed; although if we're all lucky, Bush's advisors will direct him in a less severe course of action.

Re:Umm, maye you should think

[dgb2n]

Yeah, but it's quite possible that Commander in Chief George W. Bush might. Don't forget, ultimately, the military gets their orders from Congress and the President.

Actually, it is highly unlikely that George W. would micromanage this type of operation. The entire direction of his administration is to hire competent, experienced people for critical jobs and let them use their own initiative and judgement.

Although ultimately the decision to attack belongs to W. It is completely within his character (as well as the example set by his father during the Gulf War) to let Secretary Rumsfeld and the senior military leaders direct the operation.

Re:Umm, maye you should think

[dgroskind]

Which means that it's quite possible that the politicians will decide that bombing Kabul is the best choice of action to please the people.

The same suggestion was made when Clinton ordered attacks in retaliation for the bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August, 1998.

Clinton responded that neither the Secretary of Defense, who was a Republican, or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff would put American servicemen's lives at risk for a political reasons. The same reasoning would apply today.

The real question is: what alternatives does the U.S. have to air strikes? Clinton's air strikes, which were aimed at bin Laden, obviously failed to deter the WTC terrorists just as repeated bombings in Iraq have failed to stifle Saddam Husein. Bush may still order air strikes anyway because they put the fewest U.S. servicemen's lives at risk, not because they are the most effective strategy.

Re:Umm, maye you should think

[zhensel]

Millitary action, especially today, is done with the majority of the public's consent - either that, or it's kept out of their knowledge. The government doesn't want another unpopular war. This is why the government has been spewing so much propaganda recently - there isn't a single voice in Washington opposing this, and even those that do merely abstain from voting in Congress rather than opposing (see the 98 and 96 to nothing votes in the Senate). Bush needs this 9-1 popular consent to establish his legitimacy.

Anyway, here's my thoughts. We should not bomb anyone. No war against terrorism will ever when. It will only create martyrs. The only way to prevent terrorism is to stop the very legitimate concerns that fuel its soldiers. Bin Ladin may be beyond help, but those that enlist in his armies feel, very legitimately, that they've been wronged by the United States, non-muslims, and the world. This could have all been prevented if the United States had realized that, and cooler heads will tell you that an attack like this was innevitable. I know I've thought that for a long time, I only thought that it would hopefully lead to an understanding of our previous ignorance. Unfortunately, it has led to an increased nationalism - not a bad thing in itself mind you - but when our nationalism makes us blind to the plight of others, when we think we're so perfect, so infallible, we will strike out in ignorance. I'm scared beyond belief of the next decade now - and I'm willing to fight any government that tries to take away my liberties, or anyone else's just to stop criticism.

Re:Umm, maye you should think

[Shadow Knight]

No matter what, this is *absolutely* the wrong solution. No matter *how* evil American policies have been in the Middle East, we *CANNOT* afford to change them now! This attack has locked us permanently into our current policies. Why? If we changed them now, it is an explicit admission that terrorism works. To change our policies now in any way that favors Islamic Fundamentalism is to almost literally say "Look, terrorism works perfectly! Come blow us up again next time you have a problem!"

*That* is a message we *MUST NOT* send no matter what action we take.

Later,
Shadow Knight

Re:Umm, maye you should think

[lukel]

This attack has locked us permanently into our current policies. Why? If we changed them now, it is an explicit admission that terrorism works.

Isn't locking current policies a change in policy?

Re:Umm, maye you should think

[zhensel]

Indeed, the policy of slaughtering innocent people is one that we should not back down from, especially if it makes us look like anything less than the infallible Gods of the world.

Attacking Afghanistan will strengthen the Islamic Fundamentalist rule more than not doing so. Afghanistan has been attacked time and time again, and look at who rules now. Do you think the almost unavoidable deaths of thousands of innocent people will somehow lower future levels of terrorism? Will killing Osama Bin Laden somehow rid the world of the scourge of terrorism? Go read the essays at TomPaine.com for more background on this. The only way to stop terrorism is to stop the acts that cause its proponents to act so rashly.

Maybe, in the short term, a show of leniency would make it seem that the terrorists "won," but it is the only path to show tha twe truly are a nation seeking peace - and that's the way to present ourselves if we really expect other nations to emulate us rather than despise us.

Re:Umm, maye you should think

[Shadow Knight]

>The only way to stop terrorism is to stop the
>acts that cause its proponents to act so rashly.

Thus guaranteeing that the world sees terrorism works. Sure, so then we end Islamic terrorism. Well, some other group of people remembers how well it worked for the Islamic Fundamentalists (who are now quite happy, in this hypothetical situation), and decides that terrorism will fix *their* problem too. This is not acceptable. I don't know what *is* an acceptable solution, but saying "terrorism works" is *NOT*.

later,
Shadow Knight

Re:Umm, maye you should think

[Shadow Knight]

I meant, I guess, that we cannot change the *nature* of our policies. That is, we must not suddenly decide that Saddam Hussein is a great guy after all, or that the Palestinians are right and the Israelies wrong, etc.

As a side note, I'm all for stopping the training and supplying of our enemies like Osama bin Laden...

later,
Shadow Knight

Rebuttal: Penny Arcade

[UberOogie]

Funny you should mention it:

http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2001-09 -14

Re:You can go back to sleep now. Here's why:

[dgroskind]

Those who think we can't afford to kill innocent civilians there too, though, please take your rose-tinted glasses off.

People who want to understand how terrorists could target civilians need read no further than this comment and similar ones on slashdot.

If the profile of the WTC terrorists could be based on the people who make these sort of comments here, it would a person of above average intelligence, technically inclined, a bit of an idealist, hardworking, thoughtful and disciplined.

Also, the person will have no direct experience of the evil he seeks to avenge.

This New York Times story is headlined: A Terrorist Profile Emerges That Confounds the Experts.

That profile is: They were adults with education and skill, not hopeless young zealots. At least one left behind a wife and young children. They mingled in secular society, even drinking forbidden alcohol, hardly typical of Islamic militants.

And this story, also from the New York Times, is headlined: An Unobtrusive Man's Odyssey: Polite Student to Suicide Hijacker.

The story described suspected terrorist Mohammed Atta as: He was diligent. He was polite. He had, until quite recently, a taste for black jeans and a liking for a hangout here called Sharky's Billiard Bar, which calls itself "The Bar With Mega-Possibilities." But Mohammed Atta, 33, was not what he long appeared to his teachers at the Technical University...: an unobtrusive man leading an unobtrusive life.

How close are these descriptions to everyone you know? If you want to understand these monsters we have only to look into our own hearts.

This slashdot post says: Folks, this war is going to take a long time. This isn't gonna be over in days or weeks or months, and the resolution is not gonna be on tomorrow's news. He is speaking for the terrorists as well as America.

Better to be informed than a mindless drone...

[Landaras]

First, I do not keep a television in my apartment. I simply do not watch TV. Instead I spend my time keeping up on the news or playing games requiring a little intelligence.

At work I listen to 700 WLW most of the day, which further keeps me informed. Additionally, Mike McConnel and Bill Cunningham give excellent, right-leaning commentary.

I think part of the problem deals with the visual fixation of our culture. Everyone I've discussed this tragedy with talks about seeing the towers collapse again and again and again on TV. I was at work when we first heard a plane had hit the World Trade Center. (I initially thought a Cessna had gone off course or something. I wish that would have been the case.) Until I got home at six, I hand't seen a single visual image, even though most of the day's story had already developed.

I watched the video of the impact and collapse once from each angle, and watched video of the President's speeches. Other than that, I avoid looking for video (or even audio) links from the news sites. I would much prefer a long text story (or a three hour radio program), which requires actual reporting and/or intelligent thought or opinion.

I guess my point is that I try to be informed of as much as I can (be it politics, foreign affairs or tech news), but avoid the "oh look, shiny things" mentality of much of our TV news.

One last thing: I applaud most of the major news sites for pulling their ads in response to this tragedy. Of course, I don't think too many companies want their brand associated with terrorist attacks.

Take Off Your Rose Colored Glasses.

[N8F8]

I must admit I still scratch my head Vietnam a little, but even in Vietnam their own government killed more of their citizens then we did trying to stop them. Same for Cambodia. Also in either instance, not stopping a government from wholesale killing and oppressing its own people isn't my definition of peaceful. And not trying to stop them is showing weakness. Showing weakness only encourages them to continue. Study history. Tyrants are never appeased by weakness and
sympathy. Power corrupts. Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely..

The US as you well know is a very insular country. By and large the only examples of the US en masse interfering with foreign affairs are cases where either national security was at risk, reciprocal security agreements were enforced or the US was attacked. And this third reason ensures the swiftest action.

Like any good propagandist, you skew statistics to try and prove your view. The critical FACT you seem to omit if that even more would have died had the US not stepped in to stop the slaughter. WW2, Kuwait, Bosnia, Panama, Cambodia, Haiti, etc. You need to take off your Rose Colored Glasses.

Broken Link Above

[Landaras]

Sorry everyone, but the correct link to 700 WLW is here.

Oops, the URL should be:

[dgroskind]

A Terrorist Profile Emerges That Confounds the Experts.

Doing Something

[N8F8]

Myself -US Navy Reserve, Prior Active Duty
My Wife -US Navy Reserve, Prior Active Duty
My Cousin -US Marines, Active and working adjacent to the Pentagon.

All Awaiting Orders.

Re:Doing Something

[Karl Cocknozzle]

Instead of staying home, watching TV, and getting bummed out, why not do something that will help the situation AND make you feel better personally?

They're asking for Tech help in NY to try and recover from the disaster (long-term) and set up communications networks for the rescuers and people at ground-zero (immediate-term need).

They're looking for EVERYTHING. Cell phone/RF engineers, network gurus, SQL/Exchange people, everything. If you've been looking for a way to help but aren't able to help with digging through rubble, this is it.

I strongly encourage anybody who has this creeping urge to "do something" to make sure it's something positive like this. If you live in NY volunteer. If you live a few hours away, drive to NY and volunteer.

All my life, I've been looking for a way to really "do something special" with my tech skills. For anybody else who has been thinking along those lines, here's your chance.

It's Simple, Really...

[s390]

countries either harbor and condone terrorists, or they don't - they expel them, or better, arrest and extradite or imprison them (as in... forever). This was likely the point made clear to Pakistan in the last few days - all the civilized countries throughout the world will classify other countries as either pro-terrorist or anti-terrorist. As of Tuesday, there's no middle ground, no room for dissembling or prevarication: they're either with us or against us, either for or against terrorism. Governments will make their choices... and they and their citizens will bear the consequences, terrible consequences.

Saudi Arabia is going to have to rethink it's internal denial. Egypt is going to need to temper it's internal repression of fundamentalist idiots and move toward better intelligence gathering and sharing with the West. Even Israel will need to do a better job of discriminating between its local political opponents and the dangerous terrorists with over-reaching international agendas. I wish them all wisdom and good fortune, as they will need both.

The Taliban has seemingly made their choice. With Omar's mealy-mouthed sidewinding and impotent defiance of human rights for innocent civilians either inside or outside their borders, they've as much as sealed their fate to burn in the fires of implacable war and then burn again in the eternal fires of Hell for their complicity with such inhuman evil. No Paradise awaits those dupes of a twisted Islamic vision, just everlasting anguish of damnation.

By the way, Islam is a religion much like Christianity, Judaism, and others: it counsels peace and goodwill. Only hotheaded fanatics pervert it to their paranoiac schemes toward power. Unfortunately, there are more Islamic hotheads with dreams of Paradise than can be allowed to live in this world.

Pakistan was likely presented with "an offer it couldn't refuse" and chose, however reluctantly, to stand with the forces of justice. They will close their border with Afghanistan, cut off its fuel supplies, provide bases for a multinational force to remove the Taliban and terrorists, and allow multinational military overflights during this war. Pakistan's choices were exactly two: either you are with us, or you're against us. I'm sure it was just this... clear.

And there will be a war over this. No one kills 5,000 innocent civilians without being hunted to the very ends of the earth and brought to a very stern account. Osama Bin Ladin (I spit on your very name and wish you an excruciating death worse than a shit-eating pig's, you mutant whelp of diseased fornicating dogs), say your prayers - you'll be meeting Allah sooner rather than later, and I think you'll be dismayed with His plans for your eternity.

Re:It's Simple, Really...

[kaisyain]

And the US harbors a number of people who would be called War Criminals if they were from any other country. Just a few days ago a new lawsuit was lodged against Henry Kissinger for the war crimes he is responsible for in Argentina. We refuse to turn him over. Does this make the US pro-terrorist, that we harbor a man who orders and directs assassinations? Does that mean the citizens of the US must simply suck it up if Argentina decided to bomb the US?

Re:It's Simple, Really...

[blackwizard]

Not that I don't agree with you -- because I do -- I believe we need retaliation against the perpetrators of this. However, your statement that "no one kills 5,000 innocent civilians without being hunted to the very ends of the earth" got me thinking -- how many innocent civilians were killed int the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Here's a link. Makes you wish we could all just get along...

Re:It's Simple, Really...

[Anonymous Coward]

countries either harbor and condone terrorists, or they don't

No, governments do those things.
Countries are full of innocent people.

If your goverment made a bad choice, should you "bear the consequences"? Would it make a difference if you were born into a country like Afganistan?

The terrorists came from Florida! Should we bomb Florida? What if your family lived next door?

-posting anonymously, because shit like this brings out the assholes

Re:It's Simple, Really...

[mrogers]

countries either harbor and condone terrorists, or they don't - they expel them, or better, arrest and extradite or imprison them (as in... forever).

America's treatment of Sinn Fein puts it in which category?

No one kills 5,000 innocent civilians without being hunted to the very ends of the earth and brought to a very stern account.

Except perhaps the United States. The Jordanian Red Crescent (the name under which the Red Cross operates in Islamic countries) estimated that 113,000 Iraqi civilians were killed in the war, 60% of them children. (Many of these deaths would have been caused by the destruction of essential infrastructure, not directly by bombing, hence the high number of children killed.) I'm not by any means a supporter of either Sinn Fein or Saddam Hussein, but you're naive if you think that only the US has innocent civilians, and only the enemies of the US harbour terrorists.

Addicted and Slightly Annoyed

[SilverLotus]

I am also one of those people who just can't seem to turn the TV off after these horrific events. I heard about the first attack a few minutes after it occurred, and I actually saw the second plane hit the other tower. Since then, I've been glued to CNN, switching only occasionally to CBC NewsWorld to get the Canadian perspective and to see what my government has to say about this tragedy.

Every once in a while, I have felt the need to remove my self from all of this. I've either been turning down the TV and playing a computer game or switching to a specialty channel to watch some other type of programming. The TV is right beside me, so I'm still not getting away from it and the games I've been playing have been non-violent for some reason. A several times in the past couple of days I've switched the channel to watch something non-news related only to find TLC is playing a BBC WorldNews feed, or TBS showing CNN. At other times, TV shows have been interrupted just so the news we all know can be repeated until it's burned into our brains. As much as I want to know what the latest developments are, part of me is annoyed when my attempt to 'relax' or get away from the news is prevented. Yes, I could throw in a video tape or turn the TV off, but at the same time I want the TV on so that the news of a truly new development or event can interrupt what I am watching. But I think these channels are playing the news because they feel that it is their duty (even though there are several channels now devoted to the news) and/or to show their regular programming would be callous (even though some of us would like to see something other then news, if even for a short time).

I suppose this all sounds a bit callous, and maybe it is. Even though I am Canadian, I find these events very difficult to deal with. I want to know all the information about people being saved, how these horrific things happened, what the world is saying it is going to do, and most importantly who did this. But I also want life to return to as close as normal as possible. It was very refreshing, after a day of watching CNN and CBC NewsWorld, to be able to watch Iron Chef last night, and then return to the news. I guess even addicts need a break, or maybe my addiction to Iron Chef is stronger? :-) Regardless, I do hope that soon only the news channels will be reporting the news, and the other cable channels will only play news feeds with something truly new is reported.

My heart goes out to all Americans and to everyone all over the world that has been affected by this horrible act.

Silverlotus

Addicted to news? Not me...

[weslocke]

I'm addicted to Slashdot, you know... Hitting refresh every few minutes... drinking coffee to stay awake for that 3:00am posting... just... one... more... karma... point...

Alternative media

[olafva]

I suggest you try NPR and Canadian TV on CSPAN-2. Both are quite factual, in-depth and not ratings driven.
Wednesday's CBC coverage and yesterday's Canadian
noontime prayer service was very moving. Canada is familiar with and is tracking such terrorists and is clamping down on their infiltration into our hemisphere.

Re:Alternative media

[ainsoph]

I suggest that NPR and others like it are also tools of the propaganda machine. Just look at who 'underwrites' the station: big grants from big completely entrenched corporations. Like Exxon for example. If you dont think those guys require spin on stories, yer in trouble.

Take a look at this Afghan newspaper online:

Afghan Daily

and

Afghan News Network

And compare to the stories on our favorite major news sources like ABC, CNN, MSNBC, etc.. Ask yourself why the Afghan paper contains much of he same propaganda that we get. Now why would a country, who has a philosophy so different from ours feature the same 'news stories' and 'opinions' as we do?

That my friend shows you just how deep the rabbit hole goes. Our influence is everywhere, and obviously, as the events of the past two weeks has shown, people are sick of it.

I have an attempt to show news stories from different sources around the world, to show the varying opinions, and to show what is being 'missed' by our mainstream sources.

Check the link.

Re:Alternative media

[Anonymous Coward]

You are truly moronic.

55 years ago one could read German "Der Stürmer" and came to conclusion that NY Times and other allied newspapers are BIASED !
How unbelievable !
Stop trying: you do not sound like "independent thinking" person; you just sound like stupid moron.

www.drudgereport.com

[cb0y]

12 tonnes of gold under WTC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can relate to this

[Anonymous Coward]

At work, I was not happy unless I was listening to 1010wins. At home, I was not happy unless the television was playing some news station. I could not sit still, I kept feeling like I was missing something, and I needed to know everything and more than that. I'm still the same way. This stuff just really hit close to home. Today I'm signing up for the military.

Happened with Columbine too

[Anonymous Coward]

I sat at work reloading CNN and ABC every five minutes to find out more for both tragedies.

Re:Myself... + new request of /. readers

[Lawrence_Bird]

I am a daytrader and with the markets closed there
is really nothing else to do but watch. Watch
Europe, watch Asia, and watch the carnage on TV.
I think we finally hit the saturation point with
Bush's trip to G0 and it will diminish until any
reprisals are taken.

I ask all of you on /. to consider contributing to
the Cantor Fitzgerald Foundation. This broker, who
is the most responsible for the smooth functioning
of the cash bond markets, has lost 700 of 1000
staff. You may have seen the CEO on TV, he lost
his brother as well. They were all hardworking
people who didn't make it the 2nd time around.

The address is:

The Cantor Fitzgerald Foundation
101 Park Ave.
45th Floor
New York, NY, 10178-0060
Attn: Phil Ginsberg.

nonsense. of course you can.

[jpellino]

turn off the tube and call the red cross.
get back to reality and DO SOMETHING.

Re:You can go back to sleep now. Here's why:

[Chiasmus_]

The Taliban is a fundamentalist regime, and those are bad and need to be dealt with. (Look at Iraq for an example of what happens when we don't and/or can't.)

Well, this certainly doesn't seem well thought-out. Three points:

1. Iraq is not a fundamentalist regime.

2. America *did* attempt to deal with it, by sending some sixty thousand air strikes against civilian targets.

3. The attacks on New York and Washington were a direct result of the way America "dealt" with Iraq's "regime"; not only Bin Laden, but millions of arabs, felt that Americans had imposed imperialism, responded disproportionately to a regional struggle, and despoiled the holy land.

Iraq invaded a country that it felt it may have some historical claim to. America disagreed, and so they bombed thousands of civilian buildings, slaughtered tens of thousands, crippled Iraq's economy, and made sure they stayed as weak as possible. What we saw on Tuesday was not an invasion; it was perceived as retribution for what the muslims perceived as American war crimes. Now, Americans are up in arms about seeking retribution for what they perceive as Muslim terrorism.

When will someone finally decide to turn the other cheek? Will the two ideologies take sides "retaliating" against one another until there's no one left to retaliate?

I can put down the news reader...

[Greyfox]

Anytime I want to. Really. Ooh! The Oracle's posted a new digest!

If I read the piece on news addiction...

[SnicklesTheElf]

Isn't that pretty much admitting I have news addiction?

Oh, god. How soon we forget.

[A_Non_Moose]

I read the article and skimmed the comments and I admit that yes "we all want to know and we all were kind of in a stuport this week" but what struck me as odd:
OJ was mentioned, as was the Challenger and others, but what we all seem to be forgetting so quickly is that another "Bush" is in office and *Desert Storm/Shield" was literally fought on CNN's air waves for the American People.

Smelling the Coffee now? Wake up and think about it for a second.

Bush Sr. was a pilot in WWII and was shot down (IIRC) so the man *knew* what he was sending troops into and that is why Desert Storm was fought the way it was..swift, decisive, strategic targets and *minimal* ground efforts.

Bush Jr. may be a bit reluctant to start a war, but if "like father like son" addage hold (and I think it *will hold true*) he may very well have the temperance and the perspective (a son, whose father went to war point of view) to think very long and hard about how to approach this like his father did.

I'd hate to be the first one to state "a Bush in the office equals a war in the Middle East" because so far it only has happened once.

As a vet who served during Desert Storm, I knew what I was getting into volunteering to go "if things got bad" even tho the "why" we were fighting was as nebulous a concept as the internet to a newbie.

Let us not forget our history, because we seem to be doing so.

Moose.

I got chills the other day when I heard these lyrics from a cd I played:
"I no longer feel the pain,
I no longer feel my love,
Just the airconditioning,
and the help from the Lord Above.
Spitting out pieces of a broken heart,
my eyes work like a radar,
I'm lying in the after glow,
How'd I get this far?"

L.A Guns, Hollywood Vampires.

The words of the *entire* song are rather prophetic for these events, even tho the subject has nothing to do with current events.

As a nation, I think we are lacking direction and purpose and the WTC attack was "a slap in the face". It was a wakeup call and an insult. When we talk of 'world events' we forget the active word **WORLD**.

We ain't the only nation under "God", whatever name we give "Him"...we tend to forget that.

I was like that..

[espresso_now]

I was like the article describes, but only on the 11th. After that, I've tried to keep the news-watching down to the minimum required to get new information only. I have three small children and I definitely do not want them to have to witness this tragic event over and over. It's enough that they'll have to read about it later in school. Also, I myself don't want to become too desensitized to the whole thing either.

Re:Addicted to news? Not me...

[RedWolves2]

...offtopic...I am not offtopic. Damn how am I going to make that karma point up now!

my 2 cents

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel that if I don't watch it LIVE, then I'll be watching an edited news program that leaves out something that I would think is important.

Now that it is Saturday, it seems that some tv stations are starting to return to their regular programming schedule, but Fox and ABC are still providing 24/7 coverage. Now I'll post this comment and get back to watching the news....

OKC perspective

[Pfhreakaz0id]

Our local news here is an ... interesting ... market, to say the least. Folks gape in disbelief when I say the local stations were 24/7 live for 5 or 6 days after the bombing here. It got to the point where they were just doing a call in show on live TV. My wife (a mental health worker) worked some support lines and the number one thing she told people was "turn the TV OFF!"

Porn Sites Addicted Too

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess it is not just your typical clean-cut office environments that are addicted to news. Even porn workers are addicted. Nice to see they are trying to get you to donate to the relief effort instead of greedily trying to take every cent of every visitor.

Where is your vice-president?

[Anonymous Coward]

In regard of all the info I've got here in Belgium (from both US and EU) though televisions, radios, newspapers and Internet; it seems that your vice-president was at the Pentagon during the attack. As I didn't see him at the ceremony in Washington (supposed to be away for US presidency's safety), I'm wondering of something happened to him...

Do you have any relevant information (like his public reaction about the craches or war engagement, etc.)?
/Ely

Re:Pray. There's more out there...

[mimbleton]

Prayers are equivalent of painkillers but without side effects.

WOW!

[Leimy]

I have never read anything more accurate about what I have been going through. Talk about hitting the nail on the head.

Fighting news addiction

[apsmith]

First, think about how long you mind being "behind the news". If you're ok with learning about things up to a week late (which is plenty for most people not directly affected by an event), subscribe to a reliable newsmagazine (I happen to like Newsweek) and read only that. And rely on your friends and neighbors to tell you of anything else that's important going on. This way you'll avoid worrying about a lot of rumors or temporary issues that really don't merit your attention. If you need to be a bit more up-to-date, pick a daily paper, or a daily time to read a news web site, watch TV or listen to the radio, and stick to it.

Hardly anybody needs to be constantly updated on the news more often than that. Sure there are times when it's nice to track an event as it happens. We were all listening to radios or watching TV Tuesday morning. But beyond the first few hours, unless you're directly involved somehow, break it off and go back to your normal news habits. You'll find yourself a lot better off.

Re:Pray. There's more out there...

[NDPTAL85]

lol. I get it. They numb the mind/brain without killing you. No thanks.

My experience.

[Telek]

I know exactly what you mean.

When I saw the first news I headed over to all the news sites that I could find (I found out shortly after the first crash) and I was engrossed. My first reaction was one of "woah!" and I just wanted to follow everything that was happening, almost on the edge of my seat waiting for the next thing to happen. Figuring that a building could not possibly stand up after being hit by a plane, I headed over to here (love that site) to find out everything that I could about how those buildings were built. I was glued to the screen for a good 2 hours, until a thought stuck me. I was looking at one of the images, and said "man, that looks so fake" and caught myself thinking (one of those 1/2 second back-of-your-mind thoughts) "they should have done a better job on the CG of that one"...

BAM!

Then it hit me. Almost all of the images looked like something out of a movie. I had been so desensitized that, upon seeing these images, my mind just assumed that they were fake. It did not want to accept the idea that they were real, so it was neat to want to see all about it that I could find.

Man was I disgusted with myself when I figured that one out.

Flame me down if you want, but I know that I wasn't the only one who thought that way. Once it sunk in that this was real, and those falling bodies out of the windows were real people, and after the first tower collapsed knowing that for the same reason the second one would collapse, and looking at it and knowing that there wasn't shit that I could do, and knowing that the people outside and the firefighters knew the same thing, man. That was a shock. I tried to donate but the stupid amazon form wouldn't accept my postal code, so I went and gave blood instead. I was half of the mind to go down there to see if there was anything that I could do to help (I was about a 5 hour drive away, I'm 1.5hr from the US border in Toronto) but when the borders were closed, and I came to my senses, I realized how entirely useless I was.

I just hope that some good does come out of this. I stopped watching the news after about 4 hours because I was disgusted at the media trying to grandstand with every little bit of information that they had, and watching the rumours go from the first emergance, and hearing them spread from newsteam to newsteam like a bad game of broken telephone, I knew that I had to stop.

Ack. May the passing of the deceased pave the way for a new era of peace and harmony amongst all beings on the earth. I would hate to know that all of this happened and the result was nothing more than a little revenge. Lets hope that this anti-terrorism coilition will stand tall over time and help to eliminate this uglyness.

Re:My experience.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is perhaps a bit off topic, but I found it interesting how so many people commented that the WTC bombing "looked just like a movie", given that whenever they see a disaster schene in a Hollywood film they also comment that "it looked so real".

So. Reality looks like movies and movies look like reality.

Re:My experience.

[Telek]

I think that is the exact reason that people said that it looked just like a movie. Where do we see movies? On television. Where did we see this? On television. I think it's understandable that we can confuse the two, seeing as how they both look very much the same. We've seen these things so many times that it's easy to understand why we might immediately interpret (even if just subconsciously) that the events we saw on tuesday were just computerized images. That's a lot easier to wrap your brain around than thinking that it is real.

Mentally Unhealty aside from the addiction.

[Peverbian]

My mother is a clinical social worker, member of NASW (www.nasw.org) and the National Transportation Safety Board (www.ntsb.gov) and has called up pretty much everyone she knows to tell them not to watch it more than a few times a day. Watching it excessively, aside from being addictive, is also a cause for depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. Yes, you can experience trauma from watching TV.

While I don't think completely tuning it out is the answer, the human brain needs some other kind of input, like a web-comic or a video game, or other television shows that are funny, or exciting, or action packed. Something other than the terrible tragedy that's saturated the news media.

If anyone is feeling depressed or stressed or otherwise in a worrisome mental state, there are clinical social workers who are required by law to see you for free up to 3 times for grief counseling or such. I don't have contact numbers or anything(I'll try to find from my mother when she gets home), but you could try calling the hospital or police station (not 911). They should be able to help you out.

That's just my $.02

-Ted Stephani

An historic opportunity

[Reality Master 101]

With all due respect, and I do respect your regard for life, you are naive.

We are at the crossroads of a great opportunity. The opportunity to end terrorism as we know it. People think that we can't win, but we can.

The roots of terrorism are in the countries that support and harbor terrorism. If the terrorists have no bases, then we have solved 90% of the problem. Can we get every suicide bomber? Probably not, but we can certainly eliminate a lot of what's there now.

Think of the opportunity! Almost every country in the world is standing with us, saying "enough is enough". How many times in history can you say that? Yes, some innocent civilians are going to pay the price, but the price is imposed by their own government, not by ours. Innocent Germans paid the price of being ruled by Hitler, but Hitler had to be stopped. It is exactly the same situation today.

When you have multiple jumbo jets flying into skyscrapers, that is a pretty clear indication that terrorism is out of control, and worst, they have accumulated too much power and organization.

I hope that we have the guts to see this through. I can't stress this enough: We have the opportunity to end terrorism as we know it. How many more jumbo jets have to fly into skyscrapers before people realize that sometimes war is the only answer to solve this problem?

Re:An historic opportunity

[Reality Master 101]

And another thing I forgot to add: Anyone who thinks that we are "just creating more of them" is a racist, point-blank. All muslims are NOT psychopathic mass murderers, like some people seem to think. There simply aren't that many people like this.

We can win this war, and further, I think the middle east (the silent, fearful majority) will thank us for winning it.

Re:An historic opportunity

[archen]

"All muslims are NOT psychopathic mass murderers, like some people seem to think. There simply aren't that many people like this."

I completely agree with you, but most Americans (and even myself) are having a hard time believing that when we see Middle Eastern (for lack of a better term) people in the streets celebrating and handing out candy...

Re:An historic opportunity

[robinjo]

Let me start by condemning the horrible terrorist attack against WTC and Pentagon. Keep in mind that I mourn for the deaths of those 5000 innocent people when you read my post. I don't know if you are ready to read what I'm going to say but I hope you can understand that I'm worried and I have to say this.

Because of the deaths of these 5000 people, 71% (according to a poll) of americans want revenge and support bombing of another country. Bombing, that will most likely kill more than 5000 innocent people.

USA is a great country with peaceloving and intelligent people. However, most of you feel hate and want blood as revenge. There has even been stories on CNN how many people want to join the army and risk their lives to retaliate.

No think about it. How can you expect people in Afghanistan to not react the same way you do? How can you expect them to silently accept the death of their loved ones without wanting revenge?

Please, go out and talk about peace. Get your leaders to understand that violence creates more violence. Don't let the world slip into a storm of hate.

Re:An historic opportunity

[Pengo]

Dont trust that poll.

A) People are upset and HURT. I don't know if the country has ever felt so much emotional pain over any given event. I haven't. As a matter of fact I am having a harder time dealing with this issue peronally than when my grandfather passed away about a year and a half ago.

B) Anyone that goes and watches CNN for more than 3 minutes or browses the CNN.com website would probably pull the trigger themselves. I know I sure as hell would.

The country is mourning, and will mourn for a long while. Bush is NOT 'lashing' out at anyone. The world is watching, and will support him (Bush) if the evidence is gathered and clearly points to Laden. There is the chance that it wasn't, but realistically there is enough evidence already to condemn him in a court of law.

The end of the day, any man who will send a jumbo-jet with innocent people, even babies for gods sake, doesn't deserve to live. It's the same calm cool Nazi's probably had sending Jews to the showers.

God damn the people who did do it.

Re:An historic opportunity

[mlong]

USA is a great country with peaceloving and intelligent people. However, most of you feel hate and want blood as revenge. There has even been stories on CNN how many people want to join the army and risk their lives to retaliate.

Hmm, I want to retaliate but I do not feel hate or revenge. However, in this case, retaliation is required. This is war and the blood of the victims cries out for justice. Ignoring the issue won't make it go away. We must eliminate these people so that this will not happen again, and so that all of the victims did not die in vain. I suppose you don't understand these concepts.

No think about it. How can you expect people in Afghanistan to not react the same way you do? How can you expect them to silently accept the death of their loved ones without wanting revenge?

Hmm, I don't recall America hijacking any planes and killing thousands of innocents. Since these terrorists have declared war on America, and since the government there harbors them, I believe the people of Arghanistan have already made the decision theirselves and can suffer any consequences of such.

Please, go out and talk about peace. Get your leaders to understand that violence creates more violence. Don't let the world slip into a storm of hate.

Oh, I am sure peace is going to end terrorism. No, its just going to give them a blank check to go kill whoever they want since nobody will ever bring them to justice. Get a clue

Re:An historic opportunity

[robinjo]

Let me be very clear that I don't think the way I'm going to write. But let's rephrase your message and have a look at what people on the other side may think after the future attacks. Note that the first and last chapters are totally unchanged and only a few words had to be changed:

Hmm, I want to retaliate but I do not feel hate or revenge. However, in this case, retaliation is required. This is war and the blood of the victims cries out for justice. Ignoring the issue won't make it go away. We must eliminate these people so that this will not happen again, and so that all of the victims did not die in vain. I suppose you don't understand these concepts.

Hmm, I don't recall Afghanistan sending any cruise missiles and killing thousands of innocents. Since these terrorists have declared war on muslim countries, and since the government there harbors them, I believe the people of America have already made the decision theirselves and can suffer any consequences of such.

Oh, I am sure peace is going to end terrorism. No, its just going to give them a blank check to go kill whoever they want since nobody will ever bring them to justice. Get a clue

Bottom line: Any violent attack which kills innocent people will bring about exactly same feelings of hate that the attack last tuesday brought. The gap between USA and these people will widen and that will be counterproductive as that gap is the problem that causes these attacks.

Re:An historic opportunity

[Reality Master 101]

I had a response to this all written, but I'm going to erase it, because clearly there is nothing to say that hasn't been said by others.

Instead, I have a question for you. It is 1939 or 1942 or pick your date. Hitler is invading neighbors, and for whatever reason is seething with hate. What is your solution for stopping him? Is it: "Bottom line: Any violent attack which kills innocent people will bring about exactly same feelings of hate that the attack last tuesday brought"?

The great flaw in your thinking is that you think these are reasonable people that are just fighting a war. If we would just give them what they want, then they would stop. That's simply not true, unless the destruction of the western world is what we give them.

Osama bin Laden is not a freedom fighter. He is a man that hungers for power, and uses the religion of his followers to manipulate them. He is a mass murderer on the scale of Hitler. The only difference is that Hitler had a country, and bin Laden does not.

Re:An historic opportunity

[robinjo]

Hitler is invading neighbors, and for whatever reason is seething with hate. What is your solution for stopping him?

My solution is to stop him with force. This is what had to be done in the Gulf war too. (The coalition should only have fought it until the end but that's hindsight now.)

The great flaw in your thinking is that you think these are reasonable people that are just fighting a war.

No, not at all. These are not reasonable people at all. The terrorists are fanatics. I wonder where you got the impression that I think of them as reasonable people?

You think that terrorism can be destroyed by force. If you'd study history, it has never succeeded. Firstly, the enemy is hidden, so you have no idea whatsoever, who's a terrorist and who's not. Secondly, that force creates anger and that anger fuels terrorism.

Like you said, Hitler had a country and bin Laden doesn't. The difference is colossal and ignoring it is a big mistake.

Re:An historic opportunity

[Reality Master 101]

If you'd study history, it has never succeeded. Firstly, the enemy is hidden, so you have no idea whatsoever, who's a terrorist and who's not.

To be frank, we have never tried. Yes, we've blown up a few camps, but we have never had a sustained attack on them. What we have especially never done is hold the countries that support, foster and harbor terrorism accountable.

Bin Laden doesn't have a country per se, but he does have a lot of countries that indirectly -- or even directly -- support him. I don't think it's a stretch to say that he is a military arm of several countries.

Secondly, that force creates anger and that anger fuels terrorism.

To be honest with you, I think that is a somewhat racist statement. The vast majority of Arabs and Muslims are not "time bombs" waiting for the right catalyst to turn themselves into psychopathic mass murderers. I think the most Arabs and Muslims are a "fearful majority" that hate the fact that their countries foster terrorism. I think far more Arabs will applaud any US action (silently, of course) than will condemn it.

Yes, we might never be able to eliminate the lone suicide bomber with a stick of dynamite. But we CAN stop state-sponsored terrorism. We can stop their financing. We can stop the world-wide organizations.

And we need to stop it now before more jet liners hit more skyscrapers. I think too many people are thinking this is just an isolated incident, and it's not going to happen again. It WILL happen again, unless we act to stop. And next time, it might not be a jet, it might be a nuke. These people have proven that they have absolutely no regard for scale of damage.

Re:An historic opportunity

[robinjo]

To be frank, we have never tried

The world is a lot bigger than USA. Great Britain, the former Soviet Union, Russia and Israel have. Some of them actually still do.

Bin Laden doesn't have a country per se, but he does have a lot of countries that indirectly -- or even directly -- support him. I don't think it's a stretch to say that he is a military arm of several countries.

Over 40 countries have individuals who support bin Laden. That includes even Sweden who doesn't have any possibilities to restrict the free speech rights of those people. Are you going to attack all those 40 counties?

You also say how I'm racist because I say that anger fuels terrorism. You only have to look no further than at the reactions in USA after the attack to WTC. 5000 people died and millions of educated and reasonable people are ready to support more violence. Enlistments to US army are also higher and many of those guys stated that the reason is revenge. This all happens in a peaceful country.

I took that example because we all are the same. "The free world" can't stomach the deaths of 5000 people. If the retaliation ends up killing innocent people (and it will), don't be surprised if there's a similar reaction to those killings.

Guess the source of this quote:

[Futurepower(tm)]

Guess the source of the following quote. Who talked about the U.S. being "the greatest threat to the peace of the world"?

Yes, Osama bin Laden said something like this. However, he is not the source. U.S. senator from Oregon Wayne Morse said this in 1964. He was arguing against the U.S. involvement in Vietnam.

Why does a Saudi Arabian like bin Laden care about the activities of the U.S.? In interviews, he has said that he is against the U.S. support for what he considers to be a corrupt Saudi Arabian government. I certainly would be unlikely to give credibility to anything bin Laden said. However, Saudi Arabian friends have privately made similar criticisms. That's what made me take notice.

Mostly, however, I have little independent knowledge of news events. Like everyone, I depend on news sources. I thought that the September 13, 2001 PBS TV show about these issues was interesting. Here is a quote from a transcript of the show "Hunting bin Laden":

"NARRATOR: Muslim fundamentalists say that America's alliance with King Fahd is akin to America's disastrous alliance with the Shah of Iran. When King Fahd, like the Shah, is forced from power, they say, Americans will be on the wrong side of history."

and here's another quote:

"NARRATOR: Already, critics of the Saudi government point out the king has managed to turn the world's largest oil producer into a debtor nation."

People like bin Laden say that the U.S. government is supporting a corrupt dictatorship. Is there a lie in this? The U.S. government is supporting an anti-democratic government. The terrorists say this is the reason they feel motivated to terrorism.

My own opinion is that I think the initiators of violence are crazy, mentally decentered. However, if Americans support U.S. independence from England in 1776, they might also be sympathetic to other people's desire to have representational government.

Please consider what the narrator of the PBS show said again: Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil-producing nation, with only 14,000,000 inhabitants, actually owes money.

I have absolutely zero sympathy for terrorist violence. However, the situation is so black and white that it is difficult not to think that there is some truth in the terrorist's complaints.

In 1967 I was hitch-hiking on Ta Khli Air Base in Thailand. A U.S. pilot who was flying daily bombing missions to Hanoi gave me a ride. He told me he thought the bombing of Hanoi was pointless. He said that Hanoi was almost always covered with fog, and that he could not see what he was bombing. So, don't feel that you are having a radical viewpoint if you oppose U.S. military or political involvement. Plenty of others have come before you. In a democracy, it is the citizens' responsibility to think independently and make their views known.

Re:Guess the source of this quote:

[Anonymous Coward]

However, the situation is so black and white that it is difficult not to think that there is some truth in the terrorist's complaints.

What complaints? There were no complaints, no demands made, no responsibility taken, even by bin Laden. Their motives were all conjecture, made by analysts. So the situation isn't as black and white.

And the fact that Saudi Arabia is a debtor nation isn't a problem. The USA, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, is a debtor nation to the tune of a few trillion dollars. Having debts isn't a bad thing, it's having debts that you aren't able to pay off. I don't see anywhere that the Saudi government will be incapable of supporting those debts.

In large part, we support the Saudi government because the practical alternative is complete social collapse, the power vacuum will be filled by less friendly dictators, or they will be invaded by dictators.

Israel is a democratic government, and bin Laden wants us to stop supporting them too. He is, at best, logically inconsistent.

Re:Myself... + new request of /. readers

[kubrick]

I ask all of you on /. to consider contributing to the Cantor Fitzgerald Foundation. This broker, who is the most responsible for the smooth functioning of the cash bond markets, has lost 700 of 1000 staff.

I just know I'll be modded down for this... but surely they have many friends much richer than me, right?

To Point out

[N8F8]

That no preident in over 100 years has been foolish enough to micromanage the military. Congress's only influence is over military budgets and oversight.

What happens is the President and the Congress define broad goals and the military leadership decides the strategy and tactics to reach those goals. There will be briefings to the President about what they will do to achieve the goal, but in general the military is the experienced govermnent party entrusted to doing the best thing.

Re:To Point out

[Foochar]

Actually both Johnson and Nixon micromanaged the military during Vietnam, which is part of the reason why we were so ineffectual during that war. The president recieved target lists on a daily basis and chose which targets the military was and was not allowed to strike.

Re:To Point out

[_xeno_]

1. [N]o preident in over 100 years has been foolish enough to micromanage the military.

   This is Bush. I think I can leave everyone to their own Bush jokes. >:)

2. A broad goal: bomb the Middle East out of existance. Nuke Afghanistan. Don't forget, a broad goal can also define the seriousness of the attack - if the President wants a firebombing of Afghanistan, then he can order it. It's a very broad order, and the military will figure out the details.

   Fortunately, such a goal is highly unlikely now, but it's still a possibility if the politicians decide that the military solution needs to be beefed up. They have the power to do so.

Re:Addicted to news? Not me...

[jedwards]

But when you get to 50 ... aahhhh ... it's all over and you can sleep peacefully for the first time in days.

Re:You can go back to sleep now. Here's why:

[Reality Master 101]

If we attack Afghanistan, we have to be prepared to get our hands much dirtier than we did in the Persian Gulf.

With all due respect, that's what they said about Iraq, too. "Hundreds of thousands of battle-hardened warriors willing to die for their country". Didn't turn out that way, did it?

Now, I understand there are differences here, but let's not assume every country is a Vietnam backed by a cold-war soviet union.

If we started carpet bombing like in Iraq, it is very likely we would see the same kind of retreat and surrender. Even "experienced and fanatical guerilla warriors" can only take so much fear and sleep deprivation without any sort of military support.

Good Read

[anguish feast]

If the addictivness of news and information interests you, you might want to check out a book I read recently. Data Smog: Surviving the Information Glut. It's been out for a couple years, so maybe some of you have read it. Let us know what you about it. I'm sure most of you would enjoy it...

Ars Technica

[FFFish]

Best Thread Ever is posted at Ars Technica.

For those of you wishing some sense of closure, perhaps the Ars Technica thread will assist. It contains dozens upon dozens of photographs of people around the world memorializing the tragedy.

It is touching. And in between the pictures, the words of support and gratefulness will move you.

If there is a single positive outcome to this terrible event, it is that over a billion people have realized the important truth: we are all one people, united in humanity because we are all human.

Together, we could create a utopia. Divided, we create terror, pain, and tragedy.

Let our next thoughts, next decisions, next actions lead us toward a better world.

Not addiction, but empathy?

[Kiaser Zohsay]

The NYC Police, Fire Dept, and all the rescue workers were and still are there digging, sifting, listening for noises, risking their own lives, away from their own homes and families.

The least I can do is keep the TV on. Am I such a wimp that I can't stay up past bedtime?

Yes, of course I realize that my presence or absence in front of the tube makes absolutely no difference to the people on the front line, but I can't help feeling like I am deserting them when I turn it off.

Re:Not addiction, but empathy?

[Sniser]

the people on the front line

Yeah, fighting against time, the battle of helping the victim still rages on.

I don't think these brave folks have any appetite for this talk. Those who have seen the horror first hand just want it to STOP.

KNOWING more will somehow help

[Keith McClary]

KNOWING more will somehow help

During the Soviet invasion of Afganistan the muslim hill tribes were depicted as heroic freedom fighters, holding off the Red Army with only ancient single shot rifles. But they made every shot count.

The US helped them out by sending billions worth of modern weapons. The aid was funneled through certain murky Saudi organizations including our friend Bin Laden. They probably still have lots of Stinger missiles left over - they don't belive in wasting ammunition.

CNN doesn't like to talk about this sort of thing, it would seem unpatriotic.

Re:Myself... + new request of /. readers

[Lawrence_Bird]

that may well be, but consider the magnitude..
not all of those killed were so called 'fat cat
brokers' either - the support staff outnumber the
brokers. Not to mention most of those brokers are
not making cash seen in the top ranks of Goldman
or Morgan Stanley. Many make well under that
magic 6 figure mark. And if you consider that
numbers like $1,000 or even 10,000 per family will
only go a very short ways to helping them overcome
the loss of income, we are talking of $700,000 to
$7,000,000 - very large sums. When you throw in
education funds for children, day care, etc they
are going to need much more.

Cantor as a firm has always given back. They
have been a long timer supporter of the Esiason
foundation, Childrens Aid and many more.

You are right, they will receive contributions from some
of their clients, but I doubt it will be enough.

Some links

[fleener]

Here are some links for you to digest:

1. Bin Laden comes home to roost - about the militant's CIA training
   
2. Bush's Faustian Deal With the Taliban - Opinion, references the $43 million in 2001
   
3. $70 million in aid to Afghanistan in 1997 - according to the CIA itself.
   
4. Who is Osama Bin Laden?
   
5. They can't see why they are hated - Opinion
   
6. Arab-Americans feel a backlash
   
7. Arab-American community 'keeping its head down'
   
8. Acts of Terrorism the Ultimate 'Faith-Based Initiative' - Opinion
   
9. Charity receives hate calls
   
10. Falwell says 'ACLU's got to take a lot of blame for this'
    

Stop Watching! For your own sake.

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone should read Jerry Mander's Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television.

Television fundamentally changed the way our brains work. At least while we are watching. It's bad enough that people have to deal with this tragedy. But they are constanly allowing themselves to be pumped full of horrible images, useless and destructive rhetoric, not to mention the dogma of hatred that some of the less objective "news" channels purport as information.

People are angry, confused, depressed, upset and god only knows what else. It's almost impossible to get a grip on this while you are being assailed with information. Most of which is speculation anyway.
Turn it off. Go for a walk. Talk to your friends. Do anything other than watch TV. You can't really find out how to deal with your own feelings when your being brainwashed with the fellings of others.

CNN via shoutcast

[Anonymous Coward]

I wanted to learn how to make a shout cast serve what better way then to setup a rebroadcast of CNN off tv [the audio portion].

I can only host 10 people max [probably less] since this is on a cable modem. If you want to tune in [i.e you don't get CNN] and check it out

Add the following url to your playlist [in winamp and XMMS]

http://24.112.8.23:8000

The terrorist message

[Anonymous Coward]

I, too, have been addicted to news coverage of the event. And then, last night and early this morning, I had a disgusting epiphany. I decided instead of reading the same old news stories, I'd finally check out, once and for all, what the whole deal with Israel and Palestine is (having only a rudimentary understanding).

I would consider myself an average American citizen - part of the educated, albeit in engineering, where history classes may be lacking. What I have learned has horrified me.

I will spare the politicking and just urge any other ignorant American (like myself) to take it upon himself to learn the truth about our world before making statements like "let's bomb the hell out of Afghanistan). Here's a good start:
http://www.cactus48.com/index.html

Read what President Churchill was quoted on saying about Israel.
Read about how Israel violated and still violates the UN charter from the first day it joined.

There are many other pages when you learn what to look for.

I will cut this short, but I am disgusted that US citizens have lost their lives, and more will in the future, and others around the globe will because our stubborn position on Israel. THIS POSITION IS WRONG. We've been wrong before (Native Americans, slavery, etc.) and we realize it, but it takes awhile. The later we realize this injustice, the greater chance that bus-bombers, or, worse yet, suitcase nukes or bio weapons are going to end up here soon. I don't want myself and my family to die because of our government's stubbornness.

Yes, the Taliban government is corrupt (esp. human rights abuses of women) and bin Laden is the worst kind of terrorist who should be punished. I believe if we changed our position on Israel, however, we could receive enough aid from neighboring countries and affect a positive changed. History shows us that change occurs when other cultures mix and penetrate each other, not when a country is bombed into further poverty.

Before you dismiss this as off-topic (I am relating my own outlet for media addiction and how it led to a greater understanding....and how I wasn't aware of most of this until this week), or as flamebait from an anonymous coward, ask yourself how much you really know about the Middle East situation. Look for world news sources, not fox or cnn. And ask yourself, do I want to bomb a country so I can feel good (I'm talking about bombing civilians, not the Taliban), or do I truly want to do the best I can to prevent other Americans from dying needlessly, while at the same time doing what is right in the Middle East (it is funny how a tiny sliver of a country is "right" in our eyes when every surrounding country disagrees with it).

Re:The terrorist message

[Anonymous Coward]

sorry, I meant Truman instead of Churchill - thinking one thing while typing another.

"I am sorry gentlemen, but I have to answer to hundreds of thousands who are anxious for the success of Zionism,", Truman said. "I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my constituents."

Re:You can go back to sleep now. Here's why:

[archen]

Iraq may have had some fighting with Iran, but they certainly didn't have to screw with the likes of the Soviet Union. I admit that the strength of Iraq was way out of perportion, but Iraq also was set up to mainly fight head to head with the US (so it didn't really take a genious to see who would lose there). Afghanastan on the other hand has fought against a super power, and NOT lost. Believe me, even if we did manage to win, I have this bad feeling it would be at a "costly" price.

Re:You can go back to sleep now. Here's why:

[NMerriam]

And hitler was a frustrated artist. So whats your point?

Yes, this is how their thinking led them to do what they did. Again, what's your point? We understand why they did what they did -- they hated us enough to die to hurt us. Well, guess what we now hate them enough to die to hurt them. You're right, its not very complex. thats how this happens.

And if we decide to pelt them with flower petals instead of bullets? Will they decide then that we're really swell people after all?

No, the choice is clear now -- we kill them or let them kill us. There is not a middle ground. They're not going to stop now that they know they can successfully attack us. There are a hundred groups planning attacks on US citizens after a success like this.

After the first person ran the mile in under 3 minutes, a dozen people did it within a year. Once they knew it could be done it was easy to reach the goal. They know they can attack us on US soil. How many more will die in attacks before its acceptable for us to say, "shit, we'd better hit back"?

Saudi Arabia as a debtor nation

[LinuxParanoid]

One aspect of your comments I'd take issue with. Based on the little I've read on the subject, it does not appear to me that Saudi Arabia is in debt due to stupid or corrupt moves by King Fahd. It's mostly due to the fact that Saudi Arabia created huge entitlement programs for its citizens due to its oil wealth, and since then the birthrate and population have exploded (of course), and thus Saudi Arabia can no longer adequately pay for them with current oil revenues.

Saudi Arabia then has the choice of cutting benefits, a hard task as US citizens can appreciate, or shipping more oil, which is tricky due to Saudi agreements with OPEC and desire to keep the price of oil from going lower. Basically, the Saudis are going to have to develop some non-oil industry in their country and that's not an easy process.

--LP

Re:You can go back to sleep now. Here's why:

[unitron]

Bin Laden doesn't care about Iraq. He wants to take over Saudi Arabia and subject it to his version of Islam. He's got a wild hair up his rear about some mosque in Mecca. He saw what we did to protect our supply of oil from Kuwait and knows what we'd do to protect our supply from Saudi Arabia.

And of course he views the mere presence in Saudi Arabia of any of us unclean infidels with the occasional impure thought as the vilest blasphemy (and co-incidentally an aid, because we are there to do business with them, trading our wealth for their petroleum, to the current rulers of Saudi Arabia who he wishes to overthrow).

So between his religious mania and desire for political power, he finds it desireable to get us out of the way and cripple us so badly that we can't interfere with him, and we make a handy point of focus for his irrational rage as well.

Just because he doesn't care about Irag and Saddam doesn't mean he isn't willing to make use of them, though, if he thinks it'll further his aims.

Re:You can go back to sleep now. Here's why:

[dosun88888]

Though it may be fucked up - the world is a fucked up place. For so long we've lived in our U.S. bubble and were free from the sort of garbage that happens all over the rest of the world. Sure it's not been on the scale of the world trade center, but terrorism is a way of life for a lot of nations.

I think the "coward" has a good point in that force of that magnitude could possibly stop a war right now. However, we would not be able to take out the proper targets at this time. We cannot just turn Afghanistan to glass and be done with it. While it would possibly be theoretically possible to wipe out many nations in that fashion, we wouldn't eliminate all of the dangers. That would only spur the ones left on to doing as much damage as possible. We know that people who don't care if they live or die can do immense damage.

With all that said, I think it's pretty ridiculous to call someone who sees reality a sick bastard. I commend you on your utter devotion to living in a bubble where good trumphs over evil and good people are never injured, but that bubble should have broken on the 11th. That's not always how the world works.

Honestly, the people we have to take out aren't nice. If bin Laden made himself a suit of live crying babies to hide behind (these jackasses love to hide behind generally innocent people), a few babies may die but we'd have to take him out. To do anything else would be to condemn even more later to death. THAT, my friend, is the actual issue at hand. To do anything else would be sicker and more bastardly than anything I can imagine. I see no excuse for nearsighted stupidity.

~D

Is this the real life?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this the real life?
Is this just phantasy?
Caught in a landslide,
no escape from reality!
Open your eyes, look up to the skies and see!

Excellent Matthew Parris article

[polytrope]

Matthew Parris has a superb thought-provoking comment article in the Saturday edition of the Times newspaper. The most sensible rational piece I have seen on this whole thing so far (and I am rare in my admiration for newspaper columnists!). You can read it in the online comment section at http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,248-200132096 6,00.html

There is something you can do

[Poligraf]

A long time ago I've seen a thread here about spirituality in the geek community. Further conclusions assume that you believe that there is something else besides the meterial world we live in.

In spiritual world we know that there are immaterial creatures and energies that like us to experience pain, addictions and do what they expect of us. This is how the crowds "work", this is how rumors and bad news are spreading out and making an aggressive mob out of people who don't even know each other.

All the spiritual schools (Tao, Sufism, Kabbalah, Buddhism, and so on) teach you how to unwind the "hooks" these things use to get you, and teach you to be aware of your addictions and how to remove them and be immune to the "social programming".

I know that this way is not for everyone, but many people will find it interesting and useful for wrestling the control of your life from the media and society back into your own hands.

If you speak Russian or know someone who does, you can read this book:
http://www.deir.org/book/Kniga_1/Contents.htm

The methodics there gives you the first step of regaining your conscience and freedom.

On the contrary...

[mahlen]

No one kills 5,000 innocent civilians without being hunted to the very ends of the earth and brought to a very stern account.

On the contrary, the past presidents of the U.S. seem to doing quite well. About 5000 innocent Panamanian civilians died in the bombing of Panama. 800,000 to 1 million North Vietnamese died in the Vietnam war. And those are only the examples from the top of my memory, and the ones where the planes have U.S. markings on them. Don't be so blind to what your country has done in your name...

mahlen

That's the American way. If little kids don't aspire to make money like I
did, what the hell good is this country?
--Lee Iacocca

mahlen

Re:You can go back to sleep now. Here's why:

[Anonymous Coward]

Have some professional courtesy. Don't troll a troll.

The overemphasis on religion is dangerous

[Animats]

The Bush administration is using this disaster to advance conservative agendas. Note the heavy emphasis on religion. This is especially bad because the other side considers this a religious war. If we buy into that, we get a crusade.

Let's look at the last crusade:

• The hype at the beginning
  "The West must march to the defense of the East. All should go, rich and poor alike. The Franks must stop their internal wars and squabbles. Let them go instead against the infidel and fight a righteous war. God himself would lead them, for they would be doing His work. There will be absolution and remission of sins for all who die in the service of Christ. Here they are poor and miserable sinners; there they will be rich and happy. Let none hesitate; they must march next summer. God wills it!" (Pope Urban II, 27 November 1095)
• Round 1
  The First Crusade, in 1096, bogged down in Turkey, and was slaughtered. 20,000 troops went in, 3000 came back.
• Round 2
  The Second Crusade, in 1146 (things happened very slowly back then), got as far as Damascus, beseiged the city, was deceived into a bad tactical position, and defeated.
• Round 3
  The Third Crusade, in 1187, was another military disaster, resulting in the loss of Jerusalem by the Crusaders.
• Settlement
  In 1197, Richard the Lion-Heart and Saladin cut a deal, setting the boundaries between Christianity and Islam about where they were before.

So it took 102 years to settle a completely unnecessary war started purely over a religious issue. And when it was all over, nothing really had changed, except that there was more hatred than before.

Bad decisions in the next few weeks could result in a long period of bloody, indecisive wars.

Re:The overemphasis on religion is dangerous

[mlong]

The Bush administration is using this disaster to advance conservative agendas. Note the heavy emphasis on religion. This is especially bad because the other side considers this a religious war. If we buy into that, we get a crusade.

Are you a freaking idiot? I haven't seen Bush do ANYTHING to advance his agenda. He's reacted like any other president would. Religion? Well, NEWS FLASH!!! The majority of Americans are religious. Imagine that, majority rule.

forget CNN

[hugg]

Knowing more *will* help, insofar as making you more informed then the rest of the spoon-fed populace, and maybe able to enlighten a few other people with your knowledge. But don't watch CNN or any of the mainstream networks that are geared toward angry, emotional soccer moms. This is not yet a time for mourning, it's a time to educate ourselves, make the right decisions, and preserve the stability of our nation.

Research the history of the conflict, get to know all sides of the story, get to know the people we will eventually be fighting. Something as simple as going to the "world trade center attack" category on Yahoo! and surfing around is a good start.

Ponder the incredible ripple effect an attack would have on the rest of the world, and how difficult are the decisions we face. There are a million variables in the diplomatic equation in this crisis -- I hope Joshua is working on the problem full-time.

It's definitely not simple!

[robinjo]

all the civilized countries throughout the world will classify other countries as either pro-terrorist or anti-terrorist. As of Tuesday, there's no middle ground, no room for dissembling or prevarication: they're either with us or against us, either for or against terrorism. Governments will make their choices... and they and their citizens will bear the consequences, terrible consequences.

My country stayed neutral during the cold war. My country has participated in peace keeping for ages and hosted conferences where nations have brought closer to each other.

I can't find the words to describe how sad and disappointed I am to hear how USA demands my country to give up on our neutrality and choose side. It's absolutely revolting how the strongest country in the world forces countries to look at the world in black or white.

Based on a poll 29% of US citizens do not support bombing. Is USA going to make these people "bear the concequences?" Or is US going to respect their right to free speech and own opinions? If so, why does US prohibit this right from peaceloving countries?

Re:It's definitely not simple!

[Pengo]

I empathize with your statement. I lived in Switzerland for a while and it sounds like your descibing something similar.

The point though is this. We are dealing with a human that can in-humanly justify loading a jumbo-jet(s) full of fuel, and humans (children/babies/mothers/etc included) and flying them into sky scrapers and destroying without prejidice. (probably Muslims died in that crash).

What happens when this guy gets his hands on weapons of mass destruction? Nuclear warheads? A spray-can full of Anthrax?

The reality of it is , your peace loving country probably doesn't have anything that this terrorist wants. You don't have to worry.

Often times the apathetic attitude is ok for dealing with a neighbor who is noisy or does things that are abnoxious. They need to be stoped before they create problems for the whole of humanity.

This was sword through the shoulder to all Americans (might I say any human with a soul), but it can/will happen to any country if this mad-man is not stopped. If that means going to war with the whole of Afgan. to get this problem resolved fine. If that means another cold war, fine. Frankly my hope in long term human survival has just fallen through the floor, as long as people like this walk the earth and (god help us all) have access to weapons of mass destruction.

Its Spring Time for Bin Laden

[Stalyn]

The CIA trained Osama bin Laden.

False. Widely-spread untruth by terrorist sympathizers, but false.

Well, bin Laden was not actually trained by the CIA themselves. However they were instrumental in putting bin Laden where he is today. The guerilla groups bin Laden fought for in the Soviet-Afghan Conflict were backed by the CIA. This includes the Taliban. Also the group who is in opposition to the Taliban, the United Front is a group we did not support. Now it seems we will do the opposite if we fight Afghanistan.

A quote from a very good article.

America won the Cold War. But in their foreign policy on Afghanistan, they lost. Of course, nobody would argue that if Washington had heavily backed Massoud, he would be in power in Afghanistan now and not the Taleban. Afghan politics are more complex than that. Massoud is a Tajik, not from the Pushtun majority in the country. But by backing Pakistan's line, Washington actually helped divide the guerrillas, arguably prolonging the war. Even worse, Washington's silent support for Pakistan's creation of the Taleban -- a monster that Islamabad now seems unable to control -- helped establish the world's most dangerous breeding ground for terrorists. Osama bin Laden, holed up somewhere in Afghanistan, has a lot to thank the CIA for.

Am I a terrorist sympathizer?

Don't read me wrong

[robinjo]

I want to highlight a few things as my post may not be completely clear. I want my country to oppose terrorism and AFAIK it has done it clearly during all it's history.

But I absolutely don't want my country to have to support more violence. That's what I have a big problem with. I think that George W. Bush was very irresponsible for demanding that every country has to support the upcoming bombings or face bombings themselves. That gives no room whatsoever for a peaceloving anti-terrorism country and that is absolutely wrong!

Re:Don't read me wrong

[mlong]

But I absolutely don't want my country to have to support more violence. That's what I have a big problem with. I think that George W. Bush was very irresponsible for demanding that every country has to support the upcoming bombings or face bombings themselves. That gives no room whatsoever for a peaceloving anti-terrorism country and that is absolutely wrong!

Unfortunately being a fence-sitting pacifist won't get you far in this world. Perhaps you can go talk to the citizens of Tibet and see how much it helped them. It is a shame you don't care about fighting for your way of life. I suppose if terrorists were to attack your country, you'd still be shouting "Let's not fight back...maybe they will leave us alone". By refusing to do anything to stop the terrorism, you're condoning it and supporting it. And unless your country harbors terrorists, then I don't believe your statement is correct where you say Bush demanded that your country support bombings or face bombing theirselve. Furthermore, Bush has never mentioned any specific method of retaliation, so why do you assume it is bombs?

same old story

[CrackWilding]

This is run-of-the-mill stuff. I'm like this with regard to the Boston Red Sox every year, from about March until the inevitable collapse... It always seems if I know enough, everything will work out fine.

Never does.

NO Images: No TV, I use LYNX

[gnarly]

I agree completely. I know that I, like anyone, would become demoralized and fearful if I were constantly bombarded by those terrible images. So to thwart the terrorists, I have prevented myself from seeing ANY of those images (..I must be the only person in America) I have COMPLETLY avioded any TV since I heard about this, though I rarely watch anyway.

And yet, I am as informed as the rest of /. because I read all my on-line news sources using LYNX. It is hard(er) to get addicted/afflicted when all you read is text...

I hate it when Mr Rodgers is Right

[ilsa]

Earlier this week I read http://www.misterrogers.org/elementary_education/p rview.asp?prid=69 and was really hit by this statement: "It's very tempting to get drawn into watching news around the clock, but adults must resist that temptation because it can lead to a feeling of hopelessness and despair" Time to turn off the news. It's the weekend. Do something recreational and be ready to actually get some work done Monday.

Re:You can go back to sleep now. Here's why:

[dgroskind]

we now hate them enough to die to hurt them.

Do we? Let us see if outrage such as yours turns into long lines of young people volunteering to join the armed forces. Let us see if there is clamour for higher taxes to pay for the war. Let us see if the U.S. commits ground troups.

Reports say that Bush is planning on calling up 50,000 reservists. That's not war. War is reinstating the draft. Let's see what people say when they're yanked out of their careers to do pushups and 50 mile hikes with a full pack.

There are a hundred groups planning attacks on US citizens after a success like this.

Evidence for this figure? I've seen nothing published.

After the first person ran the mile in under 3 minutes...

I think you mean 4 minutes here.

Once they knew it could be done it was easy to reach the goal

You think running a mile in 4 minutes is easy? Try running one in 5 minutes sometime.

How many more will die in attacks before its acceptable for us to say, "shit, we'd better hit back"?

Zero people! You hearby have permission to say "we'd better hit back." Actually hitting back, of course, takes a lot more thought and preparation. Hit back if you must but drop the sanctimony. It's going to be a miserable business.

There were years of warning.

[Futurepower(tm)]

"What complaints? There were no complaints, no demands made, no responsibility taken, even by bin Laden."

There were years of warning about U.S. involvement in Saudi Arabia and Israel. Some of these warnings came from bin Laden, who publicly threatened terrorism.

"The USA, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, is a debtor nation to the tune of a few trillion dollars."

The Clinton Administration got the U.S. mostly out of debt. The beginning of the huge debt occurred in the Reagan Administration, and coincided with homeless people becoming much more common in U.S. cities.

Most people in the U.S. have very little understanding of the destructiveness of the U.S. government. For most people in the U.S., the activities of their government are like an adult video game. The don't relate to it any more deeply than that. Most people in the U.S. cannot find on a map the 14 countries the U.S. government bombed in the last 30 years. Most know almost nothing about the cultures of the people who live in those countries.

Re:There were years of warning.

[Anonymous Coward]

There were years of warning about U.S. involvement in Saudi Arabia and Israel. Some of these warnings came from bin Laden, who publicly threatened terrorism.

And what would be the consequence of our not being involved in Saudi Arabia or Israel? My educated guesses:

Saudi Arabia would be part of a greater Iraqi empire. If his treatment of the Kuwaitis and even his own people was any indication, it would have been anything but benign. Sharon would have completely run over the Palestinian Authority, Arafat would be dead right now, and the Palestinians would be worse off than they are now. And people, including you, would accuse the US government of turning a blind eye to other people's suffering. And someone, somewhere, would get especially very angry at the United States for being so rich and powerful and not defending the oppressed. That person would be the equivalent of bin Laden today

The Clinton Administration got the U.S. mostly out of debt.

No, Clinton brought the budget DEFICITS under control. We've only been turning a surplus for a couple years, not nearly enough time to erase the mountains of debt created over the last thirty years.

The beginning of the huge debt occurred in the Reagan Administration, and coincided with homeless people becoming much more common in U.S. cities.

Deficits don't cause unemployment. In fact, high levels of government spending means more work for people to do. Correlation != Causation.

Most people in the U.S. have very little understanding of the destructiveness of the U.S. government. For most people in the U.S., the activities of their government are like an adult video game. The don't relate to it any more deeply than that. Most people in the U.S. cannot find on a map the 14 countries the U.S. government bombed in the last 30 years. Most know almost nothing about the cultures of the people who live in those countries.

I think you'll find that ignorance of the actions of their government or other cultures is not just an American phenomenon.

What would you propose the US do now, since you are so worldly and informed?

Re:There were years of warning.

[zulux]

The Clinton Administration got the U.S. mostly out of debt.

It's the U.S. TAXPAYER that got the U.S. mostly out of debt. Politicions don't do squat excpt run their mouths.

"The FUNDING of Afghanistan" ?

[Augusto]

It's not "funding" so much as relief, you make it sound like we're actually paying the Taliban's bills.

For the love of God, please get your facts straight ;

Fact Sheet: U.S. Increases Aid to Relieve Afghan Crisis ($43 million to include wheat, food, health care, shelter) http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/sasia/afghan/ fact/17may01.htm

And BTW, most of the items you listed have been covered greatly on the news, specially the prejudice against Arab Americans. They've been talking about that all day on ABC, CNN, and even MTV.

Re:"The FUNDING of Afghanistan" ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Covered all day? What are you smoking? This is the first I've heard of these things and I've watched 40+ hours of news coverage this week!

Re:"The FUNDING of Afghanistan" ?

[fleener]

Hmmm, so you have no problem with our giving hundreds of millions of dollars to feed the people of a terrorist-harboring nation, while we have our own homeless walking the streets? Give me hundreds of millions of dollars and I could build oppulent homeless hotels and feed them too for free for years to come.

Re:"The FUNDING of Afghanistan" ?

[mlong]

Hmmm, so you have no problem with our giving hundreds of millions of dollars to feed the people of a terrorist-harboring nation, while we have our own homeless walking the streets? Give me hundreds of millions of dollars and I could build oppulent homeless hotels and feed them too for free for years to come.

The side fact is that most homeless Americans choose to be homeless. It's not that hard to go get a job. We're already spending billions of dollars on welfare, food stamps, etc. What more do you want us to do? My tax money already has to go to support dozens of other Americans who won't work or can't work.

Though I do agree in this case its seems senseless to give money to other countries when they walk around the streets cursing America.

Re:"The FUNDING of Afghanistan" ?

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, uh, you don't know anything about the homeless. Approximately 10 percent of homeless "choose" to be homeless. Another 40 percent are mentally ill, so don't even try to use the word "choose." You can thank Reagan for that. As governor of California he released mentally ill people on a massive out-patient treatment program, and most of the ill simply never showed up for their medication. DUH!

Don't talk about welfare either because we spend far more on corporate welfare than we do on human welfare. That's a smokescreen that preys on peoples' tendencies for laying blame.

Re:"The FUNDING of Afghanistan" ?

[Augusto]

Read carefully, I wasn't saying we should give them relief money, just that that's what done. The initial poster seemed to imply we fund the Taliban. That's totally wrong.

On the other hand, we do need to find ways to improve the lot of life of some of these people, civilization is the only way to get them out of their fanatical leanings. But throwing money at them is a simplistic solution after all.

Re:"The FUNDING of Afghanistan" ?

[fleener]

Someone should mod that one up. He said what I wanted to say.

Psst!

[Andux]

Pssst!

Hey, buddy!

* looks around cautiously *

Wanna buy a newspaper?

C'mon, you'll like it. First one's free!

CNN is a big part of the problem

[Benjamin Shniper]

I, too was outraged by the poll

We already bombed Afghanistan! (Under Clinton after the Embasy Bombings. Bombings which should have been a declaration of war already.)Did it help?

CNN has bitterly deserted and distorted the American perspective. CNN assumes all the people who are not currently in the news are helpless, mindless, easily avoidable individuals. We need to fight a war, and their pussy-footing attitude should not be tolerated.

Remember the spy plane coverage on CNN? Please tell me if I'm wrong, but I got the distinct impression that CNN thought it was a terrible thing that the US could be spying on anyone for any purpose. Tom Clancy said there was an anti-spying bias in the medai on CNN, and the "commentator" said "no there isn't". Well, with a bias like THAT, it's not wonder we were taken by surprise. We need good spying to win this kind of a war.

Turn to fox and abc news for real news coverage. And for G-d's sake, learn from history sometime, CNN!

-Ben

Cantor Fitzgerald Foundation

[Anonymous Coward]

The original post doesn't make the purpose of the foundation clear:

"...the Cantor Fitzgerald Foundation to aid the families of anybody who died in Tuesday's disaster, no matter where they worked." -- Flinty Bond Trader Leads His Firm Out of the Rubble [Interview with Cantor CEO Howard Lutnick] New York Times 15 September 2001

Lutnick has personally given the foundation a $1 million starting contribution.

Re:Cantor Fitzgerald Foundation

[kubrick]

The original post doesn't make the purpose of the foundation clear:
"...the Cantor Fitzgerald Foundation to aid the families of anybody who died in Tuesday's disaster, no matter where they worked." --Flinty Bond Trader Leads His Firm Out of the Rubble [Interview with Cantor CEO Howard Lutnick] New York Times 15 September 2001

Ah, thanks. I thought it was more of a 'help this capitalist oppressor get his top hat back', to paraphrase Marxist propaganda :)

The Speech George Bush Could Give About WTC

[Paul Fernhout]

It is quite possible the foreign policy being mapped out right now by Bush administration officials as a response to the WTC attack will effect the course of world peace and civil liberties (including those related to privacy and communications) for decades to come. For those slashdotters wanting more background, Z Magazine has many interesting articles on the reasons why so many around the world hate the United States and what the US could do about that. In order to have a real solution to the problem of terrorism we must address the real causes -- and the causes include poverty, child abuse, warfare, intolerance, racism, injustice, and hypocrisy. This article written by Doug Morris posted there is particularly interesting -- a speech President Bush could give if he has the wisdom and courage to stand up for peace instead of simply continuing the cycle of bloodshed. Morris's article begins: St. Augustine said that "hope has two beautiful daughters: anger and courage. Anger at the way things are, and courage to struggle to create things as they should be." These acts perpetrated against humanity today were acts of anger at the way things are. They were not courageous acts, but horrendous atrocities, acts of anger laced with hate. Our first response must be support and compassion for the victims, and families and friends of the victims. But, in addition, we should ask ourselves "what conditions led these fellow humans to develop such anger and hatred, led them to commit such abominably inhumane acts, and why was it directed at these particular targets in the United States?"

Morris goes on to list his estimates of the non-American bodycount of various US military interventions and proposes essentially Bucky Fuller's world game proposal of spending a fraction of the US military budget to make the world a happy and healthier place less likely to spawn terrorists.

Re:You can go back to sleep now. Here's why:

[NMerriam]

Do we? Let us see if outrage such as yours turns into long lines of young people volunteering to join the armed forces. Let us see if there is clamour for higher taxes to pay for the war. Let us see if the U.S. commits ground troups

Yes, we do. I don't know about you, but on the mailing lists I'm on, the topic is coming up. people asking how tech skills can be used by the military. Asking about joining the reserves.

You've seen it here on /., too. The next weeks are definitely going to be interesting (in the chinese curse definition of the word). I really don't doubt that we lack the resolve or manpower to commit to this. The question is more about the target -- what is the goal? That will decide the level of support, not the fear of bloodying ourselves.

Evidence for this figure? I've seen nothing published.

Common sense? Almost half of all known terrorist groups on Earth are dedicated against the United States. Do you think they just saw the most successful attack ever and said to themselves "gosh, we should never want to do that -- it worked too well!"

Yes, I meant the 4-minute mile of course.

You think running a mile in 4 minutes is easy? Try running one in 5 minutes sometime.

No, it's not easy -- I ran the 1800 meter in high school and am well aware of my own physical limits. But that doesn't change the fact that it makes a HUGE difference in success rate once you know that something is possible. Just knowing it gives you the clarity and confidence to succeed.

Zero people! You hearby have permission to say "we'd better hit back." Actually hitting back, of course, takes a lot more thought and preparation. Hit back if you must but drop the sanctimony. It's going to be a miserable business.

yes it will be. It always has been -- who is saying it will not be? One of the things we know for sure is that this is no gulf war to be won by remote control. Americans are going to die in the next few years, the only question is whether we want them to be soldiers fighting back or civilians sitting in their offices.

There is nothing sanctimonious about saying that we are now targets. We have two choices: fighting or not. Either way, we are being attacked and that is not going to stop.

You cannot negotiate with someone who has no demands save your death. Our very existance is contrary to these people's view of God and a righteous universe. We are Evil incarnate -- they do not want land as Hitler did, there can be no appeasement. They don't want representation in the UN, or a homeland for palestinians. They want us to not exist. When all of it was rhetoric that was fine, but now they are trying to make it reality. I don't personally find that acceptable.

premonition... Re:My experience.

[Gunstick]

I decided to donate blood 3 months ago.
After the screening test I was sent my scheduled
first blood donation for wednesday 12 september.
So leaving work I lerned about the cataclysm and the next day I was at the red cross giving my blood.
Did god know that there would be a need for blood that day?

Georges

Be Careful What You Wish For

[DumbSwede]

I am a news addict, I was before these recent tragic events, and now I have many fellow addicts because our drug has become much stronger.

Every morning I turn on CNN before climbing into the shower -- this is not just habit but compulsion. September 11, 2001 was no different. This morning I had the same thought I have almost every morning before I hit the TV on button I wish there were some real news on. I don't know why I feel compelled to check every morning, nothing much important ever seems to happen anymore.

Despite the repetition, the points good and bad, one fact sadly remains true: this is real news. This is why it is so addictive. It is not the endless banality and manufactured news, which is often just marketing in disguise.

Correction: You are right. Answers? I don't know.

[Futurepower(tm)]

"No, Clinton brought the budget DEFICITS under control. We've only been turning a surplus for a couple years, not nearly enough time to erase the mountains of debt created over the last thirty years."

Clinton did reduce the debt, but you are right in what you said above.

"What would you propose the US do now, since you are so worldly and informed?"

I don't know how to solve all the problems. But I definitely want the U.S. to look for a better way of relating to the world than killing.

I feel that I have some useful ideas, and I feel that I could lead a useful investigation into finding answers.

Re:You can go back to sleep now. Here's why:

[Swaffs]

(CNN reports that one of the guys we picked up in St. Louis tonight on a train is telling the FBI a lot about that shit)

I hope that's wrong. If the FBI really handles informants that way, they won't have any for much longer.

WTF are they talking about?

[Alex Belits]

News addiction? What news? There were news when it was happening, but after that most what "news" stations were doing was rerunning the same stuff with microscopic inclusion of new things into the ever-repeating stream, and various propaganda-laced statements that seem to serve one goal -- prepare the population to support revenge on Afghanistan. Stupid face of Osama Bin Laden appeared on the screen first, I think, few moments after the second tower collapsed, and it was difficult to determine, who is running this propaganda machine -- politicians control the media, or media is riling up the politicians, but without any doubt the whole machine now has one goal -- to rile up everyone to want blood.

Personally, not being an American but living in US, I find all this, especially all this flags-waving and government-sanctioned praying, to be disgusting. A lot of lives lost, this should be treated like death of innocent people is treated, but why all that political media circus? Government screwed up enough to expect terrorists to target US, and when it finally happened everyone should wave flags, pray, look at computer-enhanced lists of victims on TV and hear war propaganda? This is how victims should be mourned -- by display of our lack of civilization, amplified through the media machine?

The article itself looks like a "filler", something that is placed in a newspaper when it ran out of things to print, so it includes some pointless "human interest" things that are just someone trying to describe why he is having a headache at this particular moment.

Re:WTF are they talking about?

[DumbSwede]

I must not being seeing the same news that you are seeing. In most cases I am seeing a balance of views, a call for calm and restraint. Our leaders are calling this a war - and I agree. Should they filter the word war out of their reports? People want to know the latest, even if there isn't any latest right now. What would you have the news organizations run stories on -- the fashion trends in Paris?

While in many cases I detest the endless human-interest stories one sees on slow news days, there is a place and time for them, if they are done well and unexploitively.

Not every bit of news will be as good, relevant or well done as every other bit of news. This is true of every human activity. But I think the vast majority of those reporting the news now, are trying to do their very best, under very hard circumstances, and are not doing so just to make rating points.

As an American I'm sorry if our trying to come together and make sense of the tragedy, and how to react to it, is off putting to you. The article you criticize spoke to me. It articulated in a clear way many of my own feelings, and made feel more connected to those around me in these troubling times. It is not banal to try to feel, and try to make others feel.

No matter what we do as Americans, someone will always be out there to tell us we are doing it wrong.

Re:WTF are they talking about?

[mimbleton]

"politicians control the media, or media is riling up the politicians, but without any doubt the whole machine now has one goal -- to rile up everyone to want blood."

What the hell do you expect ?
If you go out and beat the hell out of somebody ,would you be surprised if that person was riling up for your blood ?
Human nature 101.

"Government screwed up enough to expect terrorists to target US"

Interesting. It is hard not to piss of people who are known to kill their own women for showing up in public without "escort" etc ...
We are not dealing with rational people here.

same guys running things as in 1971?

[LinuxParanoid]

I think I'd tend to agree with the original poster. I might accept a claim that the same people are running the CIA now as 15-20 years ago, but not 30, for reasons that will be clear if you read the following chronicle of the unveiling of CIA misdeeds.

If there's evidence beyond your blanket assertion that "the same people are running the show now as 30 years ago," I'm all ears.

--LP

Re:same guys running things as in 1971?

[muleboy]

I guess I'll agree with you that the exact same people are not running the show as 30 years ago. What I meant (and poorly articulated) was that I am not convinced the people in charge now will not start using secret manipulation of third-world countries again.

Exhibit A would have to be Iran-Contra.

Exhibit B is the Crypto-AG backdoor. Do you really think we didn't pull strings with this information?

Exhibit C is the U.S. support of the mujahedin in Afghanistan during the 1980s

Exhibits A-C are all within the last 30 years. I'm sure there are plenty of others, but I have only been following world history for a few years. The original point that the "U.S. has a history of secret interference" seems valid to me. Consider that for the last 20 years the U.S. has been under incredibly low threat, and it makes sense that we wouldn't often be involved in these kinds of secret manipulations. Now that we feel insecure again, I expect to see these kinds of things increase again. Thanks for the link, by the way. The Atlantic has done some great work.

A response. But why bother...

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazing what you can believe when you only see one extreme view, isn't it? Perhaps rather than listening to CNN or pro-Palestinian sites, you should go to the library and do some reading for yourself. In any case, here are couple of comments on quotes I saw on that website.

Land bought by the Jewish National Fund was held in the name of the Jewish people and could never be sold or even leased back to Arabs

Do you see the key word in that sentence? Land bought. Yes, that land was purchased. I hate to sound like a Libertarian, but if I purchase land, then why would I be obligated to sell it back to or lease it to somebody else? Unless, of course, the same Arab landowners that sold you the land decide that you have to give it back, at terms that aren't exactly favorable to you. Or at the point of a gun. Consider the next sentence condemning the conduct of the Jews:

After 1940, when the mandatory authority restricted Jewish land ownership to specific zones inside Palestine, there continued to be illegal buying (and selling) within the 65 percent of the total area restricted to Arabs.

A land purchase is not a one way transaction. In order to "illegally" purchase land, somebody has to "illegally" sell it to you. The sellers were Palestinians. In agrarian Palestine, landowners were the richest and most powerful members of society. Yet they were the ones profiting from this sale. By pure coincidence, they were also the ones who stood to profit the most by kicking the Jews out and taking the land back.

[In December 1947] Palestinians in Jerusalem and Jaffa called a general strike against the partition. Fighting broke out in Jerusalem's streets almost immediately ... the Jews, taking advantage of their superior military preparation and organization, had occupied...most of the Arab cities in Palestine before May 15, 1948

This information was presented in a question and answer format, intercut with quotes. Despite the window dressing, it would seem that the Palestinians declared war on the Jews. Then they lost. Generally when one group declares war on another, we call that group the agressor. Now, perhaps the jews shouldn't have been there... It'd be great to blame someone for this, and maybe we could blame Britain.

But as for folks who were being attacked... This was not a pretty war, it was not one from which the Jews could just surrender and go back to their homes. I believe the operational phrase on the Palestinian side was something like "drive them into the sea." Whatever you want to say about defending the homeland, if you sell somebody land then try to take it back by force, you deserve what you get. If you lose more land as a result, then that's the price you pay.

Now I'm not arguing that the Israeli people are blameless. I will say this, though. Those people live there now. They have nowhere to go. And they have nuclear weapons. This isn't a situation that will get better if we just bug out. While you're at it, remember how dependent our civilization is on the middle east. As long as this is the case, we will always have a presence there.

madulin ~= definition #2

[beanerspace]

For those who don't know that often words have more than one meaning(e.g. people who insist on using a lower case 'a' to initiate their spelling of American).

Main Entry: maudlin
Pronunciation: 'mod-l&n
Function: adjective
Etymology: alteration of Mary Magdalene; from her depiction as a weeping penitent
Date: 1509
1 : drunk enough to be emotionally silly
2 : weakly and effusively sentimental

© 2001 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated

Re:and another one

[WyldOne]

I saw a brief video of the leader of Iran ... giving blood. I thought that this was curious. IMHO is he seeing us giving blood and think that the best way to show that he is not involved is to do what we are doing? I know this is doing some second guessing. I too am looking for answers

The U.S. taxpayers stayed the same.

[Futurepower(tm)]

The U.S. taxpayers stayed the same. What changed was Clinton. Therefore he was responsible.

Re:The U.S. taxpayers stayed the same.

[Anonymous Coward]

The U.S. taxpayers stayed the same. What changed was Clinton. Therefore he was responsible.

Ahem, taxpayers pay Taxes. Duh. It's the labor of the taxpayers that ballanced the deficit. Politicians just make you think they did the work. Of course, once you reach puberty you'll realise this.

Re:You can go back to sleep now. Here's why:

[mlong]

How close are these descriptions to everyone you know? If you want to understand these monsters we have only to look into our own hearts.

Our own hearts? You are sitting here stereotyping and saying everyone is a potential terrorist? Are you nuts or just clueless? So what if these terrorists were well educated, etc. The teens who shot up Columbine were white, education, upper class people. Does this mean all people with these attributes will go shooting schools? I have no such tendancies and thus I don't need to look into my heart. Your major faults are the fact that you A) stereotype people and B) don't hold people accountable for their actions...rather they don't choose to do something but do it because they are well educated, liek black jeans, etc.

A message to the "confounded experts"

[Jetson]

Preface: I am agnostic. I hope the following is not too offensive to those who have strong religious beliefs...

The experts (parent linked article's authors) research assumed a paradigm in which the suicide bomber is a short-term member of a fanatical fringe group who is essentially brainwashed into performing the act while in an altered mental state. They have difficulty integrating the Tuesday group because they don't match the profile. They have made the mistake of equating tactics with motives at the individual level, and assume that since the motive (from a personal preservation POV) is irrational the act must also be so. I think it is safe to say that the participants on Tuesday were not brainwashed. Nor were they given a last-minute pep-talk and shoved out the door. They clearly *believed* in what they were doing, to the point that they were able to carry out their duties without any apparent direct supervision. That implies that they acted with what they feel to be a motive of blissful martyrdom instead of fanatical hatred. What the Pat Robertsons of the world fail to grasp is that the "terrorists" might feel exactly the same way about their religion as Pat Robertson does about his. You can't argue religion with someone who has "seen the light". Convincing a would-be terrorist that his suicide is irrational is as pointless as trying to convince Pat Robertson that all of the Christian martyrs throughout history were really just hopeless lunatics. It's arrogant to assume your religious tenets are any more valid than those of Islam or any other faith. Think about the word "faith"-- it's essential meaning is "to accept a fact that cannot be proven". All religions hold certain truths to be self-evident. I'm glad the USA government is leading a coalition to make war against those governments that condone or support terrorists, but sadly think it's a lost cause. You could well imagine our indignation if the other side was to recruit nations to help kill off all the Jesuits and punish the nations that allow such a radical fringe to prosper and send their missionaries out into the world. If the citizens support the actions of the fringe then no act short of occupation and indoctrination will cure the situation. If you just kill off the Taliban government then another will surely replace it, in much the same way the USA would elect a new slate of representatives if the 4th aircraft had made it back to it's target.

As to the suggestion that suicide bombers are a fanatical and irrational gang: The western military organizations regularly send men into battle with the knowledge that many *will* get killed. These men go into battle knowing that the penalty for failure could be a fate worse than death and therefore accept their poor odds. We call them heroes. When the Allies landed on the beaches on D-Day the name of the game was attrition. The generals and politicians had no illusions about the casualty rate, but simply hoped they could put enough "resources" into action to overcome the enemy. The idea of winning a war without massive casualties on both sides wasn't invented until Desert Storm. I'm sure that this Bin Laden monster would be quite happy to send in stealth bombers and laser-guided bombs but the army he leads isn't so equipped.

In any event, I find it interesting that the hijackers are so obviously labelled as "evil crazy people" while the passengers of the EWR-SFO flight are held up as heroes. I'm sure there are people in the world who think that agents of the devil rose up to spite their blessed martyrs. It's all a matter of perspective.

Re:A message to the "confounded experts"

[dgroskind]

From James Joyce's The Dead: Better pass boldly into that other world, in the full glory of some passion, than fade and wither dismally with age.

I'm not religious either but at times I've felt the impulse to be part of something larger than myself, to make some sacrifice that would distinguish an ordinary life. People without that particular impulse may find it hard to understand people that have it.

With the benefit of hindsight, it's an impulse that is generally best resisted. It means that people will die heroically for a bad cause as easily as a good one. People will commit atrocities for a good cause as easily as a bad one.

In normal times it makes one suspicious of all creeds and causes. After the events of September 11, however, one realizes that one must choose a side with all its faults or be justly labeled a traitor and a coward. Like it or not, one is part of something larger than oneself.

I'm not religious but I turn to Psalm 144:

Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:
Bow thy heavens, O LORD, and come down: touch the mountains, and they shall smoke.
Cast forth lightning, and scatter them: shoot out thine arrows, and destroy them
Send thine hand from above; rid me, and deliver me out of great waters, from the hand of strange children;
Whose mouth speaketh vanity, and their right hand is a right hand of falsehood

Re:A message to the "confounded experts"

[iJoel]

After the events of September 11, however, one realizes that one must choose a side with all its faults or be justly labeled a traitor and a coward. Like it or not, one is part of something larger than oneself.

Absolutely. I think there are only two sides here: the one that abhors the taking of noncombatant lives, and the one that doesn't.

Which side are we on?

(Think before you bomb, please Mr. Bush.)

Re:A message to the "confounded experts"

[dgroskind]

I think there are only two sides here: the one that abhors the taking of noncombatant lives, and the one that doesn't.

If that statement is true, it's going to be hard to distinguish the good guys from the bad guys in any war.

All sides claim to oppose taking civilian lives and all sides do it anyway.

Possibly you could distinguish one side from the other by how much effort it makes to avoid civilian casualties. However, in the skewed moral calculus of war, if the enemy benefits from your efforts to spare his civilians, he is able to inflict more damage on your soldiers and civilians. What you are really asking is how many extra casualties is one side willing to sustain to protect the civilians of the other side.

The only conclusion I can think of is that each side in the war is responsible for protecting its own civilians. Each side should locate its bases away from civilian areas. It should divert as many resources as it can from its war effort to to protect its civilians and treat them when they are injured. The question then is how many extra combat casualties will one side sustain to protect its own noncombatants.

Given that a nation can sustain higher civilian casualties than it can combat casualties and still fight, the answer here is pretty grim as well. The ultimate question is how many casualties are the civilians themselves willing to sustain to fight and win the war.

Once you go to war you've already decided that there is so little humanity in the enemy that you can only deal with him through violence. With that attitude, it is unrealistic expect much restraint on the part of your enemy. The longer the war lasts, the less restraint you can expect. As time goes on, it will be harder and harder to distinguish one side from the other based on its conduct of the war.

The Kooky Official Spin

[Slur]

I'm following the media to get a sense of the mentality of my fellow Americans, and to get a sense of the official spin of the corporate media. Here is some of the official spin being used to incite the cerebral cortexes of Americans to rally around their cherished symbols:

- We have seen the face of evil.
- This is an attack on the American Way of Life
- This is an attack on all that America stands for (Freedom, Justice, etc.)

Okay, so first, good and evil has to be established to get good old-fashioned dualistic mentation all fired up.

Next, this general thing called the American Way of Life is introduced. Everyone has their own idea about the meaning of this sketchy term. Personally I tend to think of this as consisting of selfishness, materialism, profit motive, and a general tendency to blindly follow the crowd. (Not unlike the rest of the world, I guess.)

What pisses me off about this particular spin is how it ignores America's role in the wider world, where our way of life is to bribe, buy, and destabilize those people and regions that suit our "interests," which is the accumulation of wealth and power and short-sighted exploitation of the world's resources. American policy-makers and profiteers couldn't care less whether their actions cause irreperable harm to the rest of the world - as long as their affluent business contacts are drunk and smiling at the end of the day.

The spin that this is an attack on the values of freedom and justice is utterly stupid. It is ironic that this claim flies in the face of even Asama Bin Laden's own highly-publicized words, that he and others are acting (in the only way they know how) to protect their own view of what constitutes justice and freedom for those who live and practice Islam.

Now look, I think the terrorists are dead wrong if th think they are doing anything to benefit Islam. They are not only harming the world's perception of Islam, they are corrupting the spirit of religion itself, which in its deepest sense exists to free the mind from the trap of worldly dualism.

One would think, from the kind of publicity being given to Islam, Judaism, and Christianity that they amount to nothing more than agglomerations of ideals, opinions, and prejudices held by a bunch of uptight closed-minded wackos. Frankly this whole generation has become jaded and pissed-off at our spiritual predecessors for just this reason. They're hard-hearted, ignorant, bigoted, and tragically out of touch with the interconnected nature of reality. So frankly, Jerry Falwell and Asama Bin Laden don't look any different, but then the media can't always hide the truth.

TV News + Internet

[Chris Y Taylor]

I have my TV set where I can watch it from my computer. I have kept it on most of the time so that if any new information is reported I can stop and watch it. I also have been poking around the internet for the sort of information that is NOT reported on the news. As a result I find that I often am getting information on this crisis from the TV and the internet at the same time. I suppose the next step is just to have a headline news IV.

The most disturbing such internet site I have discovered is:

http://rawasongs.fancymarketing.net/index.html

It is the site of the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afganistan. They are a secret group that for quite some time has apparently been covertly videotaping attrocities commited by the Taliban "government" against Afghanis (especially women) and posting them to the internet. Their movie clip galleries have such titles as "Public Execution of a Woman by the Taliban" and "Mass Grave of 600 People." I cannot bear to view some of the videos and I don't recommend it for the faint of heart. The site www.hazara.com is a little bit better done and has some of the same material. The site
www.channel4.com/plus/afghanistan/journey1.html is good, and thankfully is less gruesome. To be "fair" I have tried to look at the Taliban's website; but not too surprisingly, someone seems to have hacked it.

The truth is that after learning more about the Taliban's activities in Afganistan, I would want to get rid of them even w/o the recent attacks. I also think based on researching the opposition groups to the Taliban, that it would be a lot easier to "liberate" Afganistan than many outsiders think; if we can isolate the Taliban from any international support.

The TV news is great; but they just hit the high points, and they all tend to chase the same stories (or sit around and wait for the same press releases). There is a lot that you can only get from such secondary sources as the internet. But then those stories require a lot more filtering of BS and reading between the lines to figure out what is true. Or perhaps TV news requires that as well, and I am just too trusting of it.

Re:TV News + Internet

[Chris Y Taylor]

sorry, www.hazara.net instead of .com

Re:You can go back to sleep now. Here's why:

[dgroskind]

But that doesn't change the fact that it makes a HUGE difference in success rate once you know that something is possible. Just knowing it gives you the clarity and confidence to succeed.

Knowing that someone ran the 4 minute mile is not going to make it easier to run it unless you're in superb physical shape. How many terrorist organizations can field 20 members bent on suicide? That is, knowing that you can't even run a 5 minute mile, how likely are you to attempt the 4 minute one? Still, it is hard to know what inspires suicide attacks. Generally, they are signs of weakness and desperation. A defeat can inspire them more easily than a victory.

We have two choices: fighting or not.

Not the issue. If one looks at countries where terrorism is endemic, like Britain or Israel, one sees that despite decades of fighting terrorism by a combination of methods, the number of terrorists appears to be about the same as ever. Both Britain and Israel hope to end terrorism by some form of negotiation and concessions.

You cannot negotiate with someone who has no demands save your death.

Which brings me back to my original point. The terrorists might not be that much different from the average slashdot reader. After they've made their passionate speeches about the unvarnished evil of their opponents and the necessity to kill innocent bystanders, some are willing to die for their beliefs but most are reluctant. The reluctant majority should be amenable to negotiation at some point like the IRA or the PLO. The U.S. objective could be to exterminate the terrorists or it could be to bring them to the negotiating table. Given the experience of other nations, which strategy is more likely to succeed?

If you would like the last word here I would be happy to read it.

More links and strategic thinking

[Anonymous Coward]

Although paying attention to the news is worthwhile (and was necessary for the first day or two to understand the magnitude of the situation), thinking strategically about some of the issues that will be addressed is a good idea. In particular for this forum, thinking about the tradeoffs of software freedom and security is a good idea.

I recommend reading comp.risks for an ongoing forum about risks to the public with computer systems.

Code , by Lawrence Lessig will help you think about more general public policy issues.

If you are interested in Usama Bin Laden, check out this accompanying website to a Frontline special . It has interviews from last week in response to the WTC and Pentagon incident.

Also, I recommend looking at a white paper America's National interests 2000 which was written by many individuals on Bush's staff, to get an insight for how they might think about this problem. It also does a good job illuminating what national interests are, as well as deals with some of the conflicts between national interests and national values.

Another paper: Catastrophic Terrorism: Elements of a National Policy co-authored by John Deutsch, former CIA head.

In the midst of all the pressure to create more security, don't forget individual liberties .

If anyone has good links about how to deal with this on an international level, that would be fantastic. I am sure one of the reasons this effort will take so long is because it will also include strategic alliances that will extend to the electronic sector.

Re:You can go back to sleep now. Here's why:

[NMerriam]

Which brings me back to my original point. The terrorists might not be that much different from the average slashdot reader. After they've made their passionate speeches about the unvarnished evil of their opponents and the necessity to kill innocent bystanders, some are willing to die for their beliefs but most are reluctant. The reluctant majority should be amenable to negotiation at some point like the IRA or the PLO. The U.S. objective could be to exterminate the terrorists or it could be to bring them to the negotiating table. Given the experience of other nations, which strategy is more likely to succeed?

I don't disagree -- but no one is negotiating. No one has identified themselves, no one is taking credit and it's hard to have a conversation with only yourself. It seems they're not really looking for anything except what they got -- a lot of death.

If they call tomorrow and ask for a million dollars and a bus ticket to China, I'm all ears...

Correction

[WyldOne]

That of the Pakistani Leader Yasir Arafat giving blood

My new(s) addiction

[Jib Fresh]

I can't turn off the television, either. Even when I sleep, it is on. I haven't played Counter-Strike in what seems like forever. I listen to the radio in the bathroom and car and have read countless websites at work. And with all the links I get, I put on here: www.ryanniemi.com

I hate Internet Explorer favorites, so I put all my saved links on this page. Maybe someone will find some use in it, although the news is faster than I am.

Much Peace and Respect,
Ryan Niemi
www.ryanniemi.com

Re:You can go back to sleep now. Here's why:

[dgroskind]

I have no such tendancies and thus I don't need to look into my heart.

I detect some hostility in you post. Does that not suggest there is some hostility in your heart? Perhaps it's not Columbine-level hostility but enough to suggest you should take a look.

Your major faults are the fact that you A) stereotype people

The point of my post, as well as the New York Times stories, was that the terrorists were not stereotypes of fundamentalist Muslim fanatics.

BTW, because you disagree with me, don't presume you know what my major faults are.

Re:You can go back to sleep now. Here's why:

[dgroskind]

Interesting thread here. Thanks.

US has harbored terrorists

[Anonymous Coward]

The US has prevented extradition of IRA terrorists to the UK in the past (i.e. people who have killed and injured innocent people in Northern Ireland and the UK). This may not be on the scale of the Taliban's sheltering of bin Laden's group, but it is effectively the same. So it's not as black and white as you have painted it - and of course the US has funded states such as Honduras and El Salvador that were terrorising and killing their citizens.

The best way to ensure there is a vast increase in terrorism is for US retaliation to kill innocent civilians in the Middle East - as one article said 'any terrorist killed in an indiscriminate attack would die laughing'. Only by understanding exactly what makes someone become a terrorist and then a suicide bomber, and using this to avoid massive retaliation that simply helps to recruit terrorists, is there any chance of avoiding a grass-roots upsurge in terrorism from Al-Qaida cells that are already in place in over 40 countries around the world....

The best way to avoid this is to address the root causes of terrorism, which include poverty, exploitation and America's and Europe's foreign policy (e.g. the 17,000 people, mainly civilians, killed in the early 1980s by Israel during its war in Lebanon, with no protests from the US or Europe). This history does not in any way justify the attacks on Tuesday, but it does explain where such terrorists spring from - if you've just seen friends and family killed, including children in both Israel's and Palestine's attacks recently, you are that much more likely to want to be a suicide bomber (if on the Islamist side) or commit human rights violations (if on the state's side).

Read http://www.zmag.org and http://nyc.indymedia.org/ if you think what I've said is crap, there are articles there to back this up.

To summarise - I am horrified by the events of Tuesday, but I'm even more concerned by what happen in the next few months.

attack staged for media theater

[medea frenzi]

i watched it unfold live on tv from the west coast. fear paralyzed me in front of the set at first - was it over? was the prez alive or dead? how could this happen, don't we defend our own airspace?

then i realized that's just what they wanted - for americans to live in fear. we live in a media junkie culture - sadly more focused on celebrity obsession than international politics (until now, anyway). so the terrorists 'hollywoodized' their message, and sent it directly to each one of us on tuesday.

watch or don't watch, but don't let them win that way. i watched so that i could know my enemy, and what i would have to be prepared to defend myself against.

i couldn't turn it off on tuesday, thinking the bad news could get even worse at any time. crossed my mind that i may soon regret the decision to just sit there instead of fleeing. but to where, and from what?

now i can't turn it off since i wonder which media outlet will blink first, and return to normal (?) programming. don't want to miss that moment, not only to see how they do the transition, but also to try and grasp just what normal programming will mean after the coverage shifts from non-stop to ongoing.

is it even possible to become desensitized to images like the ones we've seen throughout the week through relentless repetition of them? alternatively, has our lust for violence on tv been sated forever? and will we see a more permanent return to real reporting?

- medea frenzi

Re:You can go back to sleep now. Here's why:

[mgblst]

You put it in, so now you think you can take it out?

Re:You can go back to sleep now. Here's why:

[mgblst]

Yes, we do. I don't know about you, but on the mailing lists I'm on, the topic is coming up. people asking how tech skills can be used by the military. Asking about joining the reserves.

Yes, but are you willing to join the front line, be the troops who are going in to Afghanistan, getting killed. Are you willing to put yourself on the line for your country, like those who took over the planes did?

Catch-22

[achurch]

This attack has locked us permanently into our current policies. Why? If we changed them now, it is an explicit admission that terrorism works. [...] *That* is a message we *MUST NOT* send no matter what action we take.

So where does that leave the US? Either:

• Maintain current policies, make even more enemies, and invite more terrorism, or
• Change current policies, admit that terrorism works, and invite more terrorism.

I have to admit I'm glad I'm not the one that has to make that decision...

PLUG for news addicts

[bpdlr]

NewsNow.

Offers all the news you could want, and has a choice of news sites as well so you don't have to swallow the party line.

Full disclosure: I work for NewsNow ;)

Re:You can go back to sleep now. Here's why:

[-brazil-]

Sorry, but you are the stupid, cowarddly and bastardy one here. Calls to "face reality" justify nothing. Reality is that indiscriminate killing and application of force is exactly what will start a war far, far worse that was has happened so far. You are playing directly into the hands of whoever planned those attacks that way.
Nobody knows hte future, so don't use baseless prdiction as a justification for choosing the easiest, dumbest "solution" to the situation at hand.

Yeah, terrorism is a daily reality for many other nations. You don't see them use it as an excuse to conveniently declare all values they claim to uphold nil.

Ireland and bin Landen - bomb Dublin?

[cobyrne]

It appears that bin Laden's operation may be, in some sense, headquartered in Ireland. There are reports that his Islamic "relief" organisation has it's registered office in Dublin.

Back in December, the Irish police arrested 5 people from this office, but subsequently released them. The FBI, apparently, expressed considerable disquiet at this, and offered to fund an operation to continue survellience on these people. The Irish Government refused the "offer". Not sure why - it may have something to do with the Irish interpretation of the word "freedom".

So it appears that if America wants to be completely true to it's desire to punish the Governments that "harbour" terrorists and the civilians that elected them, you are going to have to bomb Dublin. Indeed, apparently, there are also bin Landen offices in the London, Montreal and New York, so maybe you should bomb London and Montreal also, just to be sure...

Know how it feels man

[Kortec]

i feel the same way. personaly i dont watch much tv in general, its a general waste of time. (except earthshateringly important things like the acme hour). Howerver when i returned from my daily activities on tuesday i was compled to turn on the tv or radio or a thousand different browser window. its not like i wanted to all that much, quite frankly is depressing as hell, but we as a contry have gotten so used to having so much avaiable to us as far as news media goes that its realy hard not to listen to something, sad realy.