Slashdot Mirror
More Links And Updates On Terrorist Attacks
psytek writes: "We have been collecting names of people that would like to volunteer and help set up computer systems and networks for the WTC companies. Go to www.webiest.com and sign up to help."
And rp44 writes: "There is a site collating offers of geek help in NYC and DC at srcdst.org. It's mainly focused on network infrastructure (came from seeing all the posts of assistance on the nanog list getting lost in the noise), but areas covered include telco circuits, space, geek help, and hardware. Last time I looked there were 50+ assistance offers there, if you can offer facilities, services or hardware, just register and enter them into the database. It's pretty functional in that you can maintain your own help offers in real time, come back later and modify/delete them etc."
caledon, volunteering in New York for the Red Cross, writes with word that "it looks from here as if the two items most desired here right now are: 1) Cash 2) Socks.
They have been swamped, but the Red Cross seems to want money more than the in-kind help. That way they can buy EXACTLY what they might need at the site or for other purposes. A lot of bandages might not help if what they need are asbestos masks. That's probably true of the tech stuff too here in the city.
About the socks, apparently these guys downtown like to change their socks as often as possible. It is wet, always wet, and they need their feet dry. Some of my socks (and, oh no, Linux T-shirts) were disposed of last night by my loving family while I was wiring together our little effort."
Drake42 writes: "This is an excellent analysis of why the terrrorists attacked the WTC." An anonymous reader pointed out this thought-provoking commentary on War and the Internet, which points out how certain hopes for the role of the Internet in promoting peace seem to have failed, at least for now.
Along with other moves to restrict freedom and privacy that many believe will follow last weeks events, darrellsilver writes: "The New York Times is running an article about the proposed, and probably little-opposed, security changes to the Manhattan area, Times Square and SoHo specifically. As the article quotes, 'A week ago, certain things would have been unheard of as safety options. But now you reassess, you reconsider.' What once stirred controversy now seems to be discussed as inevitable and welcome, such as face recognition software."
guygee also writes "Andrew Cohen , CBS legal analyst who correctly predicted key aspects of the recent ruling of the U.S. Appellate Court in the Microsoft case, has issued a warning of the coming government crackdown on civil liberties."
Rescue and recovery teams in New York are using some interesting technology: GPSguy writes: "This is still embryonic, but a friend in the broadcast RF business just had his stock of spares cleaned out. Seems that the latest approach to sub-rubble searching is to look for the security access cards all WTC employees had been issued. Excited by a low-power VLF source, they emit a response. Apparently, not the idea is to hit the pile with a much higher signal level and try to get a number of the responses and try to triangulate onto some of them. No URLs available, yet, and scant real information."
And DeathBunny writes: "According to a pair of articles at robots.net, a group of researchers from the University of South Florida are using six "shape shifting" robots to help locate survivors of the World Trade Center tragedy in NY. " They're running Linux, too.MrDelSarto writes: "From this zdnet article and this updated article author Steve Kirsch suggests a number of techniques for putting a plane in "safe mode" that auto-lands it's self in case of emergency ... hijacking or even the Payne Stuart situation. I'm sure /. readers will have a myriad of other ideas." As rackrent explains, "The article basically discusses locking out manual control of aircraft and forcing the autopilot to land them without any human control. Interesting idea, but certainly could have its problems, I say."
Liberal writes: "This article by a leading Iranian filmmaker is absolutely the deepest, most insightful thing I've ever read about that country. It was written before recent events; now that everyone is thinking about bombing Afghanistan, I think this should be required reading, to understand what the problems there really are, and to try and figure out what sort of long term solution may be possible (why it won't do just to massacre the Taliban)."
Finally, many readers submitted word of this photo album at Ars showing reactions around the world to the attacks. Sad though these pictures are, it may be one of the most encouraging things I've seen since Tuesday.
I've been watching news for the past 3 hours tonight, and I must say, what is going on? as of this morning everything was "let's go get'em" Now it seems that we arent going to actually do anything. They are saying that this could take years or decades. What the hell is that all about? we all know that if they say something like that they are saying that NOTHING is going to happen.
Also, I'm hearing that Union Workers are turning away volunteers, that have come to help sort throught the rubble, because they are non-union. WHAT THE FUCK? I'm feeling sick, I think I'm going to go take down the 2 american flags that I put on my Jeep
Don't Tread on Me
Jeezus, unless they put it in the Satellites, what good will it do while they turn our planes into bombs.
Old age and treachery almost always overcome youth and skill.
I'm considering going back into the military. I'm already airborne qualified, so a few months to get back in shape and I'll be eligible for Rangers or Special Forces.
I'm also thinking of getting a degree in history and going to work for the CIA. Or learning linux and programming and then getting a job with NSA, CIA or another defense or intelligence related agency.
I may not be able to offer much help now, but would like to be able to do more in the future.
chattr +i /bin/laden
As posted previous, there are photos of the US Embassy in Canada thumbnailed here:
http://207.198.90.123/Memorial/index.html
Canadian residents have been placing momentos and paying their respects.
-bill
gristle@home.com
The article on why the terrorist attacks happened and a historical comparision to what happened in the war of 1812 is one of the most thought out I've seen thus far on the subject
Most before now have been
1) US does evil stuff, we kinda of deserved it
2) Screw thinking Nuke Em
Nice to see someone who can still think
Big problem. If this is coupled with autopilot, all it takes is a single flick of a switch to disable the autopilot.
Not to mention all electrical equipment has circuit breakers of some kind onboard. They can always pull a breaker.
Call on God, but row AWAY from the rocks!
At the end of mass today, at my church, it was quite beatiful. We sang America The Beatiful, and you could see some people crying. After it was over, everyone clapped. It is so amazing how united we now are, MTV isn't even doing its normal thing. They are talking about the attacks and showing peoples email (even some bands have commented), with some music videos. I have watched more TV in the past few days, than I remember ever watching before.
Gaming Shizzle
As we've no doubt heard from a couple of sources, the authorities are installing safeguards that (to some extent) is going to lessen our rights, like the right to not having other people read our emails and other things (chances of people of middle eastern descent getting to rent a flight simulator is probably somewhere between slim and "snowball in hell" right now).
That's all fine and dandy in the short run, but how long should we (if at all) accept this as citizens in "free" countries of the world? 1 month? 6 months? 1 year? 2 years? For ever?
Which is more important - protection from potential terrorists or protection from potential abuse from the authorities?
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
Another advantage of sending money is that it helps get the lower Manhattan commercial infrastructure going again.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Would that mean that all communications would be down and everyone's vision would be degraded until they could only see 16 colors? How's that supposed to help?
Is your company running tools written by ma
I heard from a friend on crew that it was now a matter of security and of "trained" demo folks
its a dangerous area now that its wet
the liability is pretty high
Old age and treachery almost always overcome youth and skill.
USAMA
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Although not truly representative of British public opinion, I found it a fascinating insight into how blinkered most of the USA are to world opinion. The look of shock on Phil Lader (ex American Ambassador at US Embassy) at some of the feelings expressed and views on US foreign policy will be an eye opener to many.
Yes, bring justice to the perpatrators, but also think about what else the US can do to change the views of a large number of the world's citizens that have intense loathing of the US.
aX
"Islam is not the enemy, war is not the answer"
This is not about religeon, calling for an attack on moslems will give Bin Laden exactly what he wants, a religeous war. Remember that most of the countries that people are calling on the US Military to bomb were its allies during the gulf war, and will be its allies in this situation.
I'm particularly surprised about all of the people that want to see Pakistan bombed, and I suggest that they find out a little more about the world - for a start look up a list of countries in the British Commonwealth, then stories about the last few DEMOCRATIC elections in pakistan.
In Canada you can donate to the Canadian Red Cross online at Canada Helps.
I'm surprised this hasn't happened earlier. New York City is the most closed union shop you can possibly imagine. A number of trade shows refuse to exhibit at the Javits simply because you can't touch anything in your booth. If you want an extension cord plugged in, you can to pay a union electrician to do it. It's insane.
-russ
p.s. it's a crime, not a war. Expect resolution to take years -- that's the nature of criminal cases.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
In wake of all the tragic pictures circulating the web, and even the entire issue of Time magazine.. I've put up a site, remembering the twin towers, with pictures I took myself.
http://pictures.linuxpowered.com
The site also offers, different ways to help. The terrorists may have destroyed the Twin Towers, but they can never take away the memories. They can never take away the memories of the fallen, and of all the innocents.
Didn't they assume that this act would anger lots of people?. This whole thing may have backfired on them, and be the beginning of their demise. I'm wondering if they didn't have something more in mind in preparation for the backlash - especially if it's more than just UBL and the Taliban.
I'm wondering what the ratio of the number of countries that could be counted on to ally with the US to the supporters of UBL is.
I was just thinking today while I was at work at Dorval International Airport in Montreal that the whole terrorist thing could be one giant scam by a secret USA agency.
My idea is as follows:
The USA was in a recession, possibly the worst since the Great Depression. The question was, what to do about it. We all know that the FED lowered interest rates about 7 times in a row. But that didn't seem to be working, so what's the next step? Yep, you got it, what better way to get out of a possible depression than have a War!
Yes that secret agency had to sacrifice about 4500 American lives, but think of how many would have died if there were a depression like the Great Depression.
It also is a good excuse to get rid of some of the USA's biggest enemies.
Just my crazy ideas.
-nuclearsnake
See the forbiden post Here
German Synth-Pop group And One have recorded a new song in tribute for those affected by the incidents involving the World Trade Center and Pentagon bombings. Titled "America Burns!", it contains approx 1 1/2 minutes of highlighted snippets/samples from German TV News with a 4 minute mostly instrumental segment following.
I have mirrored the song on my site because their servers were pretty slammed since this song has been introduced. Below is a very, VERY rough translation of some of the words on their site (using Babelfish and my interpretation afterwards).
The Song "America Burns!" is not to be taken as a commercial product, please understand this. This track is being made available for free, downloadable in CD Quality MP3 format for all, who may also feel the dispair that we have felt and go the way of using music as a medium in hope to understand...
English Language Mirror:
http://www.expiredmilk.com/andone/
Band Site (in German):
http://www.andone.com
The song is excellent and I hope others enjoy it. I am not a member of the group, but have been sharing the URL's with friends. I believe this might as well be the very first track written in tribute in light of recent events.
Cheers!
Does anyone have a link to an mpeg video of the planes flying into the wtc. I don't have a TV at home, and have only been able to see pictures - which I'm sure don't capture the full gravity of the event.
I believe that any explanation of the "why" behind the terrorist attacks that does not include the conflicts in the middle east just doesn't cut it.
IMHO, this was not an attack on freedom or democracy, and also not simply an attack on the American way of life. It was retaliation by fanatic Arab terrorists who feel that the US involvement in the middle east, and in Palestine in particular, discriminates the arabs.
The situation in the middle east in unfortunately a dilemma that doesn't seem to have a good and just solution, and things are far from black-and-white. But whatever one thinks about it, it seems evident that the reasons for the terrorist attacks are to be found there too.
Funny this topic should come up right now. I jusr heard a "Special Report" by who claimed to be a Reverend Dr. Bob Maurey, stating that all muslims are either "Terrorists or Schnooks". Furthermore he called on all Muslims who wanted to prove that they were American to call the CIA and report any muslims who have tried to collect funding for terrorism, any Mosques who did the same, or any Arabs who were dancing in the streets in his broadcast range.
Furthermore he called on every single christian who wished to be prepared for this holy war to buy his book on his website.
For the life of me I can't remember the url, and I've searched Google for it, but no luck.
My major point, now that I've dragged on so much, is exaclty how much profiteering has sprung up on the Internet? Whether or not you believe Dr. Bob's writings is really irrevelant. Should we take an active stand on profiteering and greed during this national tragedy?
What a pile of rubbish. Do we want to keep pretending that we were attacked because of some cultural hatred? Let's face reality for a minute. For the past decade, our government has been sticking it's nose all over the middle east. We have bombed and killed innocent civilians in Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan, among other countries. We have supported corrupt governments, we have trained terrorists, we have starved innocent civilians through blockades. The reason we were attacked is simple, our foreign policy has been one of government sponsored terrorism. We have made enemies in the middle east, it is ridiculous to think we could do this without one day paying for it.
I am in no way supporting what was done, it was a horrible horrible act and those responsible should be found and punished. But to pretend that this was a total surprise, an unprovoked incident, and that we are someone morally justified for all out government's actions is ignorant. Our government has refused to learn from it's past actions, and I would hope that this incident would finally sink home the point. However, it looks like they have again completely missed the point and will continue to spread the cycle of terrorism and violence.
Colin Powell condemed whoever did this, denouncing anyone who thought that they could prove a political point through bombs and the killing of innocent civilians. He seems to have completely missed the irony of this, that this is exactly what our government has been doing for decades.
It's time to wake up america.
...(last link) were amazing.
Small comfort to the victims, I'm sure, but the world shares in their grief.
Every time I think I'm getting numb to this tragedy, I run across something that drives it home in a new way. Thank god... I don't want to be numb right now.
I think we should bomb the hell out of Afghanistan, at least the main areas that the Talibastards inhabit, and turn it into a nice vacation resort for the civilized people of the world.
A shout out to the /. who posted this one 1st.
How the celebrating 'arabs' was shot in 1991!
And you can't beat a line like this
Operations that include diarrhea as a way of life don't happen.
And the same quote, but different info here
Think about this: The tallest building in NYC is now the Woolworth building. Yup a defunct company is the highest. The 2 biggest signs of capitolism are gone, and for 3 days we saw no ads on national television. When calls for blood to be spilled, are we going to spill it for America, or for Big Corporations?
"safe mode"?? Can we please stop fighting last Tuesday's war today? Nobody ever thought that they'd ever fly an airplane into a building using knives to hijack the airplane. Okay, we now know they will. There's a dozen ways we can stop them from doing *that*.
The question is "What are they going to do *next*"?
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
On FBI's most wanted list, he's listed as UBL. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to find the site themselves.
Here is the just released design for the new World Trade Center. We will rebuild.
"There ought to be limits to freedom"
I thought about something like this-- like a special ID number each pilot has to type into a security pad every 20 minutes to maintain control of the aircraft; typing the wrong code signals the control tower that something is wrong and would give control to the tower...
Then I realized that if the control towers can take control of the plane, the terrorists will just go for the control towers....
Not to mention-- maybe someone with more flight experience can help here-- I'd imagine it'd be pretty damn hard/expensive to build an auto-landing system into an airplane-- one that isn't controlled at all by a person... I remember reading the military had some spy planes that could take off, fly, and land without a pilot... anyone know anything more about this?
W
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
In case anyone was wondering about getting drafted: www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,174783,00. html
You also probably think Franklin D. Roosevelt used American planes to attack Pearl Harbor in 1941.
Why not put something together like a distributed processing app, like seti@home for example. I'm sure everyone would be more than willing to help.
The author comments that an openable steel door in the aircraft would not be enough to stop hijaakers, as the pilots would be induced to open the door by threats from the cabin. Last week I would have agreed; after this Tuesday, however, I think most pilots would just disable the intercom system (so they don't/can't hear the hijackers' demands anymore) and land the plane. Even if the hijackers threatened to kill every passenger on board, that's still better than giving them control of the plane.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
These experts were asked to focus on four New York landmarks: Times Square, St. Patrick's Cathedral, Grand Central Terminal and the Statue of Liberty.
No argument that Grand Central is a busy subway terminal (that will have more traffic as Penn Station renovates its terminal), but I would think that Penn Station would be the busier terminal. Not just does it host traffic for Amtrak (national rail), but its also the only hub in Manhattan for the Long Island Railroad (and a hub for NJ Transit).
Also ran is the Empire State Building, which is now our tallest building. Then there's Yankee Stadium and the Meadowlands. Further back is the Citibank Tower, which houses the 1st/2nd largest monetary conglomerate, Citicorp. And note that Times Square has additional security considerations, such as its bus terminal (popular spot for bombs).
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
Peace.
The dazed look on the faces of those surviving the blasts in New York is the face of psychic numbing. This numbing is the normal reaction we experience when we are suddenly and deeply overwhelmed with events that are more than we can handle. We begin to "space out," and at the same time, shut down outer stimulation because we have taken in more than we can possibly manage. It's like the governor on an appliance that shuts down or turns off when it is in danger of falling apart.
The effects of psychic numbing will be like a rock thrown into a pond and the ensuing ripples. The closer you are to the epicenter of the tragedy, the worse your numbing may be.
Here's what to expect: "spacing out," losing your train of thought, as you find yourself dazed, unable to focus attention; having to have things repeated to you because you are lost in thoughts; sensations of tingling or numbness in the extremities; nervous habits; poor sleep and bad dreams; catastrophic images being replayed in the mind; fear and an unwillingness to stray too far from places of safety and security; , outrage; guilt an shame that one is not reacting like one should; and for some, morbid fascination with the gory details of the events.
Even while numbness sets in, something else happens. A mental "window" opens for a period of time that shocks us into an appreciation of our existence in a more poignant way than our everyday awareness allows for. We become more sensitized to the simple beauty of our being alive and the importance of those who matter to us. Suddenly the important things in our lives jump forward in bold relief. The window tends not to stay open for too long, as we slowly drift back into our common mentality.
Here's what you can do: Allow your feelings to be experienced and expressed. Be gentle with yourself and those around you. Make room for others to have different reactions than you do, understanding everybody copes a bit differently. Do not expect to be functioning at your normal level for a while and take on only responsibilities that you can handle. And use the "window" to let in the deeper truths of your existence.
http://www.thestreet.com/markets/stevenhendlin/100 01043.html
From
Shrink Rap: The Psychic Aftermath of the WTC Disaster
By Steven Hendlin, Ph.D.
Special to TheStreet.com
09/13/2001 08:33 AM EDT
La via sola al paradiso incommincia nel inferno
Somewhat OT, I know, but... Does anyone happen to know if the number of people enlisting in US military has jumped at all since Tues?
Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"
And sometimes the video shown isn't what it seems.
Some of the footage is from 1991!
Now: Who do you believe? CNN? Indymedia? Slashdot?
I really believe we are going to use a nuke before this is all over to show everybody thet they mess with the USA on our own soil at their peril. Check out this from today's "talking heads" on TV (from www.drudgereport.com):
*** BEGIN DRUDGE REPORT
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld this morning refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons in America's coming battle with terrorists.
Appearing on ABC's THIS WEEK, Rumsfeld was asked if a possible tactical nuclear strike would be used.
"Can we rule out the use of nuclear weapons?" questioned ABC's Sam Donaldson.
RUMSFELD: You know, that subject--we have an amazing accomplishment that's been achieved on the part of human beings. We've had this unbelievably powerful weapon, nuclear weapons, since what 55 years now plus, and it's not been fired in anger since 1945. That's an amazing accomplishment. I think it reflects a sensitivity on the part of successive presidents that they ought to find as many other ways to deal with problems as is possible.
DONALDSON: I'll have to think about your answer. I don't think the answer was no.
RUMSFELD: The answer was that that we ought to be very proud of the record of humanity that we have not used those weapons for 55 years. And we have to find as many ways possible to deal with this serious problem of terrorism.
And if, Sam, you think of the loss of human life on Tuesday and then put in your head the reality that a number of countries today have other so-called asymmetrical threat capabilities--ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, cyber warfare--these are the kinds of things that are used in this era the 21st century. And a germ warfare attack anywhere in the world would bring about losses of lives not in the thousands but in the millions.
*** END DRUDGE REPORT
I've got to admit that I actually think in this case a single nuke should be used precisely for deterrent effect on future terrorist attacks. Certainly the current state of affairs is supportive of nuke use - obvious reason, probable support of US citizens, no threat of immediate nuclear retaliation, isolated target with limited collateral (fallout) damage, profound psychological impact on everybody everywhere. They have an anti-litter slogan in Bush's home state that says "Don't mess with Texas". Dubya's already re-wrote that in his head to be "Don't mess with US".
The problems I've got is that frankly, there isn't a target in Afghanistan that's worth a nuke. These people have endured so much war over the past twenty years that it's gonna be hard to find a before and after picture site where you will be able to tell that much happened. PLUS, the real problem with Afghanistan is that there are already 2 million or more people in refugee camps located in Pakistan and Iran who don't like the Taliban any better than we do - how is nuking their enemy supposed to give them land or food or shelter? This dislocation of massive numbers of Muslim people - Palastinians or Afganis or whoever - is the root problem in this whole mess in the first place. What we really need to do is spend some of this $40 billion in the war chest to help the mind-numbing poverty that is creating a pool of suicide bombers in the first place - but that would look like capitulation, so don't look for the Peace Corps to be on the fromt lines just yet. That's a damn shame, because somehow it IS the key to solving this mess once and for all....
Having said all of that, my money is on Kandahar as Ground Zero. My only question is whether they will allow an evac time prior to the flash. You heard it here first....
Think of the Taliban as the Nazis. Think of Osama bin Laden as Hitler. Now think of the Afghani people as the Jews in the concentration camps.
Still want to bomb Afghanistan?
Why do you want to do this? To destroy their homes? The Russians already did that. To destroy their schools? Done. Their hospitals? Done. Any more bombs are just going to bounce the rubble.
Sorry, but the solution is to treat this as a crime, not an act of war. They WANT us to treat it as an act of war. Why should we do what they want? We should instead do what a free country does: presume innocence and convict based on the evidence.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
And DeathBunny writes: "According to a pair of articles at robots.net, a group of researchers from the University of South Florida are using six "shape shifting" robots to help locate survivors of the World Trade Center tragedy in NY. " They're running Linux, too.
Thank God for that.
-
Usman Farman
This is a voice of reason that needs to be listened to:- Letter from an Afghani-American
This Op-Ed piece at Yahoo is one of the most frightening things I've come across, the fact that someone like this can get published on such a major site shows that something is wrong with America:-
This is War
A Sikh gas station owner was murdered. It was not known if this was motivated by hatred of Muslims but it is suspected (the victim had received threats). Sikhs are not Muslims, but Sikh men wear turbans and beards and are mistaken as Muslims:-
Man questioned in shooting death of Sikh
Curiously, Sikhs in India are calling for the U.S. government to educated Americans on how to distinguish Sikhs and Muslims. Why? So the racists can know who to shoot? How about toning down the hateful hysteria?- Sikh leaders angry and stunned over attacks
In general The Times of India has been giving much better coverage of the events than I've seen in American media.-- Could you use my software consulting serv
"Never forget. Never forgive."
Nice coming from someone in a so called Christan country. What was that line in the bible, something about "thou shall not judge", but hey lets just ignore that and go and kill as many people as possible in the middle east, that will fix the problem. Idiot.
I will always remember the 9/11/01, as a day of absolute tragedy. But I don't want more tragedies. 5000 dead is enough. NO MORE.
has anyone seen this link?
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash91.htm
Runnin' On Empty
hopefully a headline we're not going to see
Unskilled worker kills alive 14 in pocket
Joe Schmoe just wanted to help, but when he pulled a sheet of metal out from the rubble, he collapsed a pocket containing 15 alive survivors. 14 were crushed in the collapse and 1 person is in a critical condition
Take just one minute to think about the damage unskilled diggers could cause.
Speed is essential, but so is skill
It feels good to point the finger, but not one word of blame will breathe life back into the living. Think about it
The NY times article is a joke in that it does not mention the confict in the middle east, does not mention the fact that no-one knows as yet who is responsible (bin Laden has said it was not him and he normally takes credit for everything he can, even if he didn't do it!)
It also says it is an attack on "democray" and "freedom" when many of the countries who would wish to attack the US in this way are fighting so that their country can have free elections without us interferance.
Let us also not forget the many,many hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians killed by us aggression in places such as the honduras and most of central america
I hope this gets mod'ed up, as I cant log in atm
r ry /2001/docs/wtc0913.htm
http://www.miami.com/herald/special/features/ba
Think about this: The tallest building in NYC is now the Woolworth building.
Actually, it's the Empire State Building, dumbass.
clapped and cheered when the enemy died in Kuwait, don't think it's any different.
The K9 rescue dogs also need socks, as they walk over glass and stuff, so the socks and 'high-top shoes' are appreciated too.
Yes, some modern autopilots can land the plane, but I prefer a much simpler soultion. Whats wrong with a wall? Just put a bulletproof bulkhead betweeen cabin and cockpit. Give the pilots their own entrance, bathroom and coffeepot.
Not revolutionary at all. Apparently El Al has two sets of doors to the flight deck on all of its planes.
Of course we can expect them to do something very different in the next attack. If nothing else, passengers and crew will not sit quietly should someone take control of the plane.
-dp-
Organizer:New England Rubbish Deconstruction Society;The NERDS,first US team in the UK Scrapheap Challenge/Junkyard Wars
The current space shuttle at NASA has an 'auto-land' system, which can be activated by the crew(mission specialists) if the pilot and shuttle commander are somehow incapicated.
However, it has not actually been used, only simulated, that I know of. I believe NASA tried to improve all the contingency plans around the time of the Challenger accident.
Could the airlines do better? Sure, maybe a ground flight controller using live telemetry could take over the plane, but it wouldn't be too hard for a pilot to disable it, I imagine the hijacker could cut a circuit breaker or otherwise override the controls.
or any other big media outlets. Most of them have footage online
Nice coming from someone in a so called Christan country. What was that line in the bible, something about "thou shall not judge", but hey lets just ignore that and go and kill as many people as possible in the middle east, that will fix the problem.
The same Bible also contains a passage advocating "an eye for an eye" in terms of punishment for crime.
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
The Buddha Was Not Demolished in Afghanistan; It Collapsed Out of Shame
The article "Limbs of no body" was very illuminating.
I expect, that the United States will soon occupy Afghanistan with ground troops in an attempt to destroy bin Laden's terrorist network. Considering the balkanization of the country and the commitment (and general aggressiveness*) of the American people, I do not expect it to be as impossible as some people suppose. If that is the case then America will also surely rebuild (or perhaps build) Afghani infrastructure and attempt to "reprogram" Afghani culture in the same way it has tended to do to all the nations it occupies (but Japan was done most completely). Perhaps this effort should even be done deliberately to prevent the next generation of Afghanis from growing up with a hatred of the United States combined with a "nothing to lose" attitude. Of course, this Westernization of their nation is probably the chief fear of the Taliban elite who rule most of Afghanistan; as pointed out in Caleb Carr's NY Times article. It is ironic in a way that their desperate attempts to win this "culture war" will likely only hasten their defeat.
I also recommend a visit to: http://www.rawa.org/ for another view of Afghanistan. The movie gallery (with such titles as "Mass Grave of 600 Persons") should only be viewed by those with a strong stomach.
*I do not mean this as an insult, I am an American myself and proud of it... but for all our protests of wanting to make the world a better place, deep down we are a very blood thirsty bunch.
That is way to harsh. The Arabs are Terrorists: The Terrorists are Arab. These people are radical Islamics, who dont represent the religion as a whole. Dont be so prejudgice.
Gaming Shizzle
Here are yet more links, regarding the terrorist attack. Only, these links are in response to a question I have ... are we actually dealing with a radical sucide cult here ?
... and considering that the Teliban has about as much in common with Islam, as Heaven's Gate did with Christianity. Are we actually up against a group that preaches taking their lives, along with others, is a path to paradise ?
Yeah, I know, sounds wacky. However, considering the planning and fanaticism behind last tuesday's acts
Here are some links on the subject. Decide for yourself.
Chronology of Suicide Cults
Doomsday, Destructive Religious Cults
Suicide Makes Ten Deaths Among Guru's Followers
More Than 200 Die in Uganda Cult Mass Suicide
Aum and Terrorism
Suicide Cults The End Of The Century
AUM SUPREME TRUTH
A party, prayers, then mass suicide
Lessons to be Learned: Heaven's Gate Tragedy
Cults
healyourchurchwebsite.com - WWJB?
I'm not saying his attitude is right, but you also don't the Bible. Nowhere does it say not to judge others. In fact, 1 Cor 5:12 gives an example of a command to judge others. There are also commands to test every spirit. Proverbs is full of commands to do so.
Maybe you should read about teaching false doctrine. There's tons in there about that.
P.S. The scripture your talking about (and no doubt looking up, merely says you will be judged by the measure you judge others). NOT that you shouldn't judge.
do you think it's marked out in thick red texta? I guess you just don't get what a terrorist is
Welcome to the real world.
X Q15CQNRC.html
http://www.theage.com.au/news/state/2001/09/17/FF
MrCreosote Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump! "You're right! There isn't enough room to swing a cat in here!"
Synopsys:
NBC News has learned that investigators in Europe and the United States are examining whether Islamic fanatic Osama bin Laden may have financed Tuesday's terror assault on America by stock trades in European exchanges in the days before the attacks.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
If
By Rudyard Kipling
or have listened to Dave Emory's FOR THE RECORD?
http://www.spitfirelist.com/ftr.html
Tonight, FTR325/326 mentioned how George W. Bush's first oil company was financed by Sheik Bin Laden (through James R. Bath).. this is scary stuff!!
How many of the last 50 hijackings have ended in a suicide mission accomplished by the hijacker?
I would have to say roughly 4. Unless the hijackers are clearly prepared to die and have no other intentions than mass destruction of notable targets the chances of resolving the crisis in a manner that results in the least amount of loss of life are great. You follow their demands to a reasonable extent and perhaps land the plane and refuel etc.. Special forces come in and zap the hijackers and end of story..
Suppose you didn't comply and the hijackers killed few passengers. Would you want to live with that if the other (very likely) option would have been a peaceful resolution? And wouldn't that require all of the airline passengers to agree that their life is expendable upon hijacking and that the airline is released of all responsibility? I doubt that that will ever happen..
Out of all the hijackings in my recent memory (aside last 4) there has been a happy ending and most of the people survived. 90% of the time people performing these stunts are complete amatuers put in a desperate situation. A lot of times these people don't even harm anyone. It seems that only the extreme islamic militant groups are the ones that might be inclined to perform activites such as last weeks.
It is more than likely that there will be new security regulations in airline industry and that possibly these will involve pilots willingness to co-operate with hijackers(which has previously been 100% co-operation to prevent any unnecessary loss of life). However, out of recent memory it is certainly assertable that most hijackings have a peacefull ending and that changing the current way of dealing with hijackings will likely result in less secure flying enviroment(from passengers point of view). Changing the current code of conduct should be done with extreme caution and fully informing the passengers.
p.s. I personally take roughly a dozen intercontinental flights a year. Next one in two weeks(unless us airports close again, I'm flying from east coast).
Gad, if you're going to use the "judge not" thing against someone, at least get it right ! The Bible does not teach "though shall not judge"
but hey lets just ignore that and go and kill as many people as possible in the middle east, that will fix the problem.
And while we're speaking of ignorance, you forget to mention that the Bible also says that government have been given three political responsibilities:
the sword of justice (to punish criminals - Deuteronomy 16:18-20),
the sword of order (to thwart rebellion - 1Tim 2:1-4; 1 Thess 4:11-12), and
the sword of war (to defend the state - Romans 13:4 ).
... and will kill again, and again and again.
Okay, Sunday school lesson over. Now, let's talk about the issue (we do have to stay ON topic you know).
The problem here is that we're dealing with people who hold absolutely no value in human life. They mistreat their own society as much as anyone else. They kill women who show their arms in public. They kill 2 month old babies on airplanes heading to California. They are PURELY evil
To say 5,000 is enough, is about as naive as Chamberlin saying "Peace in our Time"
A Quick Reaction to the Attack on America
September 12, 2001
Appeared as "A Quick Reaction" on Counterpunch
by Noam Chomsky
The terrorist attacks were major atrocities. In scale they may not reach the level of many others, for example, Clinton's bombing of the Sudan with no credible pretext, destroying half its pharmaceutical supplies and killing unknown numbers of people (no one knows, because the US blocked an inquiry at the UN and no one cares to pursue it). Not to speak of much worse cases, which easily come to mind. But that this was a horrendous crime is not in doubt. The primary victims, as usual, were working people: janitors, secretaries, firemen, etc. It is likely to prove to be a crushing blow to Palestinians and other poor and oppressed people. It is also likely to lead to harsh security controls, with many possible ramifications for undermining civil liberties and internal freedom.
The events reveal, dramatically, the foolishness of the project of "missile defense." As has been obvious all along, and pointed out repeatedly by strategic analysts, if anyone wants to cause immense damage in the US, including weapons of mass destruction, they are highly unlikely to launch a missile attack, thus guaranteeing their immediate destruction. There are innumerable easier ways that are basically unstoppable. But today's events will, very likely, be exploited to increase the pressure to develop these systems and put them into place. "Defense" is a thin cover for plans for militarization of space, and with good PR, even the flimsiest arguments will carry some weight among a frightened public.
In short, the crime is a gift to the hard jingoist right, those who hope to use force to control their domains. That is even putting aside the likely US actions, and what they will trigger -- possibly more attacks like this one, or worse. The prospects ahead are even more ominous than they appeared to be before the latest atrocities.
As to how to react, we have a choice. We can express justified horror; we can seek to understand what may have led to the crimes, which means making an effort to enter the minds of the likely perpetrators. If we choose the latter course, we can do no better, I think, than to listen to the words of Robert Fisk, whose direct knowledge and insight into affairs of the region is unmatched after many years of distinguished reporting. Describing "The wickedness and awesome cruelty of a crushed and humiliated people," he writes that "this is not the war of democracy versus terror that the world will be asked to believe in the coming days. It is also about American missiles smashing into Palestinian homes and US helicopters firing missiles into a Lebanese ambulance in 1996 and American shells crashing into a village called Qana and about a Lebanese militia -- paid and uniformed by America's Israeli ally -- hacking and raping and murdering their way through refugee camps." And much more. Again, we have a choice: we may try to understand, or refuse to do so, contributing to the likelihood that much worse lies ahead.
I know I'm not supposed to, but I just find myself focusing on the absurd aspects of all this.
1) Not to make light of 5000 dead, but what exactly did we lose in the way of productive capacity?
The "financial industry" says the show must go on. We must "make markets". There can be no not "making markets". Everyone is relying on those "markets". Now that realistic rescue efforts are winding down, the main efforts in NYC are going toward reopening the stock markets. Well, I guess that's reasonable, since it's the source of NYC's wealth, but there's something bizarre about the great hurry they are in. I think they are terrified that the nation will discover that this "financial industry" provides no services.
As far as I can tell, any inconveniences in the hinterland have had to do with disruptions of air service and air freight, not with the absence of a "financial industry". It is odd that there is such enormous physical effort being put into reviving it. WHat's that about, restoring the "service" of volatility and instability to the economy.
Meanwhile, guys who sell gasoline have the government coming after them for "price gouging" if they decided to raise their prices considering a possible interruption of supplies. The government goes after them for "price gouging" and everybody hates them.
Why is a guy running a gas station who jacks up his prices a criminal while volatility in securities pricing is "making markets"?
2) Eliminate Satanic Influences! Cheap and Effective! Special rates this week only!
W. asks for $20B and gets $40B to "rid the world of evil". This is about $125 per capita. If it was that cheap, why didn't we do it long ago? Interestingly, this is almost exactly the amount that we got in our bizarre Treasury checks recently. Oh well, easy come, easy go.
3) Joe Stalin wasn't *that* bad, was he?
Everybody seems to be forgetting a part of the history of this mess. We armed the Taliban. We set them up to beat out the Russians, whom we refused to let enter the Olympics for invading Afghanistan. What a horror, Russians invading Afghanistan. How could a country invade Afghanistan. Bad, bad Russians.
Now we are going to end up invading Afghanistan before you know it. Mostly out of frustration, not to accomplish anything, mostly out of a need to blow something up.
The big problem is that there's nothing to blow up! What little there was has been blown up already! Where are we going to get a macho enough explosion to make up for the World Trade Towers, for Chrissake?
Maybe we should pulverize a mountain. If there's a good sized mountain near enough to Kabul it may cause the right amount of carnage and inconvenience and cool movie-like video footage, screaming pedestrians running away from the huge debris cloud, big fireballs, etc. That'll show 'em.
While we are there, presumably killing someone who looks vaguely like Bin Laden, we will need to overthrow the evil theocratic totalitarian woman-mutilating government and install the Northern Alliance. That'll be much better, right?
And who exactly is the Northern Alliance? Umm, wll basically it is our old friends the Soviet Puppets. Let's close the loop and not allow ourselves into the next Olympics, huh?
4) Our patriotic duty
This from redherring.com , I've seen similar elsewhere
I mean, really. You can't make this shit up.So any past concerns you've had about the environment or the exploitation of the third world are beside the point now. It's our duty to our fallen comrades, brothers. Spend! Spend! For the love of God, sacrifice yourself, steel yourself, pick up the yoke of duty and head to Penney's now for the End Of Civilization Smash Sale!
5) Getting the real message.
The fact is that no one believes in big, unprecedented threats until after they happen. It was like that with terrorist attacks on New York, and it will be like that with biological warfare, global warming, genetic engineering, nanobots and rogue artificial intelligence. The culture says that "past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior", but that presumes a constancy of the environment. Past behavior is no predictor in an environment where such behavior has no meaning.
The "wakeup call" isn't that there are people who hate us, nor that they have the means to hurt us wholesale. We already knew that, or should have.
The wakeup call is that the planet has become a single neighborhood, and time is moving very fast, and old concepts like "war" and "finance" and "wealth" and "competition" and "enemy" and "progress" and on and on mean next to nothing.
We gotta start over, friends. This sucks bad. Maybe we need to lock things down so tight nobody will have any fun for a generation. Maybe not. But just calling this a "war" doesn't make it one, it doesn't make it clear what to do, it doesn't help.
6) What's with this "cowardly" jive?
The propaganda engines are eally cooking, though, trying to convince ourselves that we know what's going on and what to do. There's an "enemy", and we're going to "defeat" them. Uh-huh. The biggest tipoff for my bullshit detector is when someone calls this a "cowardly attack". Look, it's evil, it's horrible, it's spooky, but a guy who's willing to kill himself to take some of us down with him isn't a coward.
So you folks dreaming up the PR, get a clue, drop this "cowardly" item from your vocabulary. If you want to convince us you've got a clue, don't be flinging around words any idiot can see are lies.
7) My suggestion, which makes as much sense as any that I've heard
A military mobilization in this crcumstance is both absolutely inevitable and totally pointless. It really reminds me of the scene at the end of the Blues Brothers where every cop car and National Guard unit in Illinois is called out to meet these two sunglass-wearing wierdos in an old beater, all going hut-hut-hut-hut-hut and doing as much damage as the brothers did, and faster.
The best bet, the real solution, is to occupy Afghanistan and put up ski resorts, megamalls and some sort of Disney attraction. "Talibanland", that's the ticket. Maybe the PowerPuff Girls in Pink, Green and Blue chadors as mascots, and the Professor could convert to some watered-down version of Sheria Islam that has a big gift exchanging holiday in December.
The Taliban (R) brand has made a lot of progress on name recognition, but it needs some repositioning, it needs to be revitalized. I did like the Taliban guy's suggestion that W. could solve the whole problem by converting to Islam. That has some nice features, but we'd have to get options on 40 % of TLBN at 10 1/2 in exchange.
yrs truly Anonymous Coward channeling Lenny Bruce
A friend pointed me at this. Very basically: they're looking at the use of nukes. Dear God I hope you people are talking to your congressmen and senators.
[o]_O
That New York Times "analysis" fails to mention Israel even once. One needn't be a "virulent antisemite" to wonder at such a glaring omission.
Seastead this.
as of 2AM PST last night amazon had Taken down their donation page. along with several other sections of their site. Does anyone have details on why they did this?
From: Hui Neng [hubaraka@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 3:49 AM
Subject: Muhammed on Non-Violence, Peace, and Justice
A Collection of Sound Hadith on Non-Violence, Peace and Justice
The Words of Muhammad Compiled from Reliable Sources by Dr. M. Hafiz Syed, and edited by Kabir Helminski
Copyright Threshold Productions 2001
*
Islam
*
Every religion has a distinctive virtue, and the distinctive virtue of Islam is
modesty.
*
Anyone who walks with a wrong doer that he may strengthen him knowing all the
while that he is a wrong doer, has departed from Islam.
*
A Perfect Muslim
*
A perfect Muslim is he from whose tongue and hands mankind is safe, and a true
emigrant [muhajir] is he who flees from what God has forbidden.
*
The messenger of God said to me (Anas), 'Son, if you are able, keep your heart
from morning till night and from night till morning free from malice towards
anyone'; then he said, 'Oh! My son, this is one of my laws, and he who loves my
laws verily loves me.'
*
The best of God's servants are those who, when seen, remind one of God; and the
worst of God's servants are those who carry tales about to do mischief and
separate friends, and seek for the defects of the good.
*
He who believes in one God and the hereafter, let him speak what is good or
remain silent.
*
That person is nearest to God, who pardons, when he has him in his power, one
who would have injured him.
*
It is unworthy of a Mu'min [a person with faith] to injure people's reputations;
and it is unworthy to curse any one; and it is unworthy to abuse any one; and it
is unworthy of a Mu'min to talk arrogantly.
*
All Muslims are as one person. If a man complains of a pain in his head, his
whole body complains; and if his eye complains, his whole body complains.
*
All Muslims are like one foundation, some parts strengthening others; in such a
way they must support each other.
*
Assist your brother Muslim, whether he be an oppressor or an oppressed. 'But how
shall we do it when he is an oppressor?' Muhammad said, 'Assisting an oppressor
is by forbidding and withholding him from oppression.'
*
The exercise of religious duties will not atone for the fault of an abusive
tongue. A man cannot be a Muslim till his heart and tongue are so.
*
Certainly, people will follow you, and certainly people will come to you from
all quarters of the earth to understand religion; when they come to you, guide
them toward goodness.
*
The best jihad (lit. striving) is his who speaks a just word before a tyrannical
authority.
*
Your smiling in your brother's face is charity; and your exhorting mankind to
virtuous deeds is charity; and your prohibiting the forbidden is charity; and
your showing people the road, in the land in which they lose it, is charity; and
your assisting the blind is charity.
*
I came to Medinah, and saw a man whose counsels men obeyed, and he never said
anything but they obeyed him. I said, 'Who is this man?' They said, 'This is the
Rasul of God.' Then I went to him and said, 'Give me advice.' Prophet Muhammad
said, 'Abuse nobody.' And I never did abuse anybody after than, neither freeman
nor slave, nor camel nor goat. And he added, 'And if a man abuse you, and lay a
vice which he knew in you then do not disclose one which you know in him.'
*
God
*
God's kindness towards His creatures is more than a mother's towards her babe.
*
Truly, God is mild, and is fond of mildness, and He gives to the mild what he
does not give to the harsh.
*
Truly God instructs me to be humble and lowly and not proud and no one should
oppress others.
*
He who humbles himself for (the sake of) God, him will God exalt; he is small in
his own mind, and great in the eyes of the people. And he who is proud and
haughty, God will render him contemptible, and he is small in the eyes of the
people and great in his own mind, so that he becomes more contemptible to them
than a dog or a swine.
*
God is gentle and loves gentleness.
*
God is a unity, and likes unity.
*
We were with the Rasul on a journey, and some men stood up repeating aloud, 'God
is most great;' and the Rasul said, 'O men, be easy on yourselves and do not
distress yourselves by raising your voices; truly, you do not call to one deaf
or absent, but Truly to one who hears and sees; and he is with you; and He to
whom you pray is nearer to you than the neck of your camel.'
*
The most beloved of men in the sight of God, on the day of resurrection, and the
nearest to Him, in regard to seat, shall be the just leader; and the most
hateful of men in the sight of God on the day of resurrection, and the farthest
removed form Him in regard to seat, shall be the tyrannical leader.
*
Faith
*
You will not enter paradise until you have faith; and you will not complete your
faith, till you love one another.
*
A man asked, 'O Prophet of God! what is faith?' The Prophet said, 'When your
good work gives you pleasure, and your evil work grieves you, and you are a man
of faith.' The man said, 'And what is sin?' he said, 'When anything disturbs you
within yourself, forsake it.'
*
Faith is a restraint against all violence, let no Mu'min commit violence.
*
Anyone of you who sees wrong, let him undo it with his hand; and if he cannot,
then let him speak against it with his tongue, and if he cannot do this either,
then (let him abhor it) with his heart, and this is the least of faith.
*
If you rely upon God as He ought to be relied upon, He will provide you as He
provides the birds; they go out empty and hungry in the morning and come back
big-bellied at eventide.
*
Service to Humanity
*
He is true who protects his brother both present and absent.
*
What actions are most excellent? To gladden the heart of a human being, to feed
the hungry, to help the afflicted, to lighten the sorrow of the sorrowful, and
to remove the wrongs of the injured.
*
He who tries to remove the want of his brother, whether he be successful or not,
God will forgive his sins.
*
The best of people is one from whom good accrues to humanity.
*
All God's creatures are His family; and he or she is the most beloved of God who
tries to do most good to God's creatures.
*
Someone said to the Prophet, 'Pray to God against the idolators and curse them.'
The Prophet replied, 'I have been sent to show mercy and have not been sent to
curse.'
*
Truly my heart is veiled with melancholy and sadness for my followers and verily
I ask pardon of God one hundred times daily.
*
Words to Remember
*
The proud will not enter paradise, nor a violent speaker.
*
God is not merciful to him who is not so to mankind.
*
Kindness is a mark of faith, and whoever has not kindness has not faith.
*
Anyone who kills a sparrow for nothing, it will cry aloud to God on the day of
resurrection, saying, 'O My Lord! such and such a man killed me for nothing, he
never killed me for any good.'
*
An adulteress was pardoned, who passed by a dog at a well holding out his tongue
from thirst which was nearly killing him; for she took off her short boot and
tied it to her wrapper, and pulled water for him; so was she pardoned for that.
It was asked, 'Shall we then have any reward for (our behavior to) the animals?'
'There are rewards' said the Prophet, 'for all endowed with fresh and tender
hearts.'
*
We were on a journey with the prophet when we saw a finch with two young ones.
We took away the two young ones and the mother bird fluttered around. Then the
Prophet came and said, 'Who has distressed her by taking away her young ones?
Return her young ones to her.' The Prophet also saw the abode of ants which we
had burnt, and said, 'Who has burnt this?' We said, 'We (have done this).' The
Prophet said, 'It is not proper that any one should punish another by fire
unless it be the Lord of fire himself.'
*
General Advice
*
I found this inscribed on the hilt of the Prophet's sword: 'Forgive him who
wrongs you; join him who cuts you off; do good to him who does evil to you, and
speak the truth although it be against yourself.'
*
The best of your leaders are those whom you love and who love you, for whom you
pray, and who pray for you; and the worst of your leaders are those whom you
hate, and who hate you, whom you curse, and who curse you.
*
Prophet Muhammad said, 'My Cherisher has ordered me nine things: (1) To
reverence Him, externally and internally; (2) to speak true, and with propriety,
in prosperity and adversity; (3) moderation in affluence and poverty; (4) to
benefit my relations and kindred; who do not benefit me; (5) to give alms to him
who refuses me; (6) to forgive him who injures me; (7) that my silence should be
in attaining knowledge of God; (8) that when I speak, I should mention Him; (9)
that when I look on God's creatures, it should be as an example for them.'
*
Deal gently with the people, and be not harsh; cheer them and condemn them not.
*
Do not exceed bounds in praising me; I am only the Lord's servant; then call me
the servant of God and His messenger.
"Kindness is my religion." The Dalai Lama
Beat you by 7 minutes, but you're confirming what I'm saying as well. People need to stop throwing Bible scriptures around, unless they understand what they're saying. UBL is throwing scripture around and people are believing him. Not saying it's the same thing, but misquoted scripture has been tripping people up since Adam and Eve.
I've personally gone through a couple stages of rage over this incident. Initially, I was in the 'Nuke em back to the stone age' mindset. I've now come to realize that would be ridiculous -- and unneccessary. The answer to the problem all revolves around oil. If you stop and think for a moment, the countries of the Middle East have power only because we (the United States and our western allies) give it to them. Prior to the time that oil was discovered in the region, those nations were essentially off of our radar screen. They were a non-factor. Only with the discovery of oil did they become the powers that they are now. The answer, therefore, is simple: Stop buying their oil. All of them. The US and it's allies should immediately cease all trade with the nations of the Middle East. All of them. You would be very hard pressed to find a single nation in that region that did not/does not harbor or support terrorist operations in some way. The western nations essentially need to forget that the Middle East even exists. We need to refuse to acknowledge them. Period. No trade, no communication, no travel to or from, no humanitarian aid, no emmigration -- nothing. This is, after all, what the terrorists have been asking for. Let's give it to them. We do not need to isolate ourselves, only them.
The net effect would be complete collapse of that region. Probably, it would be more effective than a nuclear strike with the added benefit of us not having to fire a single shot or waste a single American life.
So what do we do for oil? Short term, we get it elsewhere. Most of us never consider for a second that the world's largest oil producing nation is also virtually bankrupt. Yes, I mean Russia. The United States spent the better part of 50 years trying to bring down communism in the Soviet Union. We won. However, unlike WWII, there was no Marshall Plan to help rebuild the former Soviet Union -- to help it become a democratic, capitalistic nation as we did with Japan and Germany. The simple fact of the matter is that they need money and we need oil. What gives? The combined oil production of Russia and the US in conjunction with the other non-middle eastern oil producing nations should more than cover our needs with little or no price increase. It may even be possible for us to buy our oil from Russia and sell it to our allies at cost. If we work out an arrangement with Russia so that the cost of oil from them is no different than what we now pay OPEC, this would constitue a drastic reduction in the cost of oil for our allies. Think of the sentiment doing so would garner us.
Long term? Rather than spend 40+ billion dollars waging a war that we can not hope to win, spend it on finding fossil fuel alternatives. Part of the arrangment made with Russia and our allies should be that the primary industrial and scientific focus of all participating nations should be towards this end. Does anyone here think this is not an achievable or worthwhile goal?
As with the war that we're entering into, the plan I've outlined would take years before 'victory' could be declared. But I think it would work and I think the world would be a better place afterwards.
Not counting oil, I can not think of a single thing, other than overall distaste if not overt hatred towards the US that comes from that region. Not a single thing worthwhile that can not be produced here or done without. I, for one, say let them choke on their oil -- we don't need it.
This is completely false. Those missiles were in *Turkey*, which is a different country than Afghanistan. At the time, Afghanistan was governed by a US-supported monarchy. After a series of coups, including one in which the monarchy was established, this regime was replaced by a radical Marxist government. Although initially supported by the Soviet Union, its leadership was overthrown. Then, the United States, working through Pakistan, began supporting a number of fundamentalist groups which became the Mujahadin movement. After this (the order is often misrepresented), the soviet union invaded Afghanistan to support the government, and the ensuing 10-year conflict resulted in the destruction of much of the nation's infrastructure. Following the soviet withdrawal, the conflict continued, as the mujahadin factions turned on each other. The taliban movement emerged from the wreckage to bring "stability", and it was actually welcomed by many foreign governments.
It seems the odds are becoming stronger that this terrorist conflict could turn into a religious war.
The Islamic nations are going to be very hesitant to help the US combat the Taliban and Laden. Already, Jordan has said they would not allow the US to use their country as a base, and a significant portion of Pakistan do not want to see the Taliban attacked. Iran's government actively finances the 3 major Islamic terrorist orgainzation (Hezbola, Islam Jihad - forgot the 3rd). And Iraq still plain out hates the West. Not to mention the Sudan, Lebanon and possbibly even Egypt.
Things could get very ugly very quickly. Bush has a very difficult road ahead. I only hope the Pakistani people support the anti-terrorism effort, or it will be time to fear their nukes...
5000 + 100000 towelheads dead. Then it'll be enough
No I didn't look it up. I didn't think I needed to, simply because I wasn't trying for a direct quote.
If you consider me using that line is teaching wrong false doctrines. Then I know several preists who are guilty of teaching false doctrines.
The point I was trying to make was that his attitude is wrong. It is against every Christian value I have every been taught. Which I would have thought was against the very character of the US. But maybe I was wrong. Maybe the Christian faith should just be ignored until we deal with the "evils of Islam", then we can all pretend to be happy Christians again. At least until the next time someone does something evil. Then we can ignore the Christian faith for a little while, kill some more people and still pretend to be good Christians.
Someone mod this person down and then find where he lives and slap the piss out of him.
OK, that was as reactionary a response as I'll ever make. But seriously folks. This was an act of terrorism, not (I repeat) not an act of war.
You do not combat terrorists by making their children hate you. That only ensures that your children will become prey.
Not that I'm some kind of anti-communist, but the Marshall plan really succeeded. For better or for worse, we made capitalism the best game in town.
"Uncle Sam the Benevolent" is less likely to be bombed, poisoned, nuked, or flown into than "Uncle Sam the 'we kill innocents with nukes'".
So, how do we respond to this?
We respond by using international channels. I say that we try these bastards in the World Court. Such an action by the the United States would be met with such shock on the international scene that I'm sure Bin Laden would be found within the week. Countries would be falling over themselves to make sure the US has a satisfying experience following the "proper" channels.
Then, we must truly get over our racist attitudes towards Arabs. Muslim != terrorist. "Christians are murderers. Just look at the IRA." Sound stupid? You bet it does.
Arrggghh! OK... I've vented. Sorry to unload under this topic, but shit! Nuclear retalliation?!? Jesus H. Christ people! Get a grip. Yes, a lot of people died. Try not to run after them like lemmings to the sea.
-Peter
. Penguins Surely Ca
Watch this video from the BBC before you make any comment about it. This is truly one of the most unique discussions on the matter that I've seen.
I've set up a mirror for the ars technica photos, because I was unable to get to all of them without much trouble.
That URL is: http://gamershomepage.com/arsphotos/
I hope ars doesn't mind.
Ben
You may not all be fans of Will Smith (I am), but the movie "Enemy of the State" should be seen by every American. They should ask themselves, "Do I really want to live like that?" I used to think that movie was based on an extreme imagination. Now I pray it stays as such.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
But... I told you so. (this additional fluff added to dodge the postercomment compression filter).
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Chomsky can fuck himself.
"In scale they may not reach the level of many others, for example, Clinton's bombing of the Sudan with no credible pretext, destroying half its pharmaceutical supplies and killing unknown numbers of people (no one knows, because the US blocked an inquiry at the UN and no one cares to pursue it)"
We know it's not the 10k+ that died in these 2 blasts.
asdf
Why don't we just not connect the cockpit to the rest of the plane? Who CARES if they are shoting people, you can't let them in the cockpit.
--Michael
Want to see every step I took to start my company? http://www.rowdylabs.com/blogs/pitchtothegods
They could easily pull the same type of attack ina week or so. We won't have air marshalls on planes for a while, and I'm sure they're not going to have steel bolted cockpit doors for quite some time, so terrorists could use theur same old strategy again. Why reinvent the wheel when you already have something that works.
If this is a well thought out terrorist plan, they'll proabably attack something relatively soon. Probably not this week, but next week. Make us feel a little safe agai, and then stuff it right back into our faces.
The sad thing is there is ultimately nothing that can be done to stop terrorism in general. We can stop simple cases (aka terrorists with box cutters), but it's nearly impossible to block off terrorism at every turn without substantially limiting everyones individual freedom. It'll take something like a Matrix world, where government or some machine locks us away and/or watches our every move, possibly being able to immediately "deactive" us for "inappropraite" behavior. We can never have complete security without complete loss of freedom... but then, is it really worth it.
I remember the scene from Star Trek: Generation, when James T. Kirk is loving the Nexus, the ability to go back and do everything he wanted to in the past. But then it hits him, after he jumps over a stream with his horse, that life isn't meanignful if it can't be lost, or you can't fail. That's why watching sporting activities is so much fun, because the outcome is never for sure.
F-bacher
James Tiberius Kirk: "Spock, the women on your planet are logical. No other planet in the galaxy can make that claim."
This whole thing has been crazy. So far Jerry Falwell has said we deserve this because gays and pagans exist, Pat Robertson has said we deserve it because porn exists, poeple right here on Slashdot are blaming the whole thing on Capitalism, France and Germany are saying that somehow our Military Headquarters being bombed is NOT an act of war. There's been a large outcry of support from people and leaders all over the place, but it still amazes me how lowlifes can use a disaster like this to further their own agendas. There were three year olds on those planes. They were neither gay, pagan, or porn stars and in my not so humble opinion any God that will kill an innocent 3 year old (and thousands more innocents) because somewhere someone is having sex with a member of the same gender does not deserve to be worshipped.
I can't thing of a much better way to collectively give these terrorists the symbolic finger than what's reported in this article over at Yahoo - structural repairs to the USS Cole have been completed and she's been relaunched into the water. They couldn't sink this ship and they'll never, ever sink our spirits.
Understanding is a three edged sword. - Ambassador Kosh Naranek, Babylon 5
I found the NYT article also woefully innaccurate.
The War of 1812 was not about the British or shipping for the most part. The Madison administration blamed the war on British shipping practices most certainly--though this was not the actual reason. Before the war, it is clear that the northern states--who were the county's major traders at the time--did not support the war. Support was very strong in the southern states, who sought to make great territorial gains. Most modern historians share the interpretation of new englanders at the time; it was outright attempt to expand our borders by taking away land from the indians. The British were allied with many of the indian nations at the time and it "looks better" to go to war against shipping violations rather than for outright territorial expansion.
While we're busy thinking the US is a humanitarian nation, let us remember kuwait would not have gotten our help if it didn't have huge oil reserves.
Let us remember that this incident is only so shocking because it happened here.
Let us not forget that we are not always the victims.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
pico rules the universe.
Now you tell me which one of those swords covers going into somebody else's country and killing a large number of innocent people. And before you say it is self defence, I would just like to point out that Afganistan did not attack the US, Usama Bin Laden did.
So are you willing to be judged by the people you are passing judgement against?. The terrorists who did this, think you and I are just as evil as we think they are. If you are going to stick to that line. It could be argued, the terrorists had every right to do what they did, becuase you passed judgement on them, they are simply passing judgement on you. You call them evil, they call you evil, whose right? The only way to take the moral high ground is to simply not pass judgement which is what I believe the Bible meant by the "Jugde not" thing.
HAHA I got the first post! Bow down to me, puny mortals!
With all the is going on in with this and will be going on in the future, I would really like to find a few sources of information that are un-biased and report the stories from multiple perspectives (US, world, for, against, neutral, etc)
I have been using cnn and foxnews, but they definately have an obvious bias to the US point of view.
Does anyone know of any good sources for this type of reporting?
"Just make the whole Middle East a parking lot.."
As I've mentioned before: The laws of Physics are against this. Nuclear bombs work on cities. In the countryside, a 100 Megaton bomb does surprisingly little damage. The damage spreads only about 15 miles from the center of the blast.
In the mountains, as in Afghanistan, the energy of a nuclear blast would be deflected upward.
Nuclear blasts also make all the air everyone breathes radioactive. Thus everyone is punished, even people who haven't been born yet.
I hope you will read, Limbs of no body , one of the stories referenced in the Slashdot story above. The people of Afghanistan are among the most unfortunate people in the world. Here is a quote from the article: "But why didn't anybody except UN High Commissioner Ogata express grief over the pending death of one million Afghans as a result of severe famine?"
Unhappiness breeds war. Maybe if we had fed these people, they would not support terrorism. If we had gone in with our billions 20 years ago, and helped in a big way, would there be problems now? I think not. Why so much enthusiasm for killing and so little for helping?
Wars fought in Afghanistan, and their outcomes:
British, 19th century -- British DEFEATED.
British, 19th century, 2nd conflict -- British DEFEATED.
Russian Imperial Army, 19th century -- Russia DEFEATED.
Soviet Red Army, 1979 -- Russia DEFEATED.
Wars fought in Vietnam, and their outcomes:
Some I don't remember -- They were DEFEATED.
French, 20th century -- France DEFEATED.
U.S., 20th century -- U.S. DEFEATED.
I presume that your enthusiasm for war comes from the fact that you are thinking of watching it on television. But suppose it was you who lost a limb. Suppose it was you who was starving. Would you feel differently?
The weapons makers and the military and the media owned by weapons makers have encouraged you to believe lies about war. A new war would be long and expensive, and that's what the weapons makers want.
What Should be the Response to Violence?
Bush's education improvements were
Your sarcastic comments about the world court are laughable. The US is the only country to ever actually use the 'proper channels'. Everyone else just takes 'em out back and puts a bullet in their head.
And this is war. War with the Taliban, not the Afghani people. The Afghani government is supporting BinLaden with shelter, facilities and soldiers. They have been trying to rally the rest of the Muslim world, but the horror of their action is too great for even our most ardent detractors to support. We must remove the Taliban, and BinLaden and help broken Afghanistan back onto its feet, Marshall plan style.
Anyone talking about using nukes right now is a lunatic.
e x p e c t d e l a y . c o m
Who moderated that "Flamebait"? It's a TROLL. Idiot.
From cmdrtaco.net: "This whole section has been getting a bit of a makeover. Hang in there while the dust settles."
Kinda got a new meaning today?!
I'm absolutely sick of hearing about 'poor Afganistan'. I'm not saying that because I am mad about the attacks (who knows, it might not have even been terrorists from Afganistan) but because there are plenty of ways that countries can deal with their problems.
The USA does not ignore the pleas of other countries. If the leaders of Afganistan have such a terrible situation imposed by the USA, they can send messages to the president, congress, or even the press if they believe they are truely being ignored.
NATO has long been a place that different countries discuss their problems, and certainly would have listened to cries of help from Afganistan if they were being wrongfully attacked.
The UN is an international organization that does nothing but solve problems between nations. Had Afganistan leaders spoken to the UN, their complaint would be considered and addressed in front of a world leaders, and a world wide audience.
Finally, Open up to the press. All the video we get out of Afganistan is via videophone. If Afganistan was being unfairly attacked, the press would be the ones to spread the words and the images to the rest of the world.
Indeed any country that hs problems with another, be it the US or any other, has several outlets to have their complaints heard. The fact that they pass every opportunity to have their side of the story heard should show that they do believe their situation is a fair one, and they'd rather not have their situation addressed in a fair way. They just want to say their situation is unfair, and give no one a chance to debate their claims.
That is why I get so tired of hearing about 'Poor Little Afganistan that gets bombed like crazy for no reason'. Countries have plenty of ways to have their complaints address, and none of them involve terrorist attacks that kill thousands of unsuspecting civilians.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
i would love to have that big huge cock in my mouth... cock tastes sooooo good...
pedo too!!
so do you have a little kiddie i could borrow for a bit? like i said boy or girl dont matter i just want something about 10 yearold with a nice young butt to put my knob into!!
-- j'raxis 271045
Good call, fucktard. Take some of your own advice and do your own fucking research. Perhaps then you will notice what is a 1995 van in supposedly 1991 footage. Fuck you.
This isn't a Christian nation, please die.
Um...perhaps because after months (years) of
work, the message will be something like
"This is message 123 of 600 in a limited
collection of Red Herrings. Enjoy"
or even...
"The red shoes are in the bathtub. Prepare
the duck for Mr. X's arrival."
Remember, cracking is not the best way to read
their messages...there are many other weaker points, such as bugging the recipients keyboard,
social engineering, tempest, etc.
Besides, Afghanistan is not exactly known as a
major Internet hub. Good old fashioned spying
is what we need here.
Actually, I think it's pretty safe to say that they won't try to hijack another plane for a long time. Even without any increased security, you are forgetting that the passengers, having all witnessed last week's attacks, would be much less willing to believe a hijacker that says, "If everyone cooperates nobody gets hurt." In fact, the plane that went down in Pennsylvania was "unsuccessful" in hitting a target because a few passengers found out via cell phone about the other attacks and decided to fight back. Now the decision to fight back would be a much easier one for the passengers to make.
This is, of course, why it was so important to the hijackers that they synchronize 4 attacks at once.
The first ever Ultimate Frisbee video game: here (now
Please FUCK OFF. You complete waste of space. I said so called Christain nation, meaning supposably build on Christian values. Idiot.
From the lovely people who brought you tons of emails where you can "click to save the rain forest" there's now a "click to help the relief effort" page as well.
.10 to the Red Cross for everyone who "clicks" and presumably sees their ads. (see, banner ads can be good for something!)
Just visit their site, and sponsors pay
It only takes a second and is a cost-free way to help--the least that anyone can do! (The site also has info on other ways to help as well, though)
CHECK IT OUT: http://www.care2.com/relief/
But has the thought crossed anyone's mind that what we ought to do is drag bin Laden and company's asses back here and try them in a criminal court? Better yet, try them in front of a war crimes tribunal in Geneva.
I have no doubt, at this point, that they'd be found guilty. And I find it hard to imagine that they wouldn't be executed, whatever the rules in Geneva are at the moment.
But it would be considerably more satisfying for me, at least, to see those responsible hauled in chains before a court of law to have their guilt laid out before them and their sentence decreed-- in short, have them judged by the world at large (or perhaps just the United States, that ought to make the bastards feel good) before they die. Think of the humiliation, the resentment, and the anger they'd feel to die at our mercy rather than fighting us.
I'm not generally a bitter or vengeful person, but somehow I don't want to just read in the paper one day that bin Laden was shot by special forces in a midnight raid. That's just not really enough.
On the other hand, I recognize that such action might involve unnecessary risk to the soldiers who'd have to carry it out... in which case, screw it, just take him and his out.
It isn't even sure if bin Laden is behind this! He is still referred to as "suspect". A suspect is not automatically guilty as far as I know. Also, bin Laden has explicitly denied involvement. If you are not 100% sure who you are going after, in my opinion sooner or later you risk repeating the whole WTC incident of suicide bombers attacking innocent civilians. Poor people of Afghanistan surely have nothing more to lose.
This is a terrible tragedy where over 5000 people died. But please consider the scope of the tragedy. 40000 people die each day of hunger. More than million people were killed during the war in Rwanda. There was no global moment of silence for those people.
In other news, "
US Attorney-General John Ashcroft asks Congress for stronger anti-terrorism laws, including wider phone-tapping powers". Also, according to polls, president Bush is now accepted by something like a +90 % majority of Americans.
We blow 'em all to hell. Dead people can't orgazine anything.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Top 10 Reasons to Free Palestine:
10.OPEC plays nice with oil prices
9.Saddam has one less flag to wave
8. We can wory about the AIDS epedimic
7. First freeing of a nation since the cold war
6. Terrorists on welfare.
5.Israel saves millions on rockets.
4. US saves billions in aid to Israel
3. Arafat retires because he no longer has a cause
2. Palistinian coders have something better to do than deface Israel websites
1. Thousands of greatfull Palistinians
bash-2.04$
bash-2.04$yes "Don't you hate dialup connections?"| write USERNAME
All New Yorkers can give thanks that the hijackers did not crash their aircraft into the Indian Point nuclear power station just forty or so miles from the City, choosing instead the more spectacularly media-friendly WTC. This station, like all current US 'light water' reactors when operating are exceedingly 'soft' targets. Whereas the core containment would not likely be breached by an airplane crash, the consequent cooling and control system failures would allow the core itself to breach containment in an uncontrolled meltdown.
Only when the control rods are inserted into the core, reducing it's power and the requirement for outside cooling, can a station sustain damage and loss of these outside cooling systems.
Direct caualties and property damage in the event of a meltdown of this reactor would redefine the term catastrophic. Such a disaster would probably bankrupt the country. The wind pattern being the same, using the current calendar period, a breach would place a radioactive plume initially over entire Westchester County, parts of Brooklyn and Queens and western Long Island. Wind shift would have irradiated the rest of Long Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Northern New York State, and shift again to irradiate Manhattan and the Bronx. Population density map shows a potential casualty rate of appx. 40,000 direct deaths from radiation and an 100 year evacuation zone 40 miles south-east-north of the plant. This includes all of New York City! The entire North-east of the US would have to be evacuated under emergency conditions and for an unknown period of time.
Our government agencies do not communicate very well with each other, nor with outside, that is business entities or local authorities. This must be rectified at once! A direct hot-line type communication link between the FAA, the Pentagon, the Justice Department and nuclear power station operators (private companies) must be established. Currently nuclear power management is through the Department of Energy: a 9 to 5 department; little more than a front for the oil and coal companies.
A proper communications link would act to alert station operators about rogue aircraft or other threats in their areas and give them time to safely shut down their reactors.
A risk-graduated system of alerts must likewise be extended to those operators of chemical, biotech, and other industrial plants based on their toxic emission potential.
I hope I don't live long enough to see those neutrons fly.
Peace and love; pray for the heroic firefighters who sacrificed themselves for their neighbors.
Or whatever Batman-like thing ol' Dubya said. Nice sentiment, cheezy words. :-)
Anyway, I got to thinking: if (most of) the world governments are going to seek and destroy terrorist cells, those that lead terrorist cells, and those that fund them, are they going to do a comprehensive job of it?
I'm figuring that part of the reason ol' Tony Blair is mounting his war steed is that he wants to eliminate the IRA. One hopes he'll be equally vicious with the Orange Volunteers and other Protestant creeps.
The Spanish have the Basque freedom fighters. Chile has a guerilla group that's nothing but trouble, too. Japan had those freaks that Sarin-gassed the subway system, although I think they got rid of 'em. And the mainland Asian triads: they're a real fucking problem over here on the west coast.
This is a helluva opportunity. If it got out of control, it'd be downright scary: anyone with a dissenting opinion might end up labelled as a terrorist and shot.
I'm also fairly keen to see what is going to happen with regards those that fund terrorists. For instance, there could be a lot of imprisoned, if not executed, Irish Americans who keep sending money to the goddamn IRA and Orangemen. I won't even talk about those who donate to Israeli and Islamic radical/terrorist groups.
Not sure where the line gets drawn, though. Is the Mafia gonna be toasted? It's a borderline terrorist organization, ain't it? And the Drug Enforcement Agency simply must be considered a terrorist group, along with the CIA...
Interesting times. Very interesting times. I'm not sure how much more interesting I really want them to get, though...
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
and shove a hockey stick up your socialist ass.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
I received this in email and think that this is an additional way we can help "rebuild" what we've lost and show our terrorist enemies that they have only made us stronger!
Re: THE GREAT AMERICAN STOCK REVIVAL
America's blood banks are overflowing with people who want to help
America
in this time of crisis. So many are volunteering to donate blood that
some
donors are being turned away. But there is a way that you can make a
difference. You can fight terrorism, help America get back on its feet
and
memorialize those who died:
BUY STOCK WHEN THE STOCK MARKET REOPENS AND HOLD IT.
If everyone bought just one hundred shares we could make America's stock
market soar. Many of those who died in the World Trade Center made their
living financing the American dream. They created and traded stock in
American companies. If you buy stock when the markets reopen you will
show
the terrorists that their attack failed to destroy America, you will
help
our economy spring back to life, and you will honor the profession of
many
who died.
Please reproduce and distribute this message in its entirety to all
e-mail
addresses that you have. Contact radio talk show hosts and other media
and
ask them to support this event. These terrorists are anti-mind and thus
anti-capitalism. Fight back by using your mind, exercising your freedom,
and
buying stock in America.
It's the year 2001. If Afghanistan is still as uncivilized as they are, I think they've had enough time to evolve. A couple of very large nukes should be sufficient to solve this problem once and for all.
Franklin, that is.
They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
"And like that
The same Bible also contains a passage advocating "an eye for an eye" in terms of punishment for crime.
Matthew 5:37-38 "You have heard that it was said, `Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Please. The instruction, "Eye for an eye" was to the ancient Jewish tribes as civil law. By that same law, I shouldn't be enjoying shrimp (one of my favorites.) Some folks 2000 years ago (and still today) took the statement "Love your Neighbor" (we all do that, right?) as "Hate your Enemy" (we enjoy that too.) The point in Matthew, above, is that all mankind are your neighbors.
Many (including some of 'us Christians') find the previous comment, "someone in a so called Christan country patently absurd. Yes, there is a large number of peoples of Judeao-Christian descent here, and a large minority of practicing Christians. However, some of my dearest friends are athiests, pagens, Wiccians, Muslims, and Jews (and too many other faiths to mention.) Yet there are few other places in the world, outside of Western Europe, that these diverse people can coexist in some state of harmony.
We need to pray [reflect, hope, whatever your take on that is] for the safety and well being of those of Arab descent, that they are not harmed as scapegoats of those few inhumane terrorists who (this time around) were likely from the Arab part of the world.
Those terrorists likely called themselves Muslim. Remember that Hitler called himself Christian, and that the Swastica was a Cross, perverted.
This group has been seen lunching on proprietary licences:
Group of small terrorists.
Not that i am disagreeing with you, but you must remember that in many of the situations you have listed, there was major financial and military backing from world powers. Of course in Vietnam the Soviets/Chinese supported the north and in 1979, ironically, it was the United States who helped Afghanistan in their battle against the Soviets. As it stands right now, there is not a single nation that would step in and be able to effectively help the Taliban protect Osama Bin Laden.
I agree that war is not exactly a good option, it will cost a lot of money and yes probably lives. But so will not doing anything.
On another note, i'm curious as to whether anyone knows if there is a significant difference in the quality of living between people living under Taliban rule and those living in northern Afghanistan.
Sorry to say this, but... Your perception is clearly blurred by the recent events.
Blurred? I'd say FOCUSED!
These people have forever changed the way we deal with hijackers of large vessels. We must now treat them all as if they wish to use the vessel as a guided missile. This means exactly what the original poster said -- seal of the pilots no matter what, perhaps give them a way to disable everyone outside the cockpit, etc.
Trust me, once non-suicidal hijackers realize that this is going to become the normal course of action, they will soon give up the hijacking of large vessels. What would be the point?
"And like that
While of course Saddam is to blame for the
situation in Iraq over the past 10 years, the
fact is, the people of Iraq have been suffering
during this past decade. I can only imagine the
hatred children, now young adults, have grown up
with. Is there nothing that can be done to ease
tensions here as well? Saddam will remain in
power for undoubtedly years to come, but perhaps
the time has come to try and mend fences --
before an attack of similar magnitude, this time
perpetrated by Iraqian nationals, happens in the
U.S. or other country.
From a more intelligent standpoint however, the nuclear arsenal is really only a dissuasive force that keep large ennemy countries (read USSR) from making rash military decisions. Moreover, it is quite proven that the atomic fire has a very pronounced psychological impact that conventional bombing doesn't have, but in fact conventional bombing is deadlier than nuclear bombing : many more people died in Germany in a matter of days due to conventional bombing at the end of WWII than in Japan due to the two atomic bombs.
So, I fail to see where nukes apply to combat terrorism : do you know a single place the size of a large city that is populated only by terrorists, with the added advantage of being free of innocent civilians in a 20 mile radius around it ?
Using a nuclear arm on even a small terrorist training camp (which is the largest concentration of terrorists you'll ever see) is very dumb indeed.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
there's a big difference
Who cares if prostitution is legal in Israel? It's legal in the Netherlands. Where's your moral outrage against the Dutch? Oh, that's right, they're not Jewish, so you don't care.
And anti-prostitution laws are stupid, anyway. As George Carlin once said, "Selling's legal, fucking's legal, why isn't selling fucking legal?"
Antisemites like you just can't stand the fact that Israel is a success, while your country and the countries and cultures that espouse your philosophies are shitholes. While you and your countrymates are destined for the ash-heap of history, Israel and the West will be around for a long time.
-jon
Remember Amalek.
If Afghanistan wanted our help, all they have to do institute freedom and democracy
and how can they do that without help if they're getting their asses kicked by an extremist regime?
I've heard from a friend that in Halifax gas prices jumped up to $1.5/liter. Down here in the valley pumps are crowded by cars.
I just read that US Military action will start in 3 days if Osama Bin Laden is not delivered. Has the whole world gone mad? Let's consider the possible outcomes to this course:
Option 1 - Osama Bin Laden is captured, tried, convicted, and sentenced to death.
Step 1: Bin Laden (described by Muslim scholars as a "Holy Man") dies, a martyr for every jew/christian/american hating Muslim.
Step 2: Tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of Muslims and Arabs who were previously content only to intellectually oppose US interference in the middle east, become galvanized against the "Great Satan" to the point they are willing to actively support terrorist activities against the US.
Step 3: The war escalates, more lives are lost needlessly, and this time the US government doesn't a Bin Laden to pin it on.
Option 2 - The US campaigns a full, balls-out war against Afghanistan. This war cannot be won, for two reasons:
Reason 1: THERE'S NOTHING TO WIN! Afghanistan's 'government' (and I use this term loosely) is so pitiful it can only pretend to control the 'nation'. Afghanistan is actually about a dozen tribes, which have been engaged in a nearly continual war for the last 250 years. Farming and livestock are Afghanistan's only real industry. The majority of the population lives on these farms in rural areas, and has loyalty only to their tribes. There are no economic or political targets for the US Military to capture or destroy in the entire country. Even if the Taliban 'government' (the Pashtoon tribe) was completely wiped out, the other tribes would continue to fight and attempt to establish their own militant, extremist, racist, Muslim governments. Fighting Afghanistan would be like punching a bowl of dough, any change affected would be unnoticable within a short period of time.
Reason 2: This is a war of ideals and culture. Fundamentalist Muslims believe that the Jews (and possibly Christians, having originally been a Jewish sect) must be fought and defeated before their prophicies can be fulfilled. This requires eliminating the US presence in the middle east, and preventing the US from supporting Israel. Nothing the US Military can do in Afghanistan will change that. They can destroy equipment and kill people, but violence can never conquer a person's religious convictions, it can only strengthen them.
If the WTC was "this generation's Pearl Harbor", Afghanistan will be this generation's Vietnam. Why does the US have to be the most arrogant country in the world? The Department of Defense should be renamed the Department of Meddling and Agression. PULL OUT OF SAUDI ARABIA, STOP SUPPORTING ISRAEL, AND MIND YOUR OWN FUCKING BUSINESS, AMERICA! I'm sure we'd all be amazed at how quickly the extremist Muslim groups would lose interest in the US if we weren't smearing our military and economic power in their faces every day.
"I'm curious as to whether anyone knows if there is a significant difference in the quality of living between people living under Taliban rule and those living in northern Afghanistan."
I'm curious about that too. My guess is that life is miserable in both places.
What Should be the Response to Violence?
Bush's education improvements were
I got this e-mail from someone. I thought it was interesting enough to post.
Dear All;
Take minutes if not hours or even years to think of what happened in
the USA two days before. Do not go beyond the reality, facts and
imagination. Do not over react, yes many felt well when they saw the
monster who keeps the world under threat is being shaking if not
collapsing. The plan was very well plotted yet many gaps were left
unthought off. I will first list down some of the facts that
everybody knows then we will analyze and evaluate the situation;
1- it is known that security measures within airports in the USA are
up to the standard and advanced enough to prevent the hijack of 4
civil airplanes in one day and within one hour!
2- We may know that if an airplane is hijacked the cockpit will have
plenty of time to report the incident to ground control towers, if
not, there is a secret bottom at the pilot seat which once touched
>will remit signals indicating the aircraft is hijacked.
>
>3- We may know as well that flying over USA territory is pinpoint
>limited to certain routs and in case one of the airplanes are
>deviated from the path the air force will fly to intercept it to put
>it back to its route or will be shot down! This procedures are even
>more strict specially when flying near potential governmental,
>military and nuclear facilities.
>
>4- The accuracy in which the "Hijackers" of the "hijacked" aircrafts
>maneuvered such huge and passangered commercial airplanes to hit
>there mid city targets both in Washington and New York reflects that
>the operation was executed by the pilots themselves. Therefore it
>wasn't hijack at all.
>
>The operation needed highly professional and trained pilots who fly
>same type of aircrafts that used in hitting the targets, and who are
>very well familiar with all operating and communication equipments
>of those particular type of aircrafts and the internal commercial
>routs within the USA. Those pilots must have in this case spent
>years and years of training and flying in the USA. Why the air force
>did not at that day performed their duty, why they did not intercept
>those deviated flights, remains an ambiguity unless they had clear
>orders from the White House not to take action. The claim came from
>United Airlines and American Airlines was very much too late that 2
>of their aircrafts were hijacked. The targets were already burning
>and falling apart. It came after 6 hours, and we all know that once
>an aircraft is hijacked the entire world knows after 10 minutes or
>so. Was the security measurement at the Federal Aviation so easily
>vulnerable!
>
>We all realize that America is not that vulnerable to such attacks
>specially if comes from outside sources and none of the powers or
>supper powers in this world, whether governmental intelligence or
>organizational, enjoys such capabilities. Yes the KGB might be the
>only one who can plan such attacks which they did not even think
>about during the cold war era as fearing a nuclear retaliation from
>the west. It is widely known that there is no victorious in a
>nuclear war. Any attack on the American soil is a clear declaration
>of war against the west. If we do not include or suspect in our
>analysis countries and organizations then who remains?!
>
>All fingers must now be pointed to the CIA as the prime suspect in
>the first grade. It may not sound reasonable, yet we will make a
>quick comparison between what America has lost and what it will gain
>politically and militarily from such an attack, then the decision is
>yours;
>
>A- LOSES
>
>America has lost few thousands of lives and few buildings. Is there
>any time throughout history of the USA there was a real concern to
>people's lives! How many times the US government has pushed
>thousands of their people into needless wars? What was the purpose
>of those wars after all but to help the USA to gain control over the
>world. As for the buildings were collapsed, the Americans are able
>to re construct within a year or so and will be funded by our
>fellows in the Gulf and other EU Countries. Going through "Uncle
>Sam" history after World War II and up to this minute, you will find
>many shameful and similar incidents of the CIA under the claim of
>"Protecting the national security and defending world democracy".
>Those incidents were topped by the assassination of former
>president, Kennedy in late 60's just because his thoughts were
>"Moderate". By reviewing this black history, we do not see it
>strange anymore especially if we realize the benefits of such acts.
>
>B- GAINS and PROFITS
>
>During the last few years, America started to lose control over most
>of the world including its allies in Europe because of the US policy
>and what's known as "Globalization" and the US policy against the
>Palestinians, Iraq, Sudan, Iran and lately Syria joined the queue.
>We all have seen how most Europeans expressed their angers through
>harsh demonstrations when president Bush visited their countries few
>months back. If this was the case in Europe, how about Muslim
>countries. Russia, France and China, as being super powers, were fed
>up with the US uncertain policies and signs of rejections were
>clearly evidenced to the post and roll the US has offered itself.
>Without the European allies, America would have lost the
>international cover for its policies. Topping those facts, comes the
>American alleged or so called "Star Wars" program which enables the
>US to direct the first nuclear strike to any nation in our globe
>without taking the risk of being exposed to a retaliation or strike
>back as called. This program which was planned for since the
>eighties is expected to cost US$ 300 billion was to weaken the US
>budgetary. Therefore, the US politicians where doing their utmost
>efforts to convince many Asian, Middle Eastern and European nations
>to join in and sharing the cost under the lie of mutual defense
>system. Most of those nations have objected the offer. Russia fought
>very hard to deactivate the US efforts in this respect realizing
>that they would be the first to be striked. The US excuse of "to
>protect the US and allied countries against terrorist and missile
>attacks" from uncertain regimes like Iran, Iraq, Syria and China or
>Pakistan, was denied by all parties. The words like "who would
>threaten America and how" were widely heard.
>
>Now America is proved vulnerable after this attack. Europe and NATO
>is back to their blind support to the US. Investigation will prove
>from one time to another that Osama Bin Ladin, the Palestinians,
>Iraq, Sudan, Syria, Iran, etc are involved and therefore the
>international ground and cover is there to strike back. Ask yourself
>a question, was America able to launch a strike on Iraq for an
>example without a wide range of anger to face from the world?. The
>plan for a strike against Iraq was present since the UN disarmament
>committee left Iraq 2 years ago, but postponed as it lacked the
>international support and cover.
>
>What happened as the Americans explained was an act of declaring the
>war against the USA. Therefore America will have the legal rights to
>track down the responsible and punish. The process will take years
>and years and America has given itself the right to punish the
>nations that will approve harbored, trained or financed those
>terrorist by military and economic actions. How many nations will be
>subject to US military punishments and how many countries will face
>international embargoes and economic sanctions in the coming years,
>God knows.
>
>We conclude that America will be able to achieve all of its goals
>with no objections and will have more controls over the world. Then
>the question is "was it worth the risk". The answer is definitely
>YES.
Fuck you, GOD Bless AMERICA you liberal ass kissing fuck; who the hell gave you the fucking internet to spew your left-wing fascist crap on?!?!?
This from the Philly Daily News:0 1/09/13/local/DEVI13C.htm
http://dailynews.philly.com/content/daily_news/20
Apparently this is an Associated Press photo (they claim it hasn't been modified) of the WTC on fire. You can see a face in the smoke.
Norman Mineta (Secretary of Transportation) was on the news today announcing a panel that will be making recommendations on airport security practices.
I hope that they will take a high tech approach to passenger identification. We have the technology to make the system much more secure while keeping it efficient. For example:
Establish a national air traveller identification, which requires very extensive authentication of identity to acquire (birth certificate, drivers license, employment data, social security number, etc.) This slow and painful process is done once and the authenticity of that ID can be trusted, speeding up check in for travel.
The ID can be stored in a smart card, which could also contain information about that person, such as a digital picture. The picture would also provide a basic tie between the card and the card holder, but not enough for security purposes. For positive identification, they should employ a biometric authentication, like a fingerprint, retinal scan, face scan, etc.
It could also be used for crossing the Canadian/Mexican borders, accessing government buildings, etc.
Travel without the card would still be possible, but would require a much greater level of security, questioning, bag searches, biometric registration, digital photograph, etc.
Yes, it would also make it very easy to track the movements of individuals, and all kinds of "Big Brother" things. But, certain activities, like air travel and border crossings, warrant this type of monitoring.
You see how far the RC5-64 project has progressed? And that's just a SINGLE RC5-64 encrypted message.
I have seen enough and will never forget the destruction of the building which I last touched on Saturday 09/08/2001. After reading The New Yorker article detailing the construction of the foundation, I have become very interested in a video or documentary on its construciton. Anyone know what can be found, bought, watched?
WANTED A video of the World Trade Center Construction.
The winning of hearts and minds thing always sounds good on paper... In reality I don't think there is anything we could do to make those people happy. If we did help them, the other countries around them would declare them an American puppet and probably start sending in suicide bombers.
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
"Row, row, row your boat; Gently down the stream. Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily, Life is but a dream..." "Row, row, row your boat; Gently down the stream. Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily, Life is but a dream..." Repeat as needed. Also nice when sung as a round. Try it. Peace to you.
Reason or Chaos, that is the divide.
To think otherwise is folly itself.
Years later, a doctor will tell me that I have an I.Q. of 48, and am what some people call "mentally retarded".
AN OPEN LETTER TO THOSE WHO BERATE THE U.S.
You really need to read up on our history. You obviously haven't a clue to who we are.
This nation was forged in the fires of the struggle for freedom. We shed American blood throwing off the tyrannical shackles of the Brittons.
Internally, we shed American blood throwing off the shackles of slavery. In the end we helped rebuild the south.
We shed American blood throwing off Hitler's tyranny over Europe, something we didn't even want to get involved with. Without our help, all of Europe would be either a Nazi state or forever embroiled in strife right now. Like it or not, that is a fact. Swallow hard on your pride and accept it.
Not only did we offer massive help toward the victory in Europe, we were at the same time fighting another war with Japan. We helped all of Europe pull itself out of the coals even while fighting Japanese aggression. And when that aggression was squelched, we also helped Japan to rebuild. What other nation in history can claim the same such victories, or such humanity to it's vanquished?
Do you even have the slightest idea what resolve that takes? Do you honestly believe that kind of resolve doesn't still exist? Do you really think we have no right to hold our heads high for not only defeating formidable enemies, but for also having helped them recover in the aftermath?
For this we deserve nothing but derision and ridicule?
We EARNED our right to hold our head high and to stand proud and confident with our blood. That you see it as a cocky, bullying, "cowboy" attitude illuminates your own insecurities and ignorance. You cannot, in your wildest dreams, stand as tall as we. None-the-less, we have always held out a hand to those countries that chose to pull themselves out of the quagmire of primordial ooze and stand shoulder-to-shoulder with us in civility.
No nation is without mistakes, but we, The United States of America, have accomplished more in 225 years toward the freedom of the individual than any nation in the entire history of human kind. Do you really expect us to hang our head in shame over some primitive cultures' jealousy?
Man, are you barking up the wrong tree. It is not even within our collective psyche to grasp the idea that basic human rights are not fundamental to all. How can any civilized nation *not* cling to the idea of fundamental freedoms? We are incapable of understanding anyone who thinks otherwise, especially those who have no respect for life at all. It is this principle of freedom on which this nation was founded - it is inscribed on our bones - it is who we are.
We fought long, bloodily and hard, both within our borders and without, to become a better people. And we continue to do so.
Get a very tight grip on those thoughts because to understand us you must understand them. You can talk, and bomb us, all you want, but the only view we will ever understand is "freedom for all." No amount of yapping by primitive cultures will ever make us see otherwise.
Again I iterate, we are not perfect in our goals - not even in our own internal struggles - but we have come farther than any nation in the history of humanity to achieving them.
After all that we fought for - to have our own soil desecrated by soulless, cowardly hostiles is an unimaginable affront to all we stand for. If you have not been paying attention so far, you do not understand how serious an affront this is. God have mercy on those who do not believe, who will soon believe, and on us for having been forced into making you believe.
If you think this means our only answer is to bomb stone age countries into the stone age, you have, at your own peril, underestimated the American resolve. We, the American People, have always risen to every challenge placed in front of us - this will be no different.
The very fact that you can sit behind your keyboard and decry the U.S. is a freedom that was fought for with American blood. Think long and hard on how much you value that freedom. Multiply that feeling a hundredfold. That is how much we value it. Multiply it a thousandfold. That is how hard we will fight to keep it.
In the end you will still have the freedom, bought with American blood, to sit there and berate us.
We will continue to hold our heads high and stand proud.
FOLKS OUT THERE HAVE A "DISTASTE OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION AND CULTURAL VALUES"
Edward S. Herman
One of the most durable features of the U.S. culture is the inability or refusal to recognize U.S. crimes. The media have long been calling for the Japanese and Germans to admit guilt, apologize, and pay reparations. But the idea that this country has committed huge crimes, and that current events such as the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks may be rooted in responses to those crimes, is close to inadmissible. Editorializing on the recent attacks ("The National Defense," Sept. 12), the New York Times does give a bit of weight to the end of the Cold War and consequent "resurgent of ethnic hatreds," but that the United States and other NATO powers contributed to that resurgence by their own actions (e.g., helping dismantle the Soviet Union and pressing Russian "reform"; positively encouraging Slovenian and Croatian exit from Yugoslavia and the breakup of that state, and without dealing with the problem of stranded minorities, etc.) is completely unrecognized.
The Times then goes on to blame terrorism on "religious fanaticism...the anger among those left behind by globalization," and the "distaste of Western civilization and cultural values" among the global dispossessed. The blinders and self-deception in such a statement are truly mind-boggling. As if corporate globalization, pushed by the U.S. government and its closest allies, with the help of the World Trade Organization, World Bank and IMF, had not unleashed a tremendous immiseration process on the Third World, with budget cuts and import devastation of artisans and small farmers. Many of these hundreds of millions of losers are quite aware of the role of the United States in this process. It is the U.S. public who by and large have been kept in the dark.
Vast numbers have also suffered from U.S. policies of supporting rightwing rule and state terrorism, in the interest of combating "nationalistic regimes maintained in large part by appeals to the masses" and threatening to respond to "an increasing popular demand for immediate improvement in the low living standards of the masses," as fearfully expressed in a 1954 National Security Council report, whose contents were never found to be "news fit to print." In connection with such policies, in the U.S. sphere of influence a dozen National Security States came into existence in the 1960s and 1970s, and as Noam Chomsky and I reported back in 1979, of 35 countries using torture on an administrative basis in the late 1970s, 26 were clients of the United States. The idea that many of those torture victims and their families, and the families of the thousands of "disappeared" in Latin America in the 1960s through the 1980s, may have harbored some ill-feelings toward the United States remains unthinkable to U.S. commentators.
During the Vietnam war the United States used its enormous military power to try to install in South Vietnam a minority government of U.S. choice, with its military operations based on the knowledge that the people there were the enemy. This country killed millions and left Vietnam (and the rest of Indochina) devastated. A Wall Street Journal report in 1997 estimated that perhaps 500,000 children in Vietnam suffer from serious birth defects resulting from the U.S. use of chemical weapons there. Here again there could be a great many people with well-grounded hostile feelings toward the United States.
The same is true of millions in southern Africa, where the United States supported Savimbi in Angola and carried out a policy of "constructive engagement" with apartheid South Africa as it carried out a huge cross-border terroristic operation against the frontline states in the 1970s and 1980s, with enormous casualties. U.S. support of "our kind of guy" Suharto as he killed and stole at home and in East Timor, and its long warm relation with Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos, also may have generated a great deal of hostility toward this country among the numerous victims.
Iranians may remember that the United States installed the Shah as an amenable dictator in 1953, trained his secret services in "methods of interrogation," and lauded him as he ran his regime of torture; and they surely remember that the United States supported Saddam Hussein all through the 1980s as he carried out his war with them, and turned a blind eye to his use of chemical weapons against the enemy state. Their civilian airliner 655 that was destroyed in 1988, killing 290 people, was downed by a U.S. warship engaged in helping Saddam Hussein fight his war with Iran. Many Iranians may know that the commander of that ship was given a Legion of Merit award in 1990 for his "outstanding service" (but readers of the New York Times would not know this as the paper has never mentioned this high level commendation).
The unbending U.S. backing for Israel as that country has carried out a long-term policy of expropriating Palestinian land in a major ethnic cleansing process, has produced two intifadas-- uprisings reflecting the desperation of an oppressed people. But these uprisings and this fight for elementary rights have had no constructive consequences because the United States gives the ethnic cleanser arms, diplomatic protection, and carte blanche as regards policy.
All of these victims may well have a distaste for "Western civilization and cultural values," but that is because they recognize that these include the ruthless imposition of a neoliberal regime that serves Western transnational corporate interests, along with a willingness to use unlimited force to achieve Western ends. This is genuine imperialism, sometimes using economic coercion alone, sometimes supplementing it with violence, but with many millions--perhaps even billions--of people "unworthy victims." The Times editors do not recognize this, or at least do not admit it, because they are spokespersons for an imperialism that is riding high and whose principals are unprepared to change its policies. This bodes ill for the future. But it is of great importance right now to stress the fact that imperial terrorism inevitably produces retail terrorist responses; that the urgent need is the curbing of the causal force, which is the rampaging empire.
http://www.zmag.org/hermancalam.htm
[Edward Herman is an economist and media analyst. He is professor emeritus at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. He is the author of many books, including The Myth of the Liberal Media. He is author with Noam Chomsky of Manufacturing Consent, one of the most important books on the media ever written.]
No need to go to afganistan to find fanatism, www.gnu.org is also a good place to look.
We must declare war on the governments that support terrorism. Bin Laden is replaceable, but the terrorists need the moral and capital backing of governments to operate. We must replace the governments that harbor terrorists if we do not want a repeat of Black Tuesday. 50 years of appeasement and weak pinprick attacks have cost us dearly. If you agree with this view or want to see more elaborate op/eds I urge you to visit www.ReasonVsTerrorism.com. If you agree, sign the petition linked from that site.
I've three countries affected by terrorism - the UK, Ireland and Spain.
I'm afraid that the war against terrorism is completely different to a normal war. It is much longer, much harder. Just going in and dropping bombs is absolutely the worst thing you could do. If your aim is to prevent further terrorist attacks in the USA, your response is going to have to be very carefully considered, intelligent, and it's going to take a long time. Sorry, but that's the way it is.
If you respond well to this, the rest of the civilized world will love you for it, and support and assist you. If you go in chucking bombs indiscriminately, that's the dumb response and you'll find the rest of the world reluctant to join in.
Die Hard (1): skyscraper in LA
Die Hard (2): airport in Washington
Die Hard (3): "terrorism" for a profit motive (... and a Cameo appearance of bombs in a school)
For all we know, this might not even be Bin Laden behind all this, but just a very cunning and ruthless businessman, who somehow managed to convince a couple of Islamist fundamentalists to work for him...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,551 036,00.html
They can't see why they are hated
Americans cannot ignore what their government does abroad
Seumas Milne
Thursday September 13, 2001
The Guardian
Nearly two days after the horrific suicide attacks on civilian workers in New York and Washington, it has become painfully clear that most Americans simply don't get it. From the president to passersby on the streets, the message seems to be the same: this is an inexplicable assault on freedom and democracy, which must be answered with overwhelming force - just as soon as someone can construct a credible account of who was actually responsible.
Shock, rage and grief there has been aplenty. But any glimmer of recognition of why people might have been driven to carry out such atrocities, sacrificing their own lives in the process - or why the United States is hated with such bitterness, not only in Arab and Muslim countries, but across the developing world - seems almost entirely absent. Perhaps it is too much to hope that, as rescue workers struggle to pull firefighters from the rubble, any but a small minority might make the connection between what has been visited upon them and what their government has visited upon large parts of the world.
But make that connection they must, if such tragedies are not to be repeated, potentially with even more devastating consequences. US political leaders are doing their people no favours by reinforcing popular ignorance with self-referential rhetoric. And the echoing chorus of Tony Blair, whose determination to bind Britain ever closer to US foreign policy ratchets up the threat to our own cities, will only fuel anti-western sentiment. So will calls for the defence of "civilisation", with its overtones of Samuel Huntington's poisonous theories of post-cold war confrontation between the west and Islam, heightening perceptions of racism and hypocrisy.
As Mahatma Gandhi famously remarked when asked his opinion of western civilisation, it would be a good idea. Since George Bush's father inaugurated his new world order a decade ago, the US, supported by its British ally, bestrides the world like a colossus. Unconstrained by any superpower rival or system of global governance, the US giant has rewritten the global financial and trading system in its own interest; ripped up a string of treaties it finds inconvenient; sent troops to every corner of the globe; bombed Afghanistan, Sudan, Yugoslavia and Iraq without troubling the United Nations; maintained a string of murderous embargos against recalcitrant regimes; and recklessly thrown its weight behind Israel's 34-year illegal military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza as the Palestinian intifada rages.
If, as yesterday's Wall Street Journal insisted, the east coast carnage was the fruit of the Clinton administration's Munich-like appeasement of the Palestinians, the mind boggles as to what US Republicans imagine to be a Churchillian response.
It is this record of unabashed national egotism and arrogance that drives anti-Americanism among swaths of the world's population, for whom there is little democracy in the current distribution of global wealth and power. If it turns out that Tuesday's attacks were the work of Osama bin Laden's supporters, the sense that the Americans are once again reaping a dragons' teeth harvest they themselves sowed will be overwhelming.
It was the Americans, after all, who poured resources into the 1980s war against the Soviet-backed regime in Kabul, at a time when girls could go to school and women to work. Bin Laden and his mojahedin were armed and trained by the CIA and MI6, as Afghanistan was turned into a wasteland and its communist leader Najibullah left hanging from a Kabul lamp post with his genitals stuffed in his mouth.
But by then Bin Laden had turned against his American sponsors, while US-sponsored Pakistani intelligence had spawned the grotesque Taliban now protecting him. To punish its wayward Afghan offspring, the US subsequently forced through a sanctions regime which has helped push 4m to the brink of starvation, according to the latest UN figures, while Afghan refugees fan out across the world.
All this must doubtless seem remote to Americans desperately searching the debris of what is expected to be the largest-ever massacre on US soil - as must the killings of yet more Palestinians in the West Bank yesterday, or even the 2m estimated to have died in Congo's wars since the overthrow of the US-backed Mobutu regime. "What could some political thing have to do with blowing up office buildings during working hours?" one bewildered New Yorker asked yesterday.
Already, the Bush administration is assembling an international coalition for an Israeli-style war against terrorism, as if such counter-productive acts of outrage had an existence separate from the social conditions out of which they arise. But for every "terror network" that is rooted out, another will emerge - until the injustices and inequalities that produce them are addressed.
Do you ever need to read up on your history. The U.S. was never involved in a war with Vietman. It was an undefined skirmish.
Another messenger-attacking coward here.
Criticizing Israel != Anti-Semitism
Maybe it's treated as such in casual conversations where you come from, but the fact that you would pull that shit out in response to Israli press articles about white slavery shows you to be the "intellectually bankrupt maggot" here.
This country is not built on Christian principles at all. American success is based upon its free market which is based upon the recognition of rights. Don't be confused by the few referernces to God by Jeffereson and the other Founding Fathers. They were, for the most part, Deists not Christians. The right to pursue happiness is a fundamentally secular idea. Christianity (discounting moden liberal watered-down versions) , like other religions, believes that the physical world is unimportant (blessed are the weak....) and that the spiritual world is important. The Twin Towers and American culture are a stark contradiction to this idea. America is great because of it is secular and promotes happiness here on earth. This is what the Islamic terrorists consider an affront to their religion. They see us as infidels because we choose (with many contradictions of course) the secular world over the spiritual world. They beleive we should renounce this world, live in suffering and be sacrificial to please Allah and only achieve happiness in the after-life (observe the laws against almost anything pleasurable in Afghanistan). Because their beliefs are based on faith (ie arbitrary), they cannot convince us by reason, therefore the resort to physical force. Because they cannot be reasoned with the only way to deal with them is force. Note that every attempt to reason with them has led to further destruction of American lives and property. Visit www.ReasonVsTerrorism.com for more and sign their petition encouraging the US to declare war on terrorist harboring governments.
I admire the rest of your sentiments, but you're really wrong about the above.
I've read several of the UN reports on the effects of Nuclear Weapons, which tend to use a 1Mt (ONE. Not One hundred.) device as an example. Even with a single 1Mt airburst, "immediate" fallout can deliver a lethal dose of radiation for something like a hundred miles, depending on prevailing winds. This effect is directly proportional to the size of the blast. That means that we're talking about an uncontrollable swathe of lethal windborne dirt hundreds of miles in length.
This is NOT "surprisingly little damage".
For weapons of this size, most of the immediate deaths in a desert detonation will be from blast and heat. The lethal range for direct radiation exposure would be well inside the lethal blast radius.
The "standard" fallout (much smaller particles) will tend not to be radioactive enough to kill people in the short term, but a detonation of a 100Mt device would have effects that are, quite simply, incalculable - increased cancer risks, birth defects, increased infection rates for just about everything - you name it. The fallout will darken skies in the region for days.
While we're in a happy mood, it is also possible for the explosion to trigger spontaneous precipitation, called a "rain out", which would happily kill anyone that got wet.
Now, the war-guys will be talking about tac-nukes, in the few hundred kiloton range. They'll ask you to believe that the damage will be localised. The truth is that they have no idea, and the independant research strongly suggests otherwise.
Believe me - the damage from a nuclear detonation cannot be contained in either time or space, and it's infeasible that the damage could be restricted to military target. Hell, it's infeasible that it could be restricted to one COUNTRY, in that region.
Please, please. Do not think about nukes.
I would like to share some links with you all. If you feel it's not something for you, then please just ignore it.
It's two letters from the celestine journal which deals with the recent terror attacks, and how to react to them.
The letters:
http://www.celestinevision.com/JR01sep14.html
http://www.celestinevision.com/01sep11.html
The main page: http://www.celestinevision.com/main.html
Does anybody have links to pages presenting evidence against Bin Laden (or another person)?
Censorship on Slashdot
Karma whorin' since 1999
The Bible that I read had two references to drinking your own urine, and also says that god will rub shit in our faces unless we do what he says.
No, I'm not making this up.
So much for the Bible.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
Indeed, as you support Israel so much, you know the people whom killed Jesus, you was jews. But yzet, I discover you are christian.
to finish,
GOd does not bless people who killed other christians (Serbs) supporting ISLAM (Kosovo)
yougoslavia, Yougoslavia, Tougoslavia
USA= everything escept christianism (Detah Penalty is forbidden in the bible)
Where comes from Linux and Windows, for example?
We won in OS fight
Who are the champions of soccer?
France
Who is the first civilization?
Greek
Who discovered America?
European
Who are the more intelligent?
European
Who eat good?
European
Where commes from your pizzas?
Italy
whre's come from Jesus?
Asia
Where's come from the death?
USA
I completely agree with what you said.
I was speaking of physical damage only. The damage from radioactivity from a nuclear detonation punishes everyone in the world for centuries.
The intent was to demonstrate that even huge bombs don't stop fighting in a mountainous area. Those who have watched too many war movies think that bombing is more powerful than it is.
I was trying to demonstrate that many people have a profound ignorance of war. The people of the U.S. cannot be said to have agreed to war when they are agreeing to something they don't understand well.
Oh, well, I didn't do a very good job of achieving my intent. Thanks for making things clear.
Bush's education improvements were
The weapons makers and the military and the media owned by weapons makers have encouraged you to believe lies about war. A new war would be long and expensive, and that's what the weapons makers want.
my goodness. an awful lot of people seem to own the media these days. we've got weapons makers, Microsoft, liberals, communists, Big Oil, Republicans, pinko anarchists, the RIAA, the MPAA, capitalist swine, and the shadowy world government. do you think it's set up like a time share?
I'd have to agree with your statement about financial support for starving nations such as Afghanistan. If we were to feed the starving people and help them get back on their feet so as to support themselves, they would most likely be forever greatful.
However, neighbors of Afghanistan are starving too. I'd have to assume that if we fed Afghanistan, they would become strong again. Neighboring nations would become jealous of Afghanistan, and therefore hateful towards the U.S. for making Afghanistan the strong nation that they would be (compared to their neighbors, that is).
If the U.S. would want to solve this problem, we would probably be continuously supporting Middle Eastern nations as to prevent any of this jealousy from arising, and I wouldn't be too surprised if the only good to come of that was dependance on the U.S. of these nations. Should the U.S. really create any more dependance on shipments of goods?
Anyhow, that's just my crazy theory.
-- I'll cut you up so bad, you'll wish I'd never cut you up so bad!
Not the symbol I'd prefer on the place of my death...
People keep talking about innocent people dying. I am curious: Does this imply that it would have been somehow more acceptable if 5000 non-innocent people had been killed? Who are we do judge people innocent or not, and why does it matter?
You don't need planes that land themselves, you just need to make sure that the pilots retain control of the aircraft. You can do this with a lot of low-tech methods.
Obviously, they need to put a REAL door between the cockpit and the cabin, and make it's locked.
Airlines also need to make sure that pilots have an absolute zero-tolerance policy toward terrorists. Under no circumstances are they to unlock the door, even if the terrorists are murdering all the passengers. If this policy is advertised publicly, it should deter most hijack attempts.
Another idea that my friend and I have been tossing around is making the cockpit airtight and installing some kind of gas system in the cabin. If anything should go wrong in the cabin, the pilots could release some kind of knockout gas in the cabin. (There might be some problems with passengers who might be allergic to the gas, but I doubt anyone would object to its use during a violent hijacking.)
And of course, you can supplement this with air marshalls, armed pilots, etc. Finally, passengers will never again stand by and watch as a handful of terrorists try to commandeer their plane; they'll fight back, especially if the terrorists are lightly armed.
I heard that CNN had a poll, and approx 80% of CNN executives voted for a war against Afghanastan. (The other guy was on holiday)
Whoa, I hope I never see a war, then.
"Undefined skirmish" has such a nice ring to it. It reminds me of "surgical strike".
When the U.S. government bombed the pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, it was called a "surgical strike" in the United States. But suppose you lived in Sudan, and every day when you went to work you passed the pharmaceutical plant. One day you passed by and the plant was gone! I suppose that would make you feel terror. Does that mean the U.S. government is a terrorist organization? Hmmmh.
Bush's education improvements were
It has allowed for the expression of a wide range of views - far wider than we would have seen from any single conventional news site - and many of the views (even ones I don't agree with) have been well expressed.
It's also interesting to note the drop in the volume of Katz-bashing we've seen. I mostly read and often agree with what Jon writes, and I've often suspected that a lot of the Katz-bashing is ritualistic pack behaviour (k001 dud3z 645h Katz - me b45h Katz, me k3wl). But Katz was there, on the ground, reporting what he was seeing and feeling, and it seems people respected that.
So, congratulations, guys. I hope that we don't see too many more real world news events so big that they become News for Nerds; but it's great to know that when one does, my favourite news site will handle it well.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
<a href="http://www.timesofindia.com/articleshow.asp? art_id=595320017">Is Osama Bin Laddin the Mabus predicted by Nostradamus?</a>
i s</a> article, speaks about a doomsday scenario & about injustice & double standards meted out to people in the middle east by the US of A. A very nice read.
<a href="http://www.indiacgny.org">Here</a> is a list of Indians, who are rescued.
<a href="http://www.dawn.com/2001/09/17/op.htm#4">Th
As a British citizen, I have to say that that episode of Question Time in no way accurately represented the views of the vast majority of the population of the UK.
The head of the BBC has not personally apologised to Phil Lader for the program, which many people (including the national press) have complained about.
The program might highlight the range of opinion throughout the UK (and indeed the world), but to air such an insensitive program so soon after the tradgedy was a case of very poor judgement.
The BBC are fairly unbiased. It is part of their remit to be balanced.
A demonstration of their balance is that politicians from both the left and the right complain that they are biased in the other's favour. The BBC Radio 4 program 'Today' (available on the BBC's web site, starts around 7am GMT) has a very good reputation and very intelligent presenters, who give politicians from both sides a really hard time during interviews.
The head of the BBC has not personally apologised to Phil Lader for the program, which many people (including the national press) have complained about.
According to The Observer yesterday he has apologised.
I wasn't saying that the weapons makers own the media, as in "owning" a politician. I was saying the weapons makers own the media, as in it is legally theirs. For example, Westinghouse and GE both own TV stations. They therefore have a "duty to the stockholders" to "maximize their profits". This means that they have a "duty to the stockholders" to encourage war. Do they do this consciously? Maybe not. But it happens that the really negative issues of war are not fully discussed.
War for the corporate executive is a way of temporarily relieving the pressure of his anger by acting it out. He views killing people in poor countries as better than having a fight with his wife.
They must be poor countries, however, like Sudan, Cuba, Granada, Vietnam, and Afghanistan. He wouldn't make war on a customer country, because that would not be "maximizing profits".
Is this cynical? No, it seems to be a description of the facts. You can watch news shows all day and not see one instance of someone demonstrating a thorough knowledge of the cultures they are discussing bombing. Tonight on the CBS TV show "60 Minutes", former CIA officials said that very few in the CIA even speak Arabic.
What Should be the Response to Violence?
Bush's education improvements were
As sickened and saddened as i am by the whole thing, the murder of innocents i have to stand and look at the USA (im in Australia) with something of an attitude of fear and horror.
The thing is that yes 'someone' commited a horrific crime on the US, and that means someone should be punsished, but what level of punishment ?
How many people must die to assauge your grief? 2000, 10000, 50000, 100000, 1 million ? whats enough blood.
I seen people on here and in interviews in your streets who think and believe that you should use nuclear weapons to 'solve' this ? on who ? who do you blow up first ? Afghanistan will likely be the first target but whos the last - i mean there will still be arabs in palestine, do you kill them, what about the Iraqi's, The Iranians ? Hey there are muslims in India, Indonesia ?
What are we talking here - Genocide ? the Germans did that but they used ovens didnt they .
Im not criticising the need for justice but i am condemming the mindless calls for revenge. This sort of action needs to be taken in the cold light of day and soberly considered. There may be legitimate targets - Bin Laden defintely, but these can be dealt with safely and easily (otherwise what are all your vaunted Intelligence ans special forces organisations good for ?)
Would it not make sense to be humane and show the world that democracy and christianity stands for compassion and control - the massive carpet bombing, invasions and land wars wont solve the problem, innocent deaths will add to them and make a much bigger problem.
So i urge you all to think before plunging headlong into a war that could kill many many innocent people and maybe plunge the world into another world conflict. The very people you want to kill in Afghanistan have no TV, no freedom, no rights and most have no food or money or any of the things you take for granted - yet you want to kill them for something 1 fanatic did for whatever misguded reasons ?
Being a beacon of light and hope to the world does not involve the murder of innocent people, the US has set itself up to be the kingdom of hope for many - the only way that the US can be the statesman of the world is to act like it now, show the world they are civilised and intelligent people who can think without revenge and act with restraint.
if not then god help us all.
I refuse to argue with Anonymous Cowards - if you want a discussion get an account....
This article, written by a former CIA agent, reveals why the US secret services can't deal with bin Laden on his home turf. Very interesting read, and written before the events of last Tuesday.
-- /. ID is lower than Bruce Perens'!
Barry de la Rosa,
public[at]bpdlr.org
My
I will soon be selling t-shirts that read, "I flew a plane into the World Trade Center, and all I got was this lousy t-shirt."
-------
16 September 2001
Retaliation is a trap. In a world that was supposed to have learnt that the rule of law comes above revenge, President Bush appears to be heading for the very disaster that Osama bin Laden has laid down for him. Let us have no doubts about what happened in New York and Washington last week. It was a crime against humanity. We cannot understand America's need to retaliate unless we accept this bleak, awesome fact. But this crime was perpetrated - it becomes ever clearer - to provoke the United States into just the blind, arrogant punch that the US military is preparing.
Mr bin Laden - every day his culpability becomes more apparent - has described to me how he wishes to overthrow the pro-American regime of the Middle East, starting with Saudi Arabia and moving on to Egypt, Jordan and the other Gulf states. In an Arab world sunk in corruption and dictatorships - most of them supported by the West - the only act that might bring Muslims to strike at their own leaders would be a brutal, indiscriminate assault by the United States. Mr bin Laden is unsophisticated in foreign affairs, but a close student of the art and horror of war. He knew how to fight the Russians who stayed on in Afghanistan, a Russian monster that revenged itself upon its ill-educated, courageous antagonists until, faced with war without end, the entire Soviet Union began to fall apart.
The Chechens learnt this lesson. And the man responsible for so much of the bloodbath in Chechnya - the career KGB man whose army is raping and murdering the insurgent Sunni Muslim population of Chechnya - is now being signed up by Mr Bush for his "war against people''. Vladimir Putin must surely have a sense of humour to appreciate the cruel ironies that have now come to pass, though I doubt if he will let Mr Bush know what happens when you start a war of retaliation; your army - like the Russian forces in Chechnya - becomes locked into battle with an enemy that appears ever more ruthless, ever more evil.
But the Americans need look no further than Ariel Sharon's futile war with the Palestinians to understand the folly of retaliation. In Lebanon, it was always the same. A Hizbollah guerrilla would kill an Israeli occupation soldier, and the Israelis would fire back in retaliation at a village in which a civilian would die. The Hizbollah would retaliate with a Katyusha missile attack over the Israeli border, and the Israelis would retaliate again with a bombardment of southern Lebanon. In the end, the Hizbollah - the "centre of world terror'' according to Mr Sharon - drove the Israelis out of Lebanon.
In Israel/Palestine, it is the same story. An Israeli soldier shoots a Palestinian stone-thrower. The Palestinians retaliate by killing a settler. The Israelis then retaliate by sending a murder squad to kill a Palestinian gunman. The Palestinians retaliate by sending a suicide bomber into a pizzeria. The Israelis then retaliate by sending F-16s to bomb a Palestinian police station. Retaliation leads to retaliation and more retaliation. War without end.
And while Mr Bush - and perhaps Mr Blair - prepare their forces, they explain so meretriciously that this is a war for "democracy and liberty'', that it is about men who are "attacking civilisation''. "America was targeted for attack,'' Mr Bush informed us on Friday, "because we are the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world.'' But this is not why America was attacked. If this was an Arab-Muslim apocalypse, then it is intimately associated with events in the Middle East and with America's stewardship of the area. Arabs, it might be added, would rather like some of that democracy and liberty and freedom that Mr Bush has been telling them about. Instead, they get a president who wins 98 per cent in the elections (Washington's friend, Mr Mubarak) or a Palestinian police force, trained by the CIA, that tortures and sometimes kills its people in prison. The Syrians would also like a little of that democracy. So would the Saudis. But their effete princes are all friends of America - in many cases, educated at US universities.
I will always remember how President Clinton announced that Saddam Hussein - another of our grotesque inventions - must be overthrown so that the people of Iraq could choose their own leaders. But if that happened, it would be the first time in Middle Eastern history that Arabs have been permitted to do so. No, it is "our'' democracy and "our'' liberty and freedom that Mr Bush and Mr Blair are talking about, our Western sanctuary that is under attack, not the vast place of terror and injustice that the Middle East has become.
Let me illustrate what I mean. Nineteen years ago today, the greatest act of terrorism - using Israel's own definition of that much misused word - in modern Middle Eastern history began. Does anyone remember the anniversary in the West? How many readers of this article will remember it? I will take a tiny risk and say that no other British newspaper - certainly no American newspaper - will today recall the fact that on 16 September 1982, Israel's Phalangist militia allies started their three-day orgy of rape and knifing and murder in the Palestinian refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila that cost 1,800 lives. It followed an Israeli invasion of Lebanon - designed to drive the PLO out of the country and given the green light by the then US Secretary of State, Alexander Haig - which cost the lives of 17,500 Lebanese and Palestinians, almost all of them civilians. That's probably three times the death toll in the World Trade Centre. Yet I do not remember any vigils or memorial services or candle-lighting in America or the West for the innocent dead of Lebanon; I don't recall any stirring speeches about democracy or liberty. In fact, my memory is that the United States spent most of the bloody months of July and August 1982 calling for "restraint".
No, Israel is not to blame for what happened last week. The culprits were Arabs, not Israelis. But America's failure to act with honour in the Middle East, its promiscuous sale of missiles to those who use them against civilians, its blithe disregard for the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi children under sanctions of which Washington is the principal supporter - all these are intimately related to the society that produced the Arabs who plunged America into an apocalypse of fire last week.
America's name is literally stamped on to the missiles fired by Israel into Palestinian buildings in Gaza and the West Bank. Only four weeks ago, I identified one of them as an AGM 114-D air-to-ground rocket made by Boeing and Lockheed-Martin at their factory in - of all places - Florida, the state where some of the suiciders trained to fly.
It was fired from an Apache helicopter (made in America, of course) during the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, when hundreds of cluster bombs were dropped in civilian areas of Beruit by the Israelis in contravention of undertakings given to the United States. Most of the bombs had US Naval markings and America then suspended a shipment of fighter bombers to Israel - for less than two months.
The same type of missile - this time an AGM 114-C made inGeorgia - was fired by the Israelis into the back of an ambulance near the Lebanese village of Mansori, killing two women and four children. I collected the pieces of the missile, including its computer coding plate, flew to Georgia and presented them to the manufacturers at the Boeing factory. And what did the developer of the missile say to me when I showed him photographs of the children his missile had killed? "Whatever you do," he told me, "don't quote me as saying anything critical of the policies of Israel."
I'm sure the father of those children, who was driving the ambulance, will have been appalled by last week's events, but I don't suppose, given the fate of his own wife - one of the women killed - that he was in a mood to send condolences to anyone. All these facts, of course, must be forgotten now.
Every effort will be made in the coming days to switch off the "why'' question and concentrate on the who, what and how. CNN and most of the world's media have already obeyed this essential new war rule. I've already seen what happens when this rule is broken. When The Independent published my article on the connection between Middle Eastern injustice and the New York holocaust, the BBC's 24-hour news channel produced an American commentator who remarked that "Robert Fisk has won the prize for bad taste''. When I raised the same point on an Irish radio talk show, the other guest, a Harvard lawyer, denounced me as a bigot, a liar, a "dangerous man'' and - of course - potentially anti-Semitic. The Irish pulled the plug on him.
No wonder we have to refer to the terrorists as "mindless''. For if we did not, we would have to explain what went on in those minds. But this attempt to censor the realities of the war that has already begun must not be permitted to continue. Look at the logic. Secretary of State Colin Powell was insisting on Friday that his message to the Taliban is simple: they have to take responsibility for sheltering Mr bin Laden. "You cannot separate your activities from the activities of the perpetrators,'' he warned. But the Americans absolutely refuse to associate their own response to their predicament with their activities in the Middle East. We are supposed to hold our tongues, even when Ariel Sharon - a man whose name will always be associated with the massacre at Sabra and Shatila - announces that Israel also wishes to join the battle against "world terror''.
No wonder the Palestinians are fearful. In the past four days, 23 Palestinians have been killed in the West Bank and Gaza, an astonishing figure that would have been front-page news had America not been blitzed. If Israel signs up for the new conflict, then the Palestinians - by fighting the Israelis - will, by extension, become part of the "world terror'' against which Mr Bush is supposedly going to war. Not for nothing did Mr Sharon claim that Yasser Arafat had connections with Osama bin Laden.
I repeat: what happened in New York was a crime against humanity. And that means policemen, arrests, justice, a whole new international court at The Hague if necessary. Not cruise missiles and "precision'' bombs and Muslim lives lost in revenge for Western lives. But the trap has been sprung. Mr Bush - perhaps we, too - are now walking into it.
They don't need uncrackable crypto to fly a plane into a building. Just flying lessons and a preordained date.
The destruction of civil liberties on the net is not happening this week because of the evil Taliban. It is happening because the advocates of Carnivore et al are opportunists using patriotism to get what they wanted all along.
They aren't going after the Taliban, they are going after US.
We're fucked.
Frankly, Pakistan has no other option but to go with the US. Although, they have been supporting Taliban and lots of fundamentalist Islamic groups in Pakistan are pissed with the pakistani govt about the support to US, it certainly makes a lot of political and economic sense for the pakis to back US. Pakistan's economy is in shambles, the sanctions imposed by the US is causing lot of upheavel. Infact, the WTC bombings has come as a blessing in disguise for Pakistan, they can now barter deals with the US, ask for loans, and removal of sanctions which the US are sure to grant. Infact, they can score a lot of political points with the masses by asking US to interfere in Kashmir. By backing the taliban , the people of pakistan would have gained nothing but the support and perverse pleasure of a few zealots.
In the mean time.. we're still looking for my wife's cousin who works for Instinet and was at the WTC Tower 1/100th floor at the time of the strike. His photo is here. Please email us if you have more information.
The idea of dropping nuclear weapons on a bunch of backward sheep farmers in the middle of nowhere right next to two countries just itching to test out their own nukes on each other...
IS NUTS!!!
If America started dropping nukes on people it would be a precident for other nuke countries to start dropping them on their enemies as well.
I am pissing myself with fear just thinking that America would even consider thinking about such a course of action.
Interesting that all 4 hijacked planes were Boeings, there were no Airbus planes hijacked. I know that in the US, Boeings are more common than Airbusses, but perhaps there is another reason:
I know that in Boeing aircraft, the pilot can override the airplane's automatic systems, i.e. he/she has the ultimate decision what to do in an emergency situation.
In Airbus aircraft, the automatic systems can override the pilot's decisions if the aircraft determines that these decisions are wrong. Does anyone know if an Airbus would (through some sort of proximity detection system) have avoided the WTC in this situation??
Even if Airbusses are not now capable of this, it shouldn't be that hard to implement such a system. Some robots already use something like this to avoid crashes. It would also avoid the occasional "plane hits mountain in heavy fog" disasters.
No sig for me - too lazy to fill one in...
God Fuck America, God Fuck WTC, God Fuck Everybody ( Land of the freaks, Home of the Slaves)
Maybe if we had fed these people, they would not support terrorism.
Like that hasn't been tried before. Where did that lead?
For all I care, leave them all the fuck alone and let them bomb each other into oblivion. They've been at it for thousands of years, who has the right to think they can step in and do anything about it?
hes denying it to buy time, otherwise he would be nuked today.
Each day he has up, he can move stuff/hide stuff, also i bet you USA will drop 100000000 tones of explosives over the mountains so to cause massive ROCK/SNOW avalanches to cover who ever is hiding any where in the mountains
Bruce Schneier comments on this and also includes good quotes from others in his latest Crypto-Gram newsletter, which can be found here.
Microsoft have donated 10 million.. How much has Torvalds and co donated?
Please don't try to post as if you represent the entire United Kingdom. There are a lot of people who won't agree with you.
The point here is, I think, to make a distinction between the American *people* and the American *government*.
I don't think most American people have any idea what their government says, and how their government acts in their name. That government has a nasty habit of making enemies in the world.
I travel to the US regularly, I've never known a country with so little foreign news coverage.
I think this is why many Americans genuinely have no idea why anyone would want to do this to them.
For the US to now start threatening and flag waving and talking about protecting the world from these atrocities, borders on the wrong thing to do. It's partly because of these actions in the past that America has made the enemies that it has.
Before flaming, of course I agree that this was a terrible, unwarranted, unjustifiable action, but I can understand why some people would dare to do it.
DSB
adopt the American language (as Britain has done)
I am truly stunned. How ignorant can you get? And about your own country's history!
Did you go to school? I hope you're just a very young kid. If you're not, then please find out about adult education classes.
You know I start seeing these "benefit products" coming out or being planned: those little books, pictures, CDs and what not with "all profits go directly to the victims and their families". You know what? Please just give what you can and ask nothing for returns. I know many of these are from legitimate organizations with good intentions, but really, you should not need to give incentives for people to give in a situation like this. :-(
Codeala - Just another mindless drone
You don't know what you are talking about.
Around 52 million people died during the second world war, of which less than half a percent were American. It was a world war, America didn't choose to be involved, it didn't really have any choice.
Thanks for what you did in WWII America. Thanks Britain, thanks Australia, thanks New Zealand, thanks...
It's only been a week since this terrible tragedy and you guys are already talking about... oh... nevermind...
-cibrPLUR
I thought I'd point out something.
Sure, the internet may have not brought about 'peace on earth' and understanding, and it may have let these fundamentalist holier-than-thou hate-groups come together, but I would like to point out that the information which they put on the internet can be read & digested by all.
One visit to one of these 'Muslim' fundamentalist websites made me understand all of what motivates them & how they think.
If only the people & the leaders of the world would use these resources at their fingertips, they would understand how horribly ineffectual their method of combatting this new form of terrorism is.
In short, the internet = more distribution of information. This may mean that the misguided ones can communicate better, but it also means that we can better understand how they think & how to confront the problems their fanaticism presents - if we choose to take the oppotunity.
The whole terrorism problem could be gone from this earth within 10 years if the leaders actually understood what they needed to do. But I fear that their naive & vendictive attitudes could see a level of carnage & suffering brought upon this world unseen since the Great War..
I didn't see the programme, but to judge by newspaper accounts it was outrageously ill judged. The head of the BBC has issued an apology. Americans should know that a 3 minute silence was widely observed in Britain as the Queen and Tony Blair attended a memorial service at St Paul's cathedral. Flags were still at half mast yesterday (Sunday) and the national mood is very subdued. Many tributes have been laid outside the US embassy. I do think it is important that Americans should take notice of events in the rest of the world. Visitors often remark how few foreign stories are printed in the US newspapers. At times like these, dubious measures are often slipped through while the public has its attention elsewhere. I note, for instance, that NATO troops are to stay in Macedonia indefinitely, that China has been admitted to the World Trade Organisation, and that Europol - the unaccountable force which aspires to be the FBI of the European Union - is to be given responsibility for counter-terrorism.
You are so ignorant I won't even dignify your post by explaining. RTF history book.
Well, let's really not forget Libya. Is the embargo still on? Maybe it'd be worth having a look there and re-evaluate it a bit.
Gaddafi is one of the most level headed leaders in the whole Africa. I frankly don't know what went to him 10 years ago but since then the guy has really grown a brain and uses it well. I wished people would also use theirs before speculating about Gaddafi's part in the WTC attacks. That's absolutely irresponsible and repulsive.
Many don't know this but Gaddafi despises religious fundamentalists and discriminating against women. There's a good article on the National Geographic about Libya some six months ago. Go and read it to find out more. To me it sounds like he's singlehanded done as much as possible to fight terrorism in his country.
IMHO it's time to lift the embargo on Libya. I'd also want to ask why in the God's name can't USA lift the embargo on Cuba? I know it might be a huge humiliation to have to to that but Cuba is really not a threath.
The NY Times Magazine printed an article back on June 25, 2000 by Jeffrey Goldberg on the training of "jihad machines" in Pakistan. You can pay for it online, or go to your friendly local library and look for a dead-tree version. Here's the lead:
This is the quote that made the front cover of the magazine: The emphasis of this first-hand account is on the utter ignorance of those being trained in the "10000 or so" madrasas in Pakistan about the world at large (ignorance not in the simply pejorative sense but in the literal sense) and of the apparent complicity of the authorities in this situation. There was surprisingly little in there about training of terrorists in Afghanistan itself.Inventor of the LOLbalrog meme.
If you want to know more about this, read the article in the Iranian here. It is a little long, but it is an excellent article.
Han-Wen Nienhuys -- LilyPond
. ..
there were a couple of funny things about this edition of Question Time and the reactions to it.
First it wasn't really so anti-US, though it may have seemed to be to anyone hearing those kinds of statements for the first time.
Secondly did kind of sum up the opinions of just about everyone I've talked about it with, to whit "sure we feel sorry for all the people killed/hurt/bereived, but it largly came about due to the US's blinkered foerign policy toward the rest of the world and the middle east in particular"
here is a picture from space of the attack on the WTC. http://origin.ssec.wisc.edu/~gumley/NY_ch02_scale. jpg or here
Stupid things kids do.
another quote (not my writing):
"We come now to the question of bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age.
Trouble is, that's been done. The Soviets took care of it already. Make the
Afghans suffer? They're already suffering. Level their houses? Done. Turn their
schools into piles of rubble? Done. Eradicate their hospitals? Done. Destroy
their infrastructure? Cut them off from medicine and healthcare? Too late.
Someone already did all that. New bombs would only stir the rubble of earlier
bombs. Would they at least get the Taliban? Not likely. In today's Afghanistan,
only the Taliban eat, only they have the means to move around. They'd slip
away and hide. Maybe the bombs would get some of those disabled orphans;
they don't move too fast, they don't even have wheelchairs."
I hope we examine why we were attacked and review our forigen policy. I think we are guilty of injustices overseas, but I think the attack was unwarrented. I would rather these countries try and educate the american public as to what our government is doing so we can change it. Most of us dont really understand what is going on overseas.
I live in the UK, was born here and as about as British as they come.
If you do view this link, please do NOT think this is representative of the UK. I watched this programme on TV and I was horrified and disgusted, more disgusted than I have ever been by a television programme. And please don't think this is only me, I spoke to several of my colleagues at work the following day and they were equally as upset.
All the news coverage I have seen on this programme has been equally as critical and it seems that heads may roll at the BBC following this. I have seen many newspaper reports condemning this programme from newspapers across the political spectrum.
If you don't live in the UK, you may not be aware that the BBC home political coverage is widely held to have a left wing bias. The audience for this program is also largely self selected and hence tends to get stuffed with people with an axe to grind.
Please, please do not view this as representative of the view in the UK. Last week I saw more people participate in the public show of sympathy than I did for the death of Princess Diana.
I would estimate that 90% or higher of the population is completely behind the US. And I have the courage to put my name to this post which cannot be said for the AC that posted it.
this site,
this site,
this site and
this site all mention "the vietnam war". Whilst the US might never have been at war with the country Vietnam itself (although that is debatable when you look at the whole thing) it was certainly involved in some kind of war in Vietnam. I would call it a civil war, not unlike the Spanish civil war. In that war the Nazis backed the fascists like the US backed the South-Vietnamese.
Then I know several preists who are guilty of teaching false doctrines.
Yea, me too. It's called the Catholic church.
The Timothy McVeigh / gun show / Turner diaries / militia crowd, to me is just as big a threat as the Islamic guys.
Why don't we hear anything about cracking down on domestic right wing terror groups - I feel more threatened by these racist paramilitary thugs practicing their "militia" excercises with real guns than I do about the
Arab hijackers; after all, McVeigh blew up a big building too, and he came from a subculture of violence and racism and ignorance which is happily and healthily living in our own USA.
Please, while we are picking off Arabs across the world, let's have our new secret police assasinate some of our own racist redneck nutjobs as well.
I have written Reflections on The Terrorist Attacks on New York and Washington.
Helping with organizational effectiveness is our job.
it should also be pointed out that the largest bomb ever tested was only 56 megatons which was tested by the Soviets in the 1950s. The "stem" of the resulting mushroom cloud was about 6 miles in diameter so i would highly question the assertion of only a 15mi blast radius.
Just to make the political situation in Afganistan more clear to /. readers:
There are two major political/military groups there:
1. Taliban, that was largely supported by US until approx. 1995
2. Pro-soviet regime of Najibullah that was backed by USSR
from mid-seventies till 1991.
Soviet government held troups in Afganistan for 12 years (1979-1991),
supporting Najibullah while US government poored money into Taliban,
sold them arms and trained talibean mojaheds. It was a matter of
presence and control in the region for both countries.
After the collapse of USSR, Russian troups left Afganistan, Talibeans took
over Kabul and almost 95% of the territory of Afganistan. Nagibullah was
hung
his balls in the throat.
You are right. There is absolutely no reason to use nukes. It would be like trying to swat a fly with a tractor trailer.
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
I don't know if you're brit or Canadian or even US, but I must remind one thing who made the tour of Europe:
German pupils went to this country for vacvations:
1- Do you know cars in Europe?
2- Do you know computers in Europe? do they know L.Torvaldt is European and feels like this and came to USA for $$$$)
3- Is Hitler still the president of Germany?
4 Is there still a wall between China and Germany?
Ahahaha
SHAME ON YOU
What's your I.Q. in the USA?
You don't want our warnings
You don't want our cheese
You don't want our firemen
You just want from us a military help.
Ok, sign the Kyoto treaty 1dt
remind:
There's three country where there is death peanlty:
USA, Ir'aq, Iran and Afghanistan
Just like we were in Vietnam and Corea.
------->
Did you are soldiers?
More over, I don't you win a war.
You win a soccer game , you win a basketball game
OK, but not a war, you just kill more people than the other.
USA has killed more than Hitler this century
I'll tell more:
They have always been friend with moslems:
1- IRaq (vs Iran)
2- Kosovo (vs the Christian Serbs)
I don't understand them.
American don't know that here, people don't think like our gouvernments.
and Thanks you to beat germany 5-1
One Michael Owen, there's only one Michael Owen
:"
I don't believe the news today......
Tuesday bloody tuesday"
Caleb Carr's editorial in the NY Times is insightful. Perhaps these repressive regimes in Afghanistan and elsewhere recognize that twilight is upon them, and night must fall.
Let's get drunk and delete production data!
Im sure that anyone who designs such a system to take over in case of emergency or hijacking would have the common sense to remove any easy overrides such as a simple flipping the switch.
The autopilot itself is not a problem, you just need some measure of equipment to safely determine wether there is an emergency or not.
I recall a TV show some time ago where they explained that there wouldnt be any pilots on todays planes if it werent for peoples supersticions about robots. It makes the passengers feel better to know that its a human flying the plane, even tho its not safer!
Maybe its time to make that transition. If its a robot flying the plane, there is no opportunity for hijacking at all! And there certainly wouldnt be any chance for a hijacker to take the con and fly the plane into <your-favourite-landmark>.
/proton
Bomb Afganistan with food not explosives.
That'd be more effective at stopping terrorism.
Very interesting discussion. But one aspect of it frightens me. There is no talk about the biggest threat to America listed in the article. The "crackdown" on rights.
A "crackdown"? Like these rights are some nuciance misdemenour the legal system has been putting up with, but has now decided to "crackdown" on?
Am I missing something? Your chances of getting killed by terrorists in the US are around 1 in 250,000. Your chances of having your rights taken away look like they are going to be 100%. And none of you are talking about it.
... his main complaint it not "our views" or even policies, his main complaint to wage Holy War against us is that we dared set foot on "Holy" land , Sauidi Arabia.
Never mind that the Saudi government gave us permission, BTW.
Also, the main goal of Bin Laden's and Taliban like militia movement is to replace all infidel governments with righteous radical fundamentalist Muslim one's, read their propaganda.
So basically, they'll be happy once we cover our women up with masks and pray 5 times a day to Allah. Then they'll leave us alone.
- sigs are for wimps.
In the lead editorial in this week's New York Observer, "Let's not build any more atom bombs until we use the ones we have."
The Afghan valleys with the training camps need to be sterilized - it's not the camps, but the trainees and support personel who must be fully eradicated. All the weapons that can do that are ugly. The question is which are capable. Gas would probably work, but violate international treaties. Conventional explosives won't work - so the Russians have shown us there. What to do?
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
One of my favourite quote of all time:
I keep turning back to this quote everytime I watch the News in the past week.
This quote applies so well to people's reaction in the aftermath because I see people attacking particular groups of people instead of looking at the underlying cause of these killings. That is fear without understanding, as the quote suggest. Yes, these deaths are terrible and they make me very sad, but you need to ask yourself what would make these people jump on a plane and send thousands of people to there death. Because once you answer that question you can then have a chances to stop them. Guns and more deaths will not help!
I believe every non mentally-ill person have similar desires. It is just that the environment we live in, coupled with ignorance, can twist our views and beliefs of the world and its people. The belief of a starving child will be different from one living in wealth in the US. As would be one living in violence and destitution in a war torn country. A person who has nothing to live for has only death to look forward to.
So the solution is to give those a reason to live. However, the beliefs and views of a people can be hard to change. This solution will require a long-term action which I believe is impossible in the current political system. Every government can only look at its current term of office and long-term solutions will probably mean political death.
Hence the short-term strategy of sending out the guns for quick justice.
This is probably one of the sadest things about a good democracy.
I'm getting sick of this line of thinking, and people still fail to read the bastard's own words and motivations.
No matter what, the FIRST and MAIN reason this guy hates the US is because we set FOOT on Holy Land, Saudi Arabia.
I know you want to look for a higher or nobler motivation, but that's the main one. We know it, he knows it and has explained it over and over.
So, it is OBVIOUS, he hates us because of a fanatical view that we infidels soiled his Holy land. Now, you want to reason with a fanatic like this, go ahead. Hopefully he won't behead you if you are a journalist.
BTW, read Bin Laden's own manuals on the internet, the main purpuse of his organization is to replace all infidel governments with Taliban like Theocracies.
Are you ready to convert ?
- sigs are for wimps.
says it all.
Ben Masel: 51,282 votes for US Senate in the Wisconsin Democratic Primary
I read some years ago, before the Russian attack and civil war, that Afghan had one of the worst infant mortality rates. Life in Afghan has always been hard and that therefore every birth was celebrated and every child that reached their first birthday was also a big deal. That in Afghan all children were treated as a precious gift.
Jeffery C. May
0 0.html) says that one of your colleagues, Senator Gregg of New Hampshire, plans to introduce legislation that would require all encryption systems to have a Federally-approved "back door" to make it easy for law enforcement agencies to "crack" suspected communications. If this bill becomes law, the only people it would affect are law-abiding American citizens. Terrorist or other "bad guy" organizations would of course circumvent this law by either not upgrading to "approved" versions, or by developing their own encryption codes. I would implore you: do not support any legislation that has as its goal the reduction of the rights of Americans in the false hopes that it would increase their security.
September 15, 2001
The Honorable Senator Bob Graham
2252 Killearn Center Blvd, 3rd Floor
Tallahassee, FL 32308
RE: DECREASING LIBERTIES IS UNAMERICAN
Senator Graham:
This week we've witnessed many horrifying and unprecedented events. Many people have asked or will ask you to do "something" about the hijackings that took place Tuesday morning. I would like to advise you to be calm, thoughtful, and most importantly courageous. This is a time for all of us to emphasize what has made
the United States great: the freedom of its citizens. It is my opinion that what happened Tuesday was aided and abetted not by lax government control and security, but rather by a lack of liberty on the part of the American public. Furthermore, I've seen absolutely no indications that the Federal Government are going to fix the problem, or even comprehend it. In this respect the terrorists have succeeded: the American public enjoys fewer liberties today than on last Monday with little benefit.
Already I have heard reports of bills to be introduced to Congress and new policies instituted by executive agencies that, while ostensibly are designed to protect Americans, will actually end up hurting them. In the rush to do something, too many times the wrong thing is accomplished. This is one area where the Law of Unintended Consequences will no doubt be a major player in public safety for years to come:
* One report I've read was on Wired news (http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,46816,
* Before this week, the Federal Aviation Administration allowed passengers of airliners to carry knives with blades up to four inches long. The weapons used in the attack were therefore legal. The new rules (http://www.faa.gov/apa/faq/pr_faq.htm) forbid the carriage of any knives, even little plastic ones like that found at fast food restaurants. This is exactly the wrong course of action. What we need is a public that has the freedom, the liberty, to defend itself with force if necessary. Citizens of the United States that have concealed carry permits, are members of any law enforcement organization or serve in the United States military should be allowed to carry weapons on airliners. I can think of few better examples than last Tuesday of what the Framers intended for these words: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Thank you for your time and consideration; this is a grave time for us all, but please remember what has made this country what it is: the freedom of the people. Give these people the freedom and power to protect and defend themselves. Restricting freedoms means only that we are more vulnerable than we were before.
Sincerely,
Jeffery C. May
registered voter
concerned citizen
Well, they could always do what El Al does:
The former security director was on some news channel last night, I can't remember which and he said that on their planes, you need to get through TWO doors in order to get to the cockpit.
Not to mention the armed security on the plane as well.
At one point during his talk he basically said that anyone who tried to force their way into the cockpit, or force the pilots to leave the cockpit would find themselves dead.
"Violence breeds violence... Pure goals can never justify impure or violent action... They say the means are after all just means. I would say means are after all everything. As the means, so the end." - Gandhi
CowboyNeal for president!
"Hit any user to continue."
If it is true, what you imply, that the U.S. brought this upon itself due to various acts.
Then it is equally true that those spewing anti-American vitriol are equally guilty for stoking the fires of hatred.
Had these terrorist not acted as they did without the 'globalization' of Anti-U.S venom.
True.
It is natural to propose new security measures to try to stop a repeat of this tragedy. But we must guard against introducing something just because it will give us a sense of confidence that something has been seen to be done. People will become upset when their false sense of security is revealed for what it really is, and they may prevent real security measures being put into place (look at e-books & DMCA, introducing something flawed can actually prevent further progress).
Sealing off the pilots is not an answer. You would have to:
To prevent it being forced open, the seal must be substantial, possibly armoured.
To prevent coercion, the seal cannot be opened by anyone (pilot included) until after the flight.
Once introduced, this prevents the passengers direct access to the controls in the cockpit.
But
To be effective it must be introduced into every large plane in the world, not just gradually, but now. Security during installation would have to be high (you wouldn't want a terrorist organisation installing false walls for you). Re-certification may be necessary (look at Concorde for how long the whole process can take). And lets not neglect the problem that there just isn't enough room in an aircraft to add a seal. For the mid-size McDonnell Douglas and Boeing craft, the entrance is directly behind the cockpit. Now, assuming you cannot make the cockpit smaller, you must make the entrance corridor narrower. You could possibly trim an inch off for a reasonable partition wall. But you take the risk that standard equipment such as wheelchairs, food trolleys, and that field trip for overeaters anonymous may no longer be able to fit through the remaining gap.
And then there's the blatant flaw
What if the hijacker starts off in the cockpit?
Last weeks hijackers trained as pilots and had experience in a flight simulator for a commercial plane. So what is to prevent them taking the next step to becoming a commercial pilot? I heard a rumour (must check), that on one of the planes the hijacker was actually the scheduled pilot. In this case, the seal will simply prevent the passengers from overpowering the hijacker.
And I'm not even touching on the everyday risks that introducing such a seal would bring, if the pilots became sick or there was a fire in the cockpit, for example (oops, extinguisher ran out, go and get a spare from the... oh). Mechanisms for taking control away from the pilot are no better. Any remote control or computer override are dangerous in any case, and would just become the favoured target instead.
Simply put, we cannot prevent all possibility of some nut getting control of a large aircraft and deliberately crashing it. Therefore we must focus on being able to identify a risk situation and also on timely response to prevent a catastrophe.
I suggest that Air traffic control processes should be improved to be able to recognise when a plane has deviated from it's flight plan immediately, and that fighters must be positioned to intercept any plane before it reaches a significant target. Flight routes may have to be adjusted to avoid overflying unneccesary cities, and military aircraft may have to be carefully located to be able to respond in time, but these are eminently do-able. Airports very near cities may require response aircraft on-site (now there is a good application for remotely controlled aircraft - high-G and ready to scramble at a moments notice).
On another note
Another example of false security. I fly internationally twice a week. When I tried to fly out on Sunday, when I checked-in I was required to hand over my hand luggage. I was, of course, allowed to take any valuable or delicate items with me. They let me tip the whole contents of my hand luggage into their provided plastic carrier bag, without supervision. I then went through security and boarded the plane as normal. So there I was with all my valuables sloshing around in a carrier bag "for the sake of security", only to sit next to someone with all their luggage with them. The difference? They had checked in by telephone so avoided the jobsworth I dealt with (ignoring the fact that said same jobsworth was also processing boarding cards as I entered plane - so would have clearly seen the luggage as it was brought on). Any extra feeling of security evaporated immediately, and I was left thinking "Is this the amount of effort the've put into all their security measures?".
And that, in my opinion, is at heart the problem with ill-thought security measures. If you must introduce something, think it through, make sure it really does work, and apply it consistently. Otherwise, it is worse than if you had introduced nothing at all...
Funny how you study history in school, but they leave out really important stuff. I remember studying the war of 1812 and how the British burned down the White House. What I sure don't remember being taught was that the British were essentitally terrorists that slaughtered women and children and that they basically marched into the capitol one night with the express intent to burn it to the ground.
Over the weekend I watched "The Patriot" (Mel Gibson) again. If you've seen this movie, you know how they portray the British as carrying out ruthless acts of terrorism in slaughtering civilians (again, something left out of the history books *I* studied). The underlying theme and character motivation I got out of the movie was that the British commanders (Cornwalis, in particular) hoped to keep their system of aristocratic rule intact in the face of the rising political ideals of the American rebellion.
In the end, as the Americans drive his once proud army into the Atlantic where French ships block his retreat, Cornwalis hangs his head and mutters "How could it come to this, defeated by a rabble of farmers! Everything will change... everything *has* changed."
The point of the article is that those behind the terror attacks face a similar displacement of their way of life by American power and ideals. They have struck out against prominent symbols of American values. In doing so, they have once again "awakened the sleeping giant".
This is a clash of fundamental values. I fear it will be long and bloody.
there's been a significance difference in the quality of life of all people in afghanistan since the ussr and usa decided to fight out the cold war there.
You need to read about bin Laden, his reasons are nothing like you think. Simply put, it's a jihad against all "non-believers", Jews, Christians, etc. Anyone who isn't a Muslim basically, in bin Laden's eyes, needs to be killed. Bin Laden sees the U.S., and Europe too, as supporters of Judaism and Christianity.
It's pretty ridiculous to speculate on someone's motives when they plainly state it in interviews.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
There is a group of women in Afganistan trying to fight the oppression they face in their country. They have some pretty graphic stuff about how people are treated in Afganistan. They descibe themselves as a political/social organization of Afghan women struggling for peace, freedom, democracy and women's rights in fundamentalism-blighted Afghanistan.
I figure any group that is a thorn in the side of the Taliaban is a good thing and these women really need the help.
http://www.rawa.org
Their site was already getting hammered so it might be down.
Here is their physical address to send donations. They also accept paypal.
http://rawa.fancymarketing.net/contact.htm
The Afghan Women's Mission
260 S. Lake Avenue
PMB 165
Pasadena, CA 91101
USA
When sending to this address, please make your check or money order payable to SEE/Afghan Women's Mission. Your tax deductable contribution will be sent to RAWA.
I hope that someday we will be able to put away our fears and prejudices and just laugh at people. - Jack Handey
This is a rather broad and un-even comparison, but follow my logic. Even as American culture has crept across the globe (See: Levi's in Communist Russia, and McDonalds in China) There Starbucks chain has spread it's own wings (much more insidiously, granted) across the globe too.
They are both greeted with as much enthusiasm by many, and some point to them as an errosion of local culture.
Starbucks often displaces local businesses by being recognizable and often of higher quality for the same of lower proces, when they intially move in, causing financial and emotional distress to local coffee houses. I think you can see were the comparison goes with that example.
While it is fair to say that many cultures do not fair well in the care of the USofA, it would be a gross flaw in logic to say that when the US was acting in the former Yogoslavia, Kuwait or Even Vietnam there wasn't some form of grandoise assistance put forth (even if it was misguided.)
The point is this, do you really think, that without US (or International) Intervention, the middle east (and much of South West Asia) would be as somewhat stable as theyt are now? HELL NO! Imagine if the US didn't help contain the wars in the Balkans? What if The whole Kuwait situation was allowed to continue? Afghanistan was invaded by the russians, true, but the Taliban have kept what was destroyed by a dozen years of fighting in the same place it has been for years, rubble and horror. The Theocracy's of the middle east don't fall far from the Facist governments of The West, "We say what goes," God tells us what to do, and it's our god not your god and he says you are bad.
Fine, okay, tell the US to fix the problems that cause terrorism. How can they do that, it looks like there are only a few possible solutions, let me propose a few that I can see as "working:
Remove the west from the Middle east, pull out of the middle east entirely, and grant a Jewish homeland in some other place, I recommend the American Deserts, they are of the same basic composition, and no one is displaced (for the most part) (The Canadian Shield is also okay)
Meet with the leaders of the terrorist groups or their political arms (It has worked so well in Palestine and Ireland, right?) Adress their grievances. Leave the Middle East.
Bomb the heck out of the entire world.
The most direct quote I've heard so far that gives some indication that our privacy and liberty are at stake was from CNN last night. If I could find a link, I'd post it. Anyhow, Dick Gephardt made a statement that we needed to "rebalance" our freedoms in the wake of the attack.
For those of you who don't think there will be any long term ramifications of the hysteria caused by these terrorists, assume the position!
I apparently forgot that sig != uptime...
There is a certain email flying on iternet claiming that the video-footage of Palestinians shown on CNN last Tuesday was actually shot in 1991 during the Gulf War!!!!
This is very serious, if true.
Can anybody deny or confirm it ?
Voltaire: God is dead.
God: Voltaire is dead!
Dear All; Take minutes if not hours or even years to think of what happened in the USA two days before. Do not go beyond the reality, facts and imagination. Do not over react, yes many felt well when they saw the monster who keeps the world under threat is being shaking if not collapsing. The plan was very well plotted yet many gaps were left unthought off. I will first list down some of the facts that everybody knows then we will analyze and evaluate the situation; 1- it is known that security measures within airports in the USA are up to the standard and advanced enough to prevent the hijack of 4 civil airplanes in one day and within one hour! 2- We may know that if an airplane is hijacked the cockpit will have plenty of time to report the incident to ground control towers, if not, there is a secret bottom at the pilot seat which once touched >will remit signals indicating the aircraft is hijacked. > >3- We may know as well that flying over USA territory is pinpoint >limited to certain routs and in case one of the airplanes are >deviated from the path the air force will fly to intercept it to put >it back to its route or will be shot down! This procedures are even >more strict specially when flying near potential governmental, >military and nuclear facilities. > >4- The accuracy in which the "Hijackers" of the "hijacked" aircrafts >maneuvered such huge and passangered commercial airplanes to hit >there mid city targets both in Washington and New York reflects that >the operation was executed by the pilots themselves. Therefore it >wasn't hijack at all. > >The operation needed highly professional and trained pilots who fly >same type of aircrafts that used in hitting the targets, and who are >very well familiar with all operating and communication equipments >of those particular type of aircrafts and the internal commercial >routs within the USA. Those pilots must have in this case spent >years and years of training and flying in the USA. Why the air force >did not at that day performed their duty, why they did not intercept >those deviated flights, remains an ambiguity unless they had clear >orders from the White House not to take action. The claim came from >United Airlines and American Airlines was very much too late that 2 >of their aircrafts were hijacked. The targets were already burning >and falling apart. It came after 6 hours, and we all know that once >an aircraft is hijacked the entire world knows after 10 minutes or >so. Was the security measurement at the Federal Aviation so easily >vulnerable! > >We all realize that America is not that vulnerable to such attacks >specially if comes from outside sources and none of the powers or >supper powers in this world, whether governmental intelligence or >organizational, enjoys such capabilities. Yes the KGB might be the >only one who can plan such attacks which they did not even think >about during the cold war era as fearing a nuclear retaliation from >the west. It is widely known that there is no victorious in a >nuclear war. Any attack on the American soil is a clear declaration >of war against the west. If we do not include or suspect in our >analysis countries and organizations then who remains?! > >All fingers must now be pointed to the CIA as the prime suspect in >the first grade. It may not sound reasonable, yet we will make a >quick comparison between what America has lost and what it will gain >politically and militarily from such an attack, then the decision is >yours; > >A- LOSES > >America has lost few thousands of lives and few buildings. Is there >any time throughout history of the USA there was a real concern to >people's lives! How many times the US government has pushed >thousands of their people into needless wars? What was the purpose >of those wars after all but to help the USA to gain control over the >world. As for the buildings were collapsed, the Americans are able >to re construct within a year or so and will be funded by our >fellows in the Gulf and other EU Countries. Going through "Uncle >Sam" history after World War II and up to this minute, you will find >many shameful and similar incidents of the CIA under the claim of >"Protecting the national security and defending world democracy". >Those incidents were topped by the assassination of former >president, Kennedy in late 60's just because his thoughts were >"Moderate". By reviewing this black history, we do not see it >strange anymore especially if we realize the benefits of such acts. > >B- GAINS and PROFITS > >During the last few years, America started to lose control over most >of the world including its allies in Europe because of the US policy >and what's known as "Globalization" and the US policy against the >Palestinians, Iraq, Sudan, Iran and lately Syria joined the queue. >We all have seen how most Europeans expressed their angers through >harsh demonstrations when president Bush visited their countries few >months back. If this was the case in Europe, how about Muslim >countries. Russia, France and China, as being super powers, were fed >up with the US uncertain policies and signs of rejections were >clearly evidenced to the post and roll the US has offered itself. >Without the European allies, America would have lost the >international cover for its policies. Topping those facts, comes the >American alleged or so called "Star Wars" program which enables the >US to direct the first nuclear strike to any nation in our globe >without taking the risk of being exposed to a retaliation or strike >back as called. This program which was planned for since the >eighties is expected to cost US$ 300 billion was to weaken the US >budgetary. Therefore, the US politicians where doing their utmost >efforts to convince many Asian, Middle Eastern and European nations >to join in and sharing the cost under the lie of mutual defense >system. Most of those nations have objected the offer. Russia fought >very hard to deactivate the US efforts in this respect realizing >that they would be the first to be striked. The US excuse of "to >protect the US and allied countries against terrorist and missile >attacks" from uncertain regimes like Iran, Iraq, Syria and China or >Pakistan, was denied by all parties. The words like "who would >threaten America and how" were widely heard. > >Now America is proved vulnerable after this attack. Europe and NATO >is back to their blind support to the US. Investigation will prove >from one time to another that Osama Bin Ladin, the Palestinians, >Iraq, Sudan, Syria, Iran, etc are involved and therefore the >international ground and cover is there to strike back. Ask yourself >a question, was America able to launch a strike on Iraq for an >example without a wide range of anger to face from the world?. The >plan for a strike against Iraq was present since the UN disarmament >committee left Iraq 2 years ago, but postponed as it lacked the >international support and cover. > >What happened as the Americans explained was an act of declaring the >war against the USA. Therefore America will have the legal rights to >track down the responsible and punish. The process will take years >and years and America has given itself the right to punish the >nations that will approve harbored, trained or financed those >terrorist by military and economic actions. How many nations will be >subject to US military punishments and how many countries will face >international embargoes and economic sanctions in the coming years, >God knows. > >We conclude that America will be able to achieve all of its goals >with no objections and will have more controls over the world. Then >the question is "was it worth the risk". The answer is definitely >YES. >
It doesnt matter if you are hiding in a cave if the air around you rises to 1000 degrees. I know back in WWII we had some pretty impressive napalm weaponry. What kind of 'napalm bombs' might we have now? It would do the same job as a 'clean nuke,' unless they want to use a neutron bomb instead of a thermalnuke.
Could the neutrons of a neutron bomb even penetrate that much rock?
Our country is the only one to have used nuclear weaponry against another. I hope that is over and done with; I had thought that since the cold war we had learned our lesson.
"Never, never suspect the dreams within the dreams of dreaming children." ~The Amazon Quartet
The Bible is full of contradictions like the one pointed out.
Intelligent people just don't use it as moral guidance, because you can find whatever suits you there.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Don't just complain about infringements upon your civil liberties. Send a brief, polite letter with a VERY CLEAR MESSAGE to your elected representatives. The U. S. House of Representatives maintains a "write your rep" service at http://www.house.gov/writerep/. Compose your letter and send it off. Your voice counts more than you think; those who speak up are generally considered to represent the thoughts of as many as 50 people who think the same but don't necessarily speak up.
The Daily Build
Sikhs have fought Muslims from a time before even US was born... why are they now being targeted? Sikhs are not muslims they wear turbans n look like them... can someone educate Americans about this? And I heard some Hindu temple was attacked in Toronto... what's up with that??? Does someone need to be told that Hinduism != Islam???? Although I wouldn't blams the Canadians too much... that artic winter must freeze their brains and make them brain dead anyway... :D
Its bit amusing.
First they had to fight Osama because he was a "friend" of the USA, in the Afghan war!!
Now they are asked to fight him yet again. This time because he is the "enemy" of the USA.
I suppose Russian wont know wether to cry or laugh.
Voltaire: God is dead.
God: Voltaire is dead!
for an account of the massacre in the independent nespaper (u.k.), see: http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=54872 .
according to an israeli government commission of inquiry (the kahan commission):
The Commission determined that the massacre at Sabra and Shatilla was carried out by a Phalangist unit, acting on its own but its entry was known to Israel ... the Commission asserted that ... Mr. Sharon was found responsible for ignoring the danger of bloodshed and revenge when he approved the entry of the Phalangists into the camps as well as not taking appropriate measures to prevent bloodshed.
the report is archived at the jewish virtual library at us-israel.org http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/kahan.htm l.
pretty much on the anniversary of the massacre, sharon, protected by by israeli soldiers, visited a shrine in jerusalem contested by arabs and jews.
now sharon is prime minister of israel.
The US government has performed nuclear test detonations within the central US. My grandmother talks about how every now and then she could look outside the window and see a mushroom cloud in the distance. Fortunately, she lived upwind. However, most of the people in the closest city downwind are either dead or dying of cancer.
In the US we already know what the effects of nuclear fallout are; we have had it for years.
"Never, never suspect the dreams within the dreams of dreaming children." ~The Amazon Quartet
Except that it was part of the law of Moses and that law was ended when Jesus Christ came. At least understand the book you're quoting.
//m
No, I'm not making this up.
So much for the Bible.
This hasn't been in any bible I've read. Either you made it up or you're dyslexic.
//m
Never before have I read something so self-serving.
"The British assaults were astoundingly savage"
Yeah, this is the same thing, alright - let's just forget that the war of 1812 was started by the americans. To remember that the US invaded Canada with no provocation, and that they did just the same things to their enemies, well that would just be inconvenient.
To America, Re: the War of 1812.
You invaded another country with no reason. You got your asses kicked. Get over it.
In the mountains, as in Afghanistan, the energy of a nuclear blast would
be deflected upward.
If you have ever seen the map documenting blast damage in the area of the
Japanese city of Nagasaki, you would be surprised at the effect that local
topographical features such as narrowing valleys and mountain passes can
have in concentrating the blast energy from one of these "puffs", even at
seemingly faraway locations.
as W keeps claiming again and again, when will we turn the other cheek? In these days of heightened emotions, the only Bible passages invoked seem to be the ones involving swords. Very little mention of the sermon on the mount, or of Jesus re-attaching the ear that Peter lopped off, or of turning the other cheek, or of giving the shirt off the back. Jesus went on again and again how his kingdom is not of this earth, yet here in the US we very much enjoy our kingdom of this earth.
We pick and choose which parts of the Bible suit us. I have nothing against self defence or preservation of power/peace/etc, but let's drop the bullshit and stop pretending that we're doing it in the name of the Lord.
My God. That's depressing. I want to cry now. Somebody please mod this up.
The question is whether this is possible or practical. I am not an American citizen, although I have lived in the U.S. for a number of years. I follow the news quite closely and am as aware as anyone of the reasons behind America's foreign policy, current and historical. I've had many discussions with non-Americans about America's foreign policy, and the most common thread I see is ignorance. Criticism is often based on the most simplistic view of things: ignoring or being unaware of differences in circumstances between Rwanda and Kosovo, for example.
People often expect the U.S. to play a major role as arbiter and enforcer of human rights worldwide, and get upset when it does not do so; at the same time, they get upset when the U.S. defends its own interests or those of its allies. The U.S. has foreign policy goals which have been shaped by centuries of history dating back to the World Wars and even to the Revolutionary War. Its goals mostly make sense, when taken in context, and it has lived up to them quite admirably. However, this will never satisfy ignorant armchair politicians.
Perhaps the U.S. needs to mount a major propaganda campaign outside its borders, to explain and justify its foreign policy and other aspects of its impact on the rest of the world. But ironically, this goes against U.S. foreign policy: it doesn't actively interfere in other countries unless its vital national interests are at stake. Perhaps there is a national interest issue here, if anti-U.S. sentiment is truly running so high.
However, an important question is whether opinions which derive from sources such as European socialists, for example, really have any bearing whatsoever on the opinions of, say, the people of Palestine or right-wing Islamic groups, people who either have actually been the receiving end of U.S. military action, or feel that they are affected by it. The U.S. could market itself till the cows come home and change the mind of every soft-headed European socialist, and it probably wouldn't make a difference to the real problem.
I have read this thread, most of it, and cant help miss the point that many of the apparently civlised people among us are as fundanmentalist as Osama is?
He did the attack or not, i cant decide, but surely he has brought out the latent fanaticism in the entire world.
sorry folks , just because you use LINUX or know C++, or jave, doesnot mean that you are any different from the people who made the black-Tuesday.
Voltaire: God is dead.
God: Voltaire is dead!
Telecom Paper (Holland) gives this English-language summary:
It disturbs me greatly to see so many apparently intelligent people here whining for peaceful solutions to the present problem. Wake up! It won't happen because it won't work.
At the core of these terror attacks were people, ideologically driven, irrational individuals who believe that America (and Israel) is the greatest evil on the planet. They are not with us anymore, but many of their compatriots are. Those in the attack spent YEARS preparing for their mission. Every day spent in preparation, firming their resolve. They could not be deterred from achieving their objective. They were not rational people.
Ask yourselves, what would appease the groups behind the terrorists? Elimination of Israel? Elimination of the United States perhaps? In short, only the genocide of hundreds of millions of people. Being one of those who would have to be eliminated, I don't think that I would advocate this solution.
The truth is, there is nothing that can be given to the terrorist, or the governments that sponsor them, which would appease them. Nothing!
Tony Blair has just reminded the main-stream media of how well appeasement worked in the 1930's against Hitler's Nazi machine. The same holds today, because we can't give the terrorists what they want.
Also, you non-American folk out there who are convinced that this is a US problem, how many of your countrymen were killed in Tuesday's attack? I would wager that nearly a quarter of those poor souls lost were not Americans, but foreign nationals doing business there. This may turn out to be the largest loss of life in terrorist attacks for six or seven different countries.
Earlier this week, I had thought that an ironic twist of this situation would actually achieve peace in the mid-east. In building a coalition, Bush wanted Arafat on board with the PLO. To get this, Israel (which appeared to be pumped-up and a bit righteous after the attack) would be thumped (have aid decreased) by the US, for attacking Palestinians.
To get Israel and the PLO on the same team in a war against terrorism, you would need some severe concessions. Israel would have to agree to not attack any Palestinians, where the consequence would be elimination of all US aid (guaranteeing a short lifespan for the state). Also, the Palestinians would have to agree to not attack any Israelis, or be considered a terrorist state, and be wiped off the face of the planet. Unfortunately, as I said before, these are not rational people, and this peace agreement would probably stand for about an hour before one or both sides would falter.
-- Len
Okay, I've asked this many times, I'll ask it again.
..[was] an inevitable response to the targetting of civilian populations by the USA and her lap dogs
When has this happened?
Bombing of a hospital in Africa has been already debunked, since the very article that mentioned the link with the terrorists to the US said they *were* supported by the US and are now henchmen of Bin Laden.
Another was confused and said that Clinton's airstrikes bombed a hospital, when it really was a pharmaceutical plant that also has ties to Bin Laden (heck the lawyer for the plant is the same lawyer for the Saudi banker accused of imbezling funds for Bin Laden.)
I'm dying to hear when or where these attacks are. Just think of this like the Amazing Randy when he debunks phsycic surgury. Just show me one case where it really happened, that all!
Steve Kirsch suggests a number of techniques for putting a plane in "safe mode" that auto-lands it's self in case of emergency ... hijacking or even the Payne Stuart situation.
Well, I guess it'll be a good thing the plane will land itself in Safe Mode, because it'll be damn-near impossible for the pilot and copilot to see anything on the cockpit displays when they're in shite-resolution 256-color mode!
1) There have been many repoorts via other new agencys confirming the palestinian celebrations
2) What the claim to be celebrating (in 1991 according to the excuses) actaully happened in 1990.
How many non-suicidal hijackers have flown planes into the WTC and Pentagon?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
So... were these guys reaffirming how evil and corrupt america was and how they were going to be Allah's instruments of retribution, or were they really hand picked, brainwashed and conditioned to carry out this act for reasons they themselves probably never had a clue to, i.e. some Die Hard or James Bond type of plot?
I'm pretty sure the longer we see the investigation go on that the money trail will lead somewhere. Moving around large amounts of money is pretty tricky, with today's financial tracking.
As for what possibly comes closest to this theme, IMHO is the end of Tom Clancy's Debt of Honor, where a distraught and angry pilot takes out the most of the US government by crashing a jet into the capitol building.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
History tells us of an Airline called Egypt Air that had pilot that killed him self along with a large number of other people (including friends of my parents).
None of the solutions people have proposed about automated systems deal with the situation where the pilot decides to hit a target close to a flight path. At 500mph, every major airport is
very close to potential targets. How about the case of going from cruise altitude to a power dive. Starting at 500mph at 5 miles up it won't take long to hit something under the flight path.
What might help is more flight deck crew (most planes these days have 2 and are often flown enroute with one person while the other rests)
Better doors would be a good start. At altitude the plane already has sleeping gas. Its a little knob on the pressureizaion system. Drop the air pressure to 18,000 ft and most people just pass out unless they trained at a high mountain camp in Afghanistan.
The most effective thing: throw the airport manager and security managment from Logan in prison for the rest of their lives. That would make damn sure that no other airport manager would ever skimp on security again. He broke the law and he should do the time. 14 CFR is clear about such things.
You can't translate a word in a foreign alphabet ! The best one can do is transliterate.
this site ministry of interior has been hacked
"Science will win because it works." - Stephen Hawking
We did not give any assistance to the Taliban this year. Here is a link to info from the State department. It explicitly says that none of the money is going to the Taliban. It is being given to the UN and other NGO's, and consists almost entirely of bags of wheat.
Now, I'm not arguing that we haven't supported some really bad governments in the past. I would even argue that quite a few of the governments getting military aid today shouldn't be (Columbia and Israel to name two). But, giving wheat to the UN to distribute to starving Afghans is not the same as supporting the Taliban. Robert Scheer should be ashamed of himself for just plain lying in that article. And you should check your facts.
Ya'll chekc out what I found in a newsgroup this mornin. I thought it was funny as all hell and had to print a copy to put up in the shop... http://www.geocities.com/raptor1113a/usama/binlade n.html
-- Game Developers: Stop porting badly-textured games from crappy console systems!
When the U.S. starts bombing, Osama Bin Ladin will change his cry from "holy war" to "HO-ly SH*T!"
Here is the correct link:
State Department Press Release
Install an impenetrable door between the cabin and the cockpit. Isolate the cockpit's atmosphere from the cabin's. Install knock-out gas emitters in the cabin. Keep gas masks and a security officer in the cockpit.
Upon terrorist attack, release knock-out gas and handcuff the terrorist(s) inside a soundproof room in the back of the cabin. Then filter the cabin air to remove the gas. Celebrate.
(Optionally, a speaker and video camera could be installed in the "prison" area so that passengers could take turns berating the would-be terrorist.)
"Saddam Hussein cavorts with terrorists."
-Dave
The idea is that you nuke (carpet bomb/smart bomb/sanction) host states until they fear you more than they hate you, and then they wo;; proactively police themselves and suppress the Osama bin Ladens of this world faster than you are creating them.
It's an abhorent and risible idea, but there it is.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
those who feel, like me, that a non-violent response makes sense, might be interested in this petition for a non-violent response.
and please, if you've found any others, please post them here!
note, i'm certainly not saying that the perpetrators of this attack should be allowed to go free. any terrorist group must be removed from circulation. but bombing afghanistan will only increase the cycle of violence; if not today, then tomorrow when we can even less afford it. and do we really want to see even more innocent people suffer? whether on this continent or another, it's all the same thing...
you are funny.
;)
Seven Million of them live in USA. Nuke them
And hey, you are no different from OSAMA. You just dont live in Afganistan
I wonder if the US is so into marketing, that they will paint logos on the bombs as well as little sayings...
ie.
KFC - We do chickens right.
McDonalds - Suurrreee we love to see you smile.
Taco Bell - I think you need a bigger box.
Sprite - Obey your thirst (for revenge)
Atari - All you base are belong to us.
-Alphabet
Yes. The only point, which I did not make very well, was that any damage might be such that it would be possible for guerillas to continue fighting. Because the guerillas have no way to take radiation measurements, they would not have any knowledge that they were at risk of radiation damage, and, as someone commented earlier, they would not die immediately of radiation exposure.
I had hoped to make the point that is not possible to stop war in the mountains with nuclear bombs.
The ONLY purpose in this is to demonstrate a few of the HUGE number of negative side-effects of war. I think stronger, better ways can be found to be powerful and to assure security, if only there were an initiative to do the research.
What Should be the Response to Violence?
Bush's education improvements were
There are a number of posters claiming that they "understand why the terrorists would do such a thing." They list reasons why such a horrific event is justified against the United States.
Everyone has a right to their own opinion, of course, but now is simply not the time to express it. What's going on now is akin to standing over the coffin of a rape/murder victim at her funeral and loudly exclaiming "I can see why she deserved it." It's not funny, it's not appropriate and it's certainly not respectful to the thousands of people that gave their lives on the 11'th.
Hindsight is 20/20 and all that, but most if not all those operations were seen at the time as crucial operations to eliminating the threat of Russion control of the areas in question. THAT was the objective, and at the time, funding/training local rebels was an avenue to that end.
**>>BELCH
In war, it is said, the first casualty is truth. The article linked to above by Caleb Carr draws a comparison between the War of 1812 and the terrorist attack on American symbols:
In short, the British gratuitously destroyed important structures in Washington (and killed many innocent people) because those buildings were obnoxious symbols of American values whose spread and propagation the London government feared would spell the disempowerment of their own.
I hesitate to disagree with so imminent an historian, but he cites none of the usual evidence for this assertion, like orders, documents, speeches. In their absence, one does not need to know much history of the period to doubt his thesis.
England was itself a democracy and the model for America's institutions. England's parliament was at the time as potent a symbol as any they might destroy 3,000 miles across the ocean.
The causes of the war had nothing to with such concerns. They involved England's control of the seas during its war with France and impressment of sailors on American ships.
America invaded Canada during the war with some of the same ravages as Carr describes in the British counterattack. In that context, the British actions can be seen more as conventional reprisals.
After the war, American relations with England were fairly cozy, including England's failure to support the South in the Civil War despite some strong economic reasons to do so.
One would hate to think that Carr was deliberately distorting history to bolster America's policies today, but if he did, he wouldn't be the first.
Actually its no one 's fault,...the arab countries have felt this way for 1500 years that the west was trying to dominate their way of life. In some respects, they are simply trying to retaliate aganest those who try and hurt them. (bugger if I know how we hurt them except for the formation of isreal.
Right now it's just tasteless....seriously. Grow up.
I've just watched the whole program. I don't think it was unrepresentative of the general mood of the British public. There seemed to be a broad mix of opinions in the audience, including some who were very obviously extremely pro-USA.
I think the reaction to this program is possibly due to a cultural difference between the US and Britain. The British tend to be very open about their views when it comes to politics. The Prime Minister has to put up with demonstrations practically everywhere he goes and no matter what he does, for instance. It's just the British way.
I may be wrong, but American's may not be so used to strong criticism of themselves and their leaders. It certainly looked like Phil Lader took the audience's comments very personally, in a way which I'm sure the people in the audience never intended.
I'm really not sure how this will pan out, but i just read that Afghan leaders are debating whether or not to simply give up America's most wanted to stop a retalitory attack.
is that a solution? Will terrorism be stopped by the extridition of one man? Or will the demand for an eye for an eye lead us to attack regardless?
it also mentioned that they were flag burning again. Where the hell are they finding these flags?!!? I was shopping all weekend and didn't see any for sale!
It's as simple as typing just a few Unix commands:
/bin/laden /bin/laden /mnt/afghanistan /bin/laden` /bin/laden /bin/laden /bin/laden /bin/laden
$ who didthis?
$ whois guilty?
$ finger
$ talk alot
$ flex "america's muscles"
$ make threats
$ expect taliban_to_give_up
$ cd
$ locate `basename
$ find
$ nice doggy
$ bash
$ kill
$ shred
$ dig grave.for.bin.laden
$ killall `look around`
$ faillog
$ pax americana
Go tell Kuwait how terrible it is that we were bombing Arabs. Really. Of course it's fucking terrible! But I am not sure it's worse than the shit Iraq was already trying to pull...and given time, they were going to be a nuclear power. I am damn glad they got cut down when they did, as Saddam has proven time and time again - he's fucking nuts.
Hello!
I've noticed that you've not mentioned Orange Ribbon Campaign Against Terrorism. It is at http://www.comnet.com.br/or/
[]s
Pablo
All i was saying is that the US is in no way as angelic as they would like to appear... you can't rightfully condemn one nation for doing near the same thing you've done, thats just hyprocitical period. an di will clairify, i am *not* defending the sicko's who pulled tusday's attack, i'm as outraged as the next guy, but i cant swallow all this propaganda without choking. yes i want to see whoever did this pay, and pay dearly, but i also want to see another reaction, one of change. One where the american government finally stands up and admits it's wrongs in the past and change their forign policy. The more you try to hide behind lies and redirect the puplic's attention to someone ELSE's crimes, the more you look liek a worthless hyprocrite (to those of us able to anaylize current events without being swayed with the rest of the sheep)
but all this is oppinion, i'll never have enough education to be able to properly anaylize everything thats going on, but i can't help but pipe in my 0.02 when i see so many people eating up the PR and missinformation.
sorry
So go find something more entertaining.
I truly wish there were a hell for these fuckers to rot in. Call me flamebait, I don't really care.
Yes, enlistment inquiries SOARED the day after the attack (Wedensday Sept. 12), to something like four times the normal level. This is true across the country, not (just?) in New York. Here's a link to an AP Story which was linked Wednesday on the Drudge Report, which has had very good links to breaking stories throughout this whole ugly affair.
Interesting. Do you have a link for that story? That would kind of disprove the "hardline Ismalic fundamentalists" line.
Female Prison Rape in NY
I was discussing the rights of Muslims in Israel. The original asshole starts mentioning "white slavery" and prostitution. Tell me how one relates to the other. An attack which is off the point is not valid.
And since he started the ad homenim attacks, I thought I'd continue them.
-jon
Remember Amalek.
Let's terrorize the terrorists: use Octal bombs.
Yes, the weapons you saw at the beginning and the end of "Outbreak" do exist. They are non-nuclear, but deal the damage similar to a small-yield tactical nuke and provide a lovely mushroom cloud.
Let them think that they're being nuked.
If we truly could arm our citizens and train them to use these arms effectively. Problems like this wouldn't exist.
Sure, the terrorists would have weapons, but so would everyone else. Of course depressurization of the cabin at 30k feet would suck, but they do have neat little masks that drop down.
If our society was allowed the freedom to train everyone in the responsible use and ownership of a firearm (see Sweden, I believe where it is required each home have an rifle for civil defense) alot of the problems go away.
The key words are responsible and training. Individuals need to be responsible and trained in the proper use of a firearm (which is really just a tool like a hammer, or fire for that matter) to help encourage people from getting out of line.
Of course you might disagree, but that's why this is America and it is OK to disagree.
regards...
It weakens your arguments when you are found out!
I should've amend my usage of "irrational" with the qualifier "as viewed by western culture". Although I agree morally with your summary and solution of your last paragraph, I must correct either mis-understanding or blatant falsehoods in your post.
Starting with your chronographically earliest reference, WWI and adding our own US Civil War, I agree. Punishing the people afterwards does little good, it festers anger and distrust. I was refering to Neville Chamberlain's attempt to appease to Hitler in the mid 1930's with the invasion of Poland. Chamberlain hoped to achieve peace with Germany by having Hitler agree not to expand any further West. We all know how well that worked.
As to the "...all the thousands of civilians that have died in our bombings in Afghanistan and East Africa in our futile attempts to take out bin Laden," I believe that death toll stands in the tens at most. Actually, it is one unfortunate night watchman in Sudan and about twenty in one of Bin Laden's encampments in Afghanistan, not thousands.
I will not touch the topic of Israel, as I am conflicted, and do not approve of some of their actions.
It is not the fault of the U.S. that humanitarian aid and medical supplies are kept from the children of Iraq. Such things supplied by U.N. peace-keepers have been routinely confiscated by the Iraqi army.
This brings me to a topic that I am actually fearful of bringing up, as you will see why in a moment. The government of Iraq has defiantly progressed in its plans for biological weapons. It will never follow the Geneva convention of "Humane" warfare (if there is such a thing), which bans the use of both chemical and biological agents.
A company that I formerly worked for, a manufacturer of scientific and medical equipment, received a rather large order in 1998. It was from the government of Iraq, ordering 800-900 mid-sized and large sized incubators (refrigerator sized). To put this in perspective, this single order was close to a year's production for the entire world-wide market for these incubators. These devices are not for any human (post-natal) incubation, but for bacterial and viral culturing, and can be used for no other purpose.
Many people at my facility were conflicted. Locally, our economy was very poor, and passing on the order would mean layoffs. The higher-ups, looking for the quick money, were looking to sell them through Germany, if the commerce department didn't approve the sale. Clinton's dept. of Commerce wasn't known for their moral fortitude, and it did approve the sale. After the sale was completed and delivered, Iraq ordered enough spare parts to completely rebuild 1/3 of the incubators that they bought!
I haven't had many nights of restful sleep since learning of this event. I've only told a few close friends of my worries, as I needed my job. Even though I am still under NDA, I feel that the recent events warrant a break in my silence.
-- Len
"The Suffering Find Their Champions, and They Are Not All Gandhis", at here. I can't express this sentiment any better. Those who are ready to join organizations like bin Laden's suffer from opression, whether Israeli or of a corrupt and totalarian government. And their oppressors receive massive US government backing (Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia).
This also another US policy backfiring- the US fomented (with Pakistani, Saudi and other nation's intelligence services) a pan-Islamist movement to combat the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Once the Soviet spectre was gone, the movement turned it's sights on the US.
US government role is to advance interests of our nation and NOT avoid being "hypocritical" or being righteous to others etc ...
Sometimes, our interests are simply incompatible with what other folks want and we end up with some sort of conflict.
Sometimes it is prudent to avoid it and sometimes it is not.
What are you criticizing are occasional lapses of judgment and not deliberate long standing policy of pissing of as many people as possible.
There is no need to fundamentally change anything.
The attack seems to have been a well thought-out plan that took a number of years to orchestrate and took our nation by surprise. Retaliation for the sake of retaliation does not achieve our goals of setting back terrorism decades. That is why we are taking our time. There is nothing gained by rushing an attack, and as our nation investigates what and who is responsible we are able to get a better picture of who should be at the receiving end of our billion dollar explosions. Furthermore, by gaining global support in our efforts to retaliate against teh monstors that did this to our nation, we're aligning our nation with nations whose relations may have been strained in the past by coming together around the common belief that terrorism will not be tolerated. Attacking a hidden enemy on our own does not allow us to advance this country's global relations that are crucial to this world's future.
... it's not a union/non-union issue. Volunteers are being turned away because the number of people that came out to volunteer was so high. I live in NY and the lines of people willing to help were hours long. Many of them were given tasks to achieve ... everything from setting up barriers around the city to holding the hand of somebody that needed somebody to talk to, but it's understandable that not everybody can be at ground-zero ... a very dangerous and unstable mess of metal, wires, fire, and death.
... but I believe that the restraint that has been shown over the past week will turn out to be the wisest decision this administration has made to date.
Regarding the volunteers
To abandon the flag, and the beliefs of our nation because we're proceeding with both caution and prudence is a terrible shame
For those who are considering calling me a racist just look at a few facts.
First, Lincoln had said that he never intended on ending slavey? Why would the south succeed to keep their slaves then?
The north was however charging astronomical prices for goods that, thanks to various reasons, could be gotten from Britain cheaper. Lincolns answer? Raise the tax on imports to some very large number, 42 or 47% IIRC. THAT is a reason to succeed.
Next, less than 7 percent of all the south had slaves or even had the hope of ever being able to afford a slave. Seems kinda sillly for 10's of thousands of men to fight for something that they would never benefit for, and ignore the high taxes which were affecting them alot.
Furthermore FIVE northern states still have slavery enacted and wanted to keep slavery enacted. Why in the blue hell would their governers not have joined the south, if slavery was the main issue?
Next Lincoln said on several occasions during the war that he did not "want to make this a war about slavery". How could he make it a war about slavery, if it already was one?
Also the emancipation proclamation (which only freed slaves in non-northern controlled southern states) was viewed by various foreign governments as an attempt to do what Lincoln said he didn't want to do, to make it a war on slavery, and villify the south, which would make them drop their support. The British (and French I beleive) didn't buy it.
There are dozens of facts just like that which say slavery wasn't the main issue of the war. I'm certainly not condoning slavery, or racism of any kind. But the fact that the southern states wanted to keep slavery was really not a very large issue in the war.
Besides slavery flew under the American flag for something like 220 years more than it did under the rebel flag. And as far as the Klans use of the flag, the Klan has another symbol they use even more often, the cross. Should be ban crosses and call all ministers racist?
All of this is actually probably a good example of the media spin that is put on modern day wars, such as the example of the guy who went to japan and said they speak alot of the horrible nuclear bombs, but very little of Pearl Harbor or any reason WHY we dropped the horrible nuclear bombs. I'm sure the US is just as guilty, but as others have said, no is not the time to be saying things like "we deserved it".
Keep your head in the sand like that, and you'll probably end up with a jetliner ramming up your ass. Again.
This is *great* need to fundamentally change *many* things. This event didn't happen in a vacuum.
Either things change, or history will repeat itself.
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
And DeathBunny writes: "According to a pair of articles at robots.net, a group of researchers from the University of South Florida are using six "shape shifting" robots to help locate survivors of the World Trade Center tragedy in NY. " They're running Linux, too.
"Oh goody. Robots are crawling throught bloddy rubble looking for human remains, but, IT USES LINUX! Whoooooooo!"
Pathetic.
It sure is nice to look at that photo album and see the whole world taking notice and acknowledging the tragedies of this past week. However, if you read the article by the Iranian film maker, you realize that the deaths in the US were pretty few compared to what's happening in Afghanistan. I have to wonder when the world will wake up to see some of the greater atrocities that are happening around the world. I should also point out to those of you who are calling for war, that the deaths involved would be much greater than what we've seen in the US this past week.
--
"Karma can only be portioned out by the cosmos." - Homer Simpson [1F10]
How many non-suicidal hijackers have flown planes into the WTC and Pentagon?
Well smart ass, try reading what I was responding to if my message doesn't make sense to you!
The person I was responding to implied that dealings with hijackers should continue on as they had in the past, because "90%" of hijackings end peacefully. Obviously this is ludicrous in wake of what has happened, because we must now assume that anyone hijacking a large vessel means to use it as a guided missile.
Once we institute rules to deal with these types of "suicide" situations, you will not see NON-suicidal hijackers take over large vessels, because they will realize it is pointless to do so. (Since we will now treat them as suicidal, and act accordingly.)
Think before you post next time...
"And like that
"Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels -- and the first refuge of politicians."
(Don't know who said it, but it has the flavor of Ambrose Bierce.)
DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.
"They have an anti-litter slogan in Bush's home state that says 'Don't mess with Texas'."
I didn't know they had that saying in Connecticut.
Just as an example, estimates differ, but 400-2000 innocent civilians were killed when the US invaded Panama to arrest a suspected drug smuggler some years back.
Beside the obviously illegal invasion of a soverign country and the breach of jurisdiction, Panama now has more drug traffic than ever.
for all of you shouting "bomb Afghanistan!!".
I don't know if it's allready posted but is a nice writing by an American/Afgan dude...
It's true as hell!!!
http://www.zmag.org/ansarycalam.htm
==
That's the time harvesters,that's the time to be care
get back all this people, so ostentatious and arrogan
Relax !. I am from India, we had similar incidents and in reaction to these, some very draconian laws were passed. However, in a few years, when the "excesses" of these laws came to light, these laws were then repealed.
As long as democracy is alive, there is no reason to loose hope.
Not so secret, eh? If anyone is aware of it, defeating it is simple.
Where did you hear that the USAF is under orders to shoot down planes that stray from their flight paths? That's even more far-fetched than thinking there are missile emplacements at the Pentagon. In other words, your argument is internally consistent, but based entirely on incorrect assumptions. Ergo, junk.
If you do something right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
He's just a Troll. He's not worth an ounce/milliliter of your concern
1.) Yes, I'm sure you're correct. There is not a single native English speaker who ever lived who pronounced Latin correctly.
2.) Gee, what a shocker, most people don't pronounce languages other than their own properly.
You're a fucking idiot.
Just started up after this whole thing.. great forums, pictures, etc..
I don not claim that this is the best way to win a war in Afghanistan. I do not even claim it will be the way we will use. But I submit that it would work and therefore it disproves your assertion that war in Afghanistan is unwinnable. For further disproof, you can look at the Russians who with a tax base smaller than New York City and using conscript troops have made tremendous gains against similar opponents in similar terrain in Chechnya.
1. Land airborne troops in areas controlled by the Northern Alliance (who has promised 15,000 fighters to assist us) to secure (and if neccessary build) airfields.
2. Bring in the 10th Mountain and the Interim Brigade Combat Team (they aren't supposed to be ready for deployment until Dec., tough they go as they are) and secure the valleys of Anti-Taliban groups (the Hazaras and many others will be glad to have us).
3. Start feeding and giving medical care to Afghans whose tribe cooperates with the U.S. Forces. Bring in the Corps. of Engineers to build them hospitals and schools and wells and dams. When other tribal leaders see that the U.S. will protect them from the Taliban and reward them with food, medical care, and infrastructure then more of the "fence sitters" will ask us to protect them. If it is true that "no nation is more than 3 meals away from a revolution" then most of Afghanistan has been due for a revolution for some time... but they have no means or strength to do so.
Just by dealing with the tribes that oppose the Taliban and will almost certainly welcome our attempts to depose them we can probably secure 50 to 60% of the nation. The Pashtoon (sp?) tribe and maybe a few others will not welcome us in, and will have to be dealt with by force; but that leave us with only about 6 to 8 million people to subdue by force, half of whom are "useless" (to the Taliban) women. How do you handle the portion of the country that won't welcome us in?
4. Mass troops near the 1st village. Tell the local leaders that if they join us we will offer them protection and aid, if they oppose us we will destroy the entire village. One of two things will happen. First, the rest of the tribe can gather their troops to oppose us en-masse... which is exactly the kind of target we are used to fighting, in which case we can destroy their resistance in one swoop. Or they can each try to defend their own little valleys and villages. In which case we can concentrate our forces against them one at a time.
5. If they join, then move to the next village. If they do not, then roll into the village. Shoot anyone who resists. Evict everyone from the village. Shoot anyone who resists. Herd the people into a holding area. Bring in the bulldozers and destroy every building and every wall in the village. Bring in the cropdusters and spray-trucks and sow the soil with salt (or actually some modern defoiliant that we have the technology to neutralize after the war). Kill all their livestock. We have only killed the people who fought, but we have suddenly turned the entire village into starving refugees. Let them flee to the next town.
6. Leave the area. There is no reason to hold the ground, since it is now worthless.
7. Show up at the next village and repeat. Eventually villages will start to capitualte and be rewarded, or we will get very good at demolishing villages. I would hate it if we had to resort to this level of warfare for a protracted period of time, but the Russians in Chechnya show that it can be done successfully. If they can do it successfully then so can we.
This strategy relies heavily on both the carrot and the stick. A lot of tribes will side with us immediately because the Taliban has been systematically oppressing and exterminating them. Others who are politically neutral will join us when they see that they will be rewarded and protected form the Taliban (and we make it clear that unlike the Soviets we are NOT here to stay... not too difficult considering America's existing reputation of having a short attention span). The stick is reserved only for the tribes who will not join, therby reducing the need for combat.
It is unlikely that the enemy will be dumb enough to present us with a massed target to wipe out, so the key to the opperation becomes security. Defense of allied tribes will be along their borders, which tend to be natural defensive lines, and with the aid of the allied tribe. By destroying the villages completely (so that no stone sits on any other) we do not need to spread our troops out to cover "conquered" territory in the opposing tribes areas; concentration of forces will enhance security during offensive opperations.
The Taliban and Al Qaeda will fight back by trying to commit more terrorist attacks in the U.S. or by attacking supporting units in "secure" areas. There is only so much that we can do to prevent such things, but even if we lose thousands of troops to such terror or guerilla attacks, what is that compared to the likelihood that they will commit more WTC style attacks... or worse use chemcial or biological terrorist weapons. I think managing the refugees (who would provide "cover" for the movement of terrorists) and aerial recon even over "secure" areas will be needed to reduce (but not eliminate) such attacks on "rear" units.
This is NOT Vietnam. There are no Soviets or ChiComs that will help the Taliban. The corrupt government in place is NOT a colonial relic that we are allied with, they are the enemy. Lastly, this will not be a limited action where we "support" someone else's fight. It will be a classic use force and destruction to compel the tribal leaders to surrender (or else watch as their tribes are reduced to a scattered band of refugees, combined with rewards for those who do collaborate.
8. When the opposing tribes surrender, immediately begin providing them with food and aid for all the refugees we created. Build them new villages.
9. Build them a national infrastructure during the occupation so that afterwards they can become a part of the "community of free nations"
10. Arrange to maintain airbases there with our new allies that will come in handy if China gets expansionist.
11. Complain that Afghani companies are underselling American Industry and that cheap Afghani programmers who learned to code in the schools we built are now stealing jobs from American programmers.
We WILL have to suffer through more terrorist attacks both there and amoung the support units "in country." But we will suffer far more casualties if we give them time to grow bigger and show all the other anti-U.S. groups the world that they can get away with attacking us.
I may be of interest to Slashdotters to know that when I tried to send an email to Mohsen Makhmalbaf who wrote the brilliant, heart rending piece on Afghanistan, Yahoo sent me an email this morning telling me that his email adress was blocked.
I don't know if this is Yahoo's move or the US government's, but I can assure you that as a Canadian I am outraged.
With this in mind I want to assure Yahoo that I will never again access their site under any cicumstances untill I have a written apology and a guarantee that this will never happen again.
If this is an example of US consensus building then the effort is doomed to failure.
The leaders of the South travelled throughout that region before the war arguing that slavery - the foundation of their economy and society - was under threat from political forces in the North. Meanwhile, the "states rights" argument came from the North, not the South. The South, due to the apportionment of two senators to each state regardless of population, and the granting of each state with one extra congressman beyond those provided in proportion to population, had disproportionate power in the federal government, and were using that power to, for instance, pass federal legislation to prevent those in the North from aiding escaped slaves. There are a number of quotes from before the war started of Jefferson Davis and associates proclaiming that the central issue was precisely slavery. Lincoln indeed had a broader view of history, which included the denial by the South of states rights for the North. The notion that the South had been for rather than against states rights before the war is a post-war fabrication, along with the claim that slavery wasn't precisely and explicitly what the South organized to defend. And yes, this was evil.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Indeed, and hear hear.
Apparently the lameness filter wants me to add some additional commentary, but I can't think of anything to add that hasn't already blown the original guy's argument (or lack of argument) out of the water.
Instead of seeing the attack as a Pearl Harbour, why not see it as a Titanic.
It would be deadly stupid, bordering on criminal, to build anymore building that couldn't be totally evacuated in an emergency in under five minutes.
I think you're both half right...
I don't think any airline pilot will ever voluntarily hand over controls to the aircraft, regardless of what's happening to passengers, or what threats/promises are made. The possible consequences are way too ghastly.
But, I think those pilots will bargain with the terrorists, offering to fly to a specific airport, or communicate with negotiators on the ground.
You can't pass up the possibility that the terrorist might not want to kill everyone, but the risk of thousands dead means you can't take any chances.
"Hijackers in the cockpit"
The comments about preventing the passengers from rushing the cockpit is silly.
For starters, how is anyone going to know? Do you want people to rush the cockpit anytime an airplane has been ordered to circle the airport before landing?
Then, what's the chance that in 300 passengers, who are barely screened, that you'll get a terrorist. Compare that to the chance that the carefully screened pilot will be, and that either the rest of the cockpit crew will be, or that he can overwhelm them.
You can't rule out the flight crew going crazy, but the odds are much lower.
Besides, any provision for the crew removing a terrorist pilot would also allow for the terrorists in the crew to remove the rightful pilot.
A steel door may have some flaws, and not prevent all problems, but I don't see how it prevents other security measures.
Not counting, of course, the untold number of people who died because the only pharmaceutical plant in Sudan was destroyed.
The system has failed you, don't fail yourself. --Billy Bragg
I'm not speaking for myself, but even if they hand over bin Laden, we'll still bomb the hell out of one or more countries. If we don't, our own people will claim that we are 'weak'. Make no mistake. People want blood, and they won't stop at anything less.
The system has failed you, don't fail yourself. --Billy Bragg
Call me cynical, but the administration, when the dust settles, will want to milk this for all its worth.
The system has failed you, don't fail yourself. --Billy Bragg
Interesting to note that while CNN did play the clips many times, Fox News(hah!) plays it all the time, 'cause they love jingoism....
The system has failed you, don't fail yourself. --Billy Bragg
We have proven in a court of law that he was behind the first WTC bombing. He's also attacked us several times. In the Cole situation he didn't take credit until much later.
Can he lie ? Hell yes, if it "helps" his cause.
Notice how some of the "Holy Warriors" drank and visited a strip club before dying, when women in their country can't even show their arms !!!
He has a little "exceiption clause" in his belief system, that says when you are fighting the infidels you must behave and act like them. I'm sure he has other clauses that allow him to sin. Keep in mind this guy and the perverted Taliban are the arbitrors of their own brand of Islam, so they can mold it and fit it to their needs.
- sigs are for wimps.
The ironic thing is, we say these things to make it palatable to ourselves, because if we actually came clean with our own people and told them why we do these things, they'd be pissed.
The system has failed you, don't fail yourself. --Billy Bragg
>No country in the world is willing or able to
>help Afghanistan. Perhaps Iraq would like to,
>but there is no way they can. Every other
>country is either neutral or aligning with the
>U.S. in supporting retaliatory, military
>strikes. But, unlike the Soviet invasion, there
>will be no-one to help them this time.
And that support, in form of weapons and skills, is still present in Afghanistan. Though certainly they have nothing except weapons and skills. Remember, weapons and skills were the main thing that was being supplied before - they didn't food, fuel or other other such.
>Regardless of whether or not Pakistan really
>wants to see the Taliban go down, Pakistan has
>sealed Afghanistan's borders, turned off their
>oil supply, and will allow attacks to be made
>from their territory. Pakistan knows this is not
>the time to oppose the U.S., and they would
>rather have Afghanistan as an enemy than the
>U.S. right now. Good choice.
This is a war against "terrorism" not afghanistan. But vagueness of this war comes because the particular parties involved - the so-called "afghani arabs" inside and outside Afghanistan,
>The Northern Aliance, the active opposition in
>Afghanistan, has been fighting the Taliban since
>it came to power. They are, themselves, Afghanis
>and have stated they would welcome an American
>attack against the Taliban. Not all of
>Afghanistan will be fighting us, just the
>Taliban.
This sounds like a rosy scenario, if all you wanted to do was elimenate the Taleban. Ten years of war may have "hardened" the troops but it's devestated them.
The problem is that the "Northern Alliance" is essentially cut from the same cloth as the Taleban. Ten years of year and CIA-terrorist training is produced armies of monsters. A proxy regime emerging out of a US proxy war wouldn't stay anymore loyal to the US than the Taleban has.
Just as much, the more the US stays in the region, the more it's presence has the ability to destabilize Pakistan. Remember Bin Laden turned against the US for occupying Meca - other folks will turn against the US during and after this.
The question isn't whether we could conquer afghanistan directly or indirectly, it's whether we could conquer and wind-up with fewer enemies than we started. And remember, every enemie is a potential terrorist. The WTC has done nothing except strengthen the image of terrorism as an effective tactic for those who can't do anything else against their enemies.
To actually eliminate a bad government would require the use of force, which wouldn't sit well with public opinion. Better to let their kids die then ours.
Incidentally, the 5000+ that died in the WTC attack are a drop in the bucket compared to the allegedly 1.5 million in Iraq the last few years. When the numbers get that high, it's time to stop playing the blame game and look for a real solution.
there was also a study done in the late 80's by the US Govt to develop more lethal nuclear tactics and designs for different types of nuclear weapons. (I think that a write-up was done in TIME).
One tactic was to decimate an entire valley, the weapon would be deployed at a lower altitude, and the fallout would be largely contained and directed by the mountains on either side, intensifying the lethality, and making the farmland which usually resides in the basin unfarmable for decades afterwards. (This would be extremely effective in California, by the way)
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
1st.It's in poor taste that people continually bash the U.S for it's "stupid people" and "horrible morality" It's diverging from the point of what terrorism brings all civilized people.2nd, I could give a rats ass about the Europeans or rest the worlds opinions. From a darwinain perspective, the fact of the matter is the U.S. is the biggest , baddest mofo on the planet, its hard believe that a bunch of dipshits could dominate the planet in our markets and military. Im essentially liberal and I do unserstand some of the atrocities we have committed (all countries have their own!) For a second put yourself in the perspective of an alien looking over the world, who has the most freedom, the most power (good or bad). face it, if this was a game of "risk" the U.S. has won. Secondly , some anonymous coward wrote how Linus in from Finland, and he only came to the U.S. for $$$$$, again who cares, who teh hell developed the UNIX system, surely not the finns? anyway, as much as I hate $MS, survival of the fittest, and they are winning. So beleive what you want! And by the way, Im and american CZECH, we are all foreigners if we are not native Indians!
It's great to see so many people here with their heads screwed on right to be able to think past blind vengence like the public media. What worries me is that every single article I have seen in the public reader (ie what the average person reads) have been talking about war and killing without trial. What's more, the online version of these sites don't allow people to comment. The public is being brainwashed into thinking that we should bomb the Taliban because we suspect they are harboring a person we suspect had something to do with the hijackers. Journalists are telling us we want to start WW3 on a suspicion, not any hard proof. World leaders are acting like we can stop any war we start with a switch. How can it be that there is not a voice of reason on a single mainstream media article?
It will take months to clear all the rubble. There are people still waiting to be rescued under those towers. How can they all be so intent to start a war when there are so many other things we have to deal with first?
So I tried to read the article by the Iranian filmaker and I'm left with the hope thathe doesn't write his own scripts. As a filmmaker maybe ehs great, as a writer he is very confusing.
He starts be decrying the negative images of Afghanistan but then he himself describes the country as an "old woamn' noone wants. he tells us that Iarnaian Doctors blame the Afghanis for beinbg the soruces of non-existant diseases and then, in the sentance following, tells us these same doctors are giving free Polio shots to Afghanis.
In short, I'm not sure what his thesis is. Is Afghanistan to be praised, pitied, or reviled?
The analysis was a historical perspective. It talked about parallels between the present time and the past. Israel as a country didn't exist during 1812 and thus is not mentioned in the article.
If you don't pay attention to history you'll be doomed to repeat it. Sometimes, you'll be doomed to repeat it anyways.
Analysis is "an examination of the component parts of a subject". It is simply not possible to do an intellectually honest "analysis" of the WTC disaster without examining the part played by the US policy towards Israel -- no matter what "perspective" you take.
Seastead this.
Attacking the Pentagon is an act of war, not a crime. And if you think individuals cannot prosecute a war, I think you should look up the Barbary Pirates. The US declared war on them, and they weren't a nation-state. Individuals very much can commit an act of war, especially when backed by nation-states, as is the case here. You talk about a free society, but Osama bin Laden does not live in such. He is not an American citizen, he is not subject to Constitutional guarantees of a trial. Also, it now seems that his organization is quite large enough to mean it when they declare war, which Osama bin Laden has explcitly done (he has declared a Jihad on the US).
So, it's war, not crime. Get it straight. Protest the war if you must, but do not deny the fact that the US is at war.
>>Our enemies in this war, by contrast, looked at them and saw -- still see -- the death of their own values, their own ways of life, their effective autonomy. Such perception breeds both malice and fear. Inside those buildings, the people behind this attack believe, is where the end of the societies they come from and the values that they live by was and is being planned (whether consciously or not), and there is where the erosion must be stopped. The terrorist obsession with the World Trade Center was, in this light, not irrational. In fact it was, viewed in the context of a war of cultures, entirely understandable.
But instead of breaking our way of life, they've only brought us closer together. IMO our sense of patriotism is stronger than ever, and we are now even more determined to continue with our way of life.
They may have knocked down those towers, but they have only.... dare I say it.... turned those they've killed into martyrs for our way of life.
pressure/grep
Microsoft Fucking Sucks!! Up The Penguins!!
You need eleven. Plus you forgot Sand Niggers.
Yeah, it is always easu to call for a change.
Itr is much harder to articulate what exactly is that we want to change and to what .
How the heck did a post with the word "sheep-fuckers" in it get modded up?
I'm the stranger...posting to
Not enough.
Once we get bin Laden, we should still fuck up the Taliban, just on general principles. We'll probably wind up doing it anyway, if the Taliban keep their promise to attack Pakistan for allowing us to use their country as a staging area. And I'm sure some fanatics will die by stupidly attacking our troops while they hunt down bin Laden's cronies/henchmen/what-have-you.
And as for bin Laden, the death penalty. And nothing quick and humane, either, fuck that! He should be executed in Madison Square Garden, in a way similar to the way his plan's victims died in the World Trade Center... tie him down to the floor, heat up a couple large steel girders to about 1000 degrees Fahrenheit, and lower them onto him... at the rate of about a half inch per minute. Put it on pay-per-view. Proceeds, of course, to the victims' families.
OK. I was waiting for someone to ask for it. I forgot that the versions that talk about drinking your own urine also talk about eating your own shit.
From the KJV version:
References to drinking urine and eating shit:
2 Kings 18:27 But Rab-shakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you.
Isaiah 36:12 But Rabshakeh said, Hath my master sent me to thy master and to thee to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men that sit upon the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?
The promise that god will rub shit in our faces unless we comply to his will:
Malachi 2:2-3 [2] If ye will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart, to give glory unto my name, saith the LORD of hosts, I will even send a curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings: yea, I have cursed them already, because ye do not lay it to heart.
[3] Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts; and one shall take you away with it.
Guess you've never read your Bible, huh?
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
One thing we should carefully consider is the fact that Afghanistan has never been taken. This is no mean feat, if you think about it. Just ask Ghengis Khan, the Persians, the British and oh yeah, that fun little after-school club called the USSR: and none of them were able to break these hard people or their hard land.
And, just to prove that my minor in English actually has some value, a stanza from Rudyard Kipling's "The Young British Soldier" comes to mind:
When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
We're getting into something we can't even begin to comprehend. I am hoping against hope that reason prevails.
"Don't matter how New Age you get, old age is gonna kick your ass." - Utah Phillips
Here is a solution worth looking at....
The Afghan Taleban can't give up bin Ladin without causing major problems for themselves in their own country. They can't keep him either because the US has made it clear they will come in and get him. This would endanger their Government as well.
The US want to bring bin Ladin to justice, however a incursion in Afghanistan will probably lead to many - perhaps thousands of deaths of both innocent Afghan people, and American soldiers.
The Taleban have said they would try bin Ladin if there was evidence to convict him. The neat thing is that Taleban 'justice' is pretty short on fairness and pretty long on rather uncomfortable deaths.
It would save face in Afghanistan to convict and execute bin Ladin in Afghanistan, while providing what America wants, and saving thousands of lives on both sides.
I think its time America shows it has some brains to go with its brawn. We know they have the military power to go in and take bin Ladin, but there are alternatives which can get the job done.
CNN has been mad - lots of talk of blanket bombings and revenge and very little discussion as to the reasons why someone might want to attack the US. why should it come as a surprise to anyone? The US has been dropping bombs on peoples heads [or supporting others doing so] in various parts of the world for quite some time and if they are not dropping bombs they are impoverishing people in the name of free-trade, little wonder that they grow up resenting the US. Yet all we hear on CNN is that people around the world resent the US for being rich and powerful - its all nonsense. I worry that conflict with Afghanistan will spread - Pakistan is likely to see a massive uprising against the govt if they support the US. Israel has already turned away from any possibility of peace talks with the Palestinians and seems to be occupying more land rather than giving it back. Where from there? Sanity: http://www.michaelmoore.com/2001_0912.html
chmod a+x /bin/laden
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Dear Colleagues,
As we reflect upon the tragic events of this week and an appropriate "response," I thought you might like to see this letter from my college roommate, Tamim Ansary, who grew up in Afghanistan. I think he offers an interesting perspective on Bin Laden, the Taliban, and Afghanistan.
Toivo Kallas
Department of Biology & Microbiology
Date: Thursday, 13 Sep 2001
Dear Friends,
Yesterday I heard a lot of talk about "bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age." Ronn Owens, on KGO Talk Radio allowed that this would mean killing innocent people, people who had nothing to do with this atrocity, but "we're at war, we have to accept collateral damage," and he asked, "What else can we do? What is your suggestion?" Minutes later I heard a TV pundit discussing whether we "have the belly to do what must be done."
And I thought about these issues especially hard because I am from Afghanistan, and even though I've lived here for 35 years I've never lost track of what's been going on over there. So I want to share a few thoughts with anyone who will listen.
I speak as one who hates the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. There is no doubt in my mind that these people were responsible for the atrocity in New York. I fervently wish to see those monsters punished. But the Taliban and Ben Laden are not Afghanistan. They're not even the government of Afghanistan. The Taliban are a cult of ignorant psychotics who captured Afghanistan in 1997 and have been holding the country in bondage ever since. Bin Laden is a political criminal with a master plan. When you think Taliban, think Nazis. When you think Bin Laden, think Hitler. And when you think "the people of Afghanistan" think "the Jews in the concentration camps." It's not only that the Afghan people had nothing to do with this atrocity. They were the first victims of the perpetrators. They would love for someone to eliminate the Taliban and clear out the rats nest of international thugs holed up in their country. I guarantee it.
Some say, if that's the case, why don't the Afghans rise up and overthrow the Taliban themselves? The answer is, they're starved, exhausted, damaged, and incapacitated. A few years ago, the United Nations estimated that there are 500,000 disabled orphans in Afghanistan--a country with no economy, no food. Millions of Afghans are widows of the approximately two million men killed during the war with the Soviets. And the Taliban has been executing these women for being women and have buried some of their opponents alive in mass graves. The soil of Afghanistan is littered with land mines and almost all the farms have been destroyed . The Afghan people have tried to overthrow the Taliban. They haven't been able to.
We come now to the question of bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age. Trouble with that scheme is, it's already been done. The Soviets took care of it . Make the Afghans suffer? They're already suffering. Level their houses? Done. Turn their schools into piles of rubble? Done. Eradicate their hospitals? one. Destroy their infrastructure? There is no infrastructure. Cut them off from medicine and health care? Too late. Someone already did all that.
New bombs would only land in the rubble of earlier bombs. Would they at least get the Taliban? Not likely. In today's Afghanistan, only the Taliban eat, only they have the means to move around. They'd slip away and hide. (They have already, I hear.) Maybe the bombs would get some of those disabled orphans, they don't move too fast, they don't even have wheelchairs. But flying over Kabul and dropping bombs wouldn't really be a strike against the criminals who did this horrific thing. Actually it would be making common cause with the Taliban--by raping once again the people they've been raping all this time.
So what else can be done, then? Let me now speak with true fear and trembling. The only way to get Bin Laden is to go in there with ground troops. I think that when people speak of "having the belly to do what needs to be done" many of them are thinking in terms of having the belly to kill as many as needed. They are thinking about overcoming moral qualms about killing innocent people. But it's the belly to die not kill that's actually on the table. Americans will die in a land war to get Bin Laden. And not just because some Americans would die fighting their way through Afghanistan to Bin Laden's hideout. It's much bigger than that, folks. To get any troops to Afghanistan, we'd have to go through Pakistan. Would they let us? Not likely. The conquest of Pakistan would have to be first. Will other Muslim nations just stand by? You see where I'm going. The invasion approach is a flirtation with global war between Islam and the West.
And that is Bin Laden's program. That's exactly what he wants and why he did this thing. Read his speeches and statements. It's all right there. AT the moment, of course, "Islam" as such does not exist. There are Muslims and there are Muslim countries, but no such political entity as Islam. Bin Laden believes that if he can get a war started, he can constitute this entity and he'd be running it. He really believes Islam would beat the west. It might seem ridiculous, but he figures if he can polarize the world into Islam and the West, he's got a billion soldiers. If the West wreaks a holocaust in Muslim lands, that's a billion people with nothing left to lose, even better from Bin Laden's
point of view. He's probably wrong about winning, in the end the west would probably overcome--whatever that would mean in such a war; but the war would last for years and millions would die, not just theirs but ours. Who has the belly for that? Bin Laden yes, but anyone else?
I don't have a solution. But I do believe that suffering and poverty are the soil in which terrorism grows. Bin Laden and his cohorts want to bait us into creating more such soil, so they and their kind can flourish. We can't let him do that. That's my humble opinion.
Tamim Ansary
So what does Mentsch mean anyway? A mentsch is a decent, just and caring human being. What Would a Mentsch Do? is a contemporary statement of a centuries old theme in Judaism, What Would a Mentsch Do? is a question you ask yourself before you engage in an activity, highlighting the moral dimension of every act and giving yourself the opportunity to make the world more just and kind one deed at a time.
A CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE.
Dear family and friends:
Today is Sunday.....usually for me it is a day of hope, joy, celebration and praise. But these are not the emotions that grip my heart nor the thoughts that fill my mind. Along with all of you, this week has perhaps been among the most difficult I have ever experienced. I feel the utter shock of those dreadful acts of terrorism in New York and Washington DC. I feel sorrow for those who have suffered personally, or today suffer both the continuing uncertainty and the heavy grief because of their missing loved ones, most of whom will be added to the growing list of those who died in those first moments of death and destruction.
And I find myself breathing a prayer for our nation, for our President and members of Congress, for all of our leaders; governmental, military, civilian and religious. But I must confess that at no time in my forty-eight years of ministry do I feel so bereft of simple answers for such a complex situation. Surely we ALL need the wisdom of God.
My special concerns are for the Christian church. We do not have to look very long at history before we discover that all too often the Church of Jesus Christ becomes co-opted by the "powers" to bless political/military acts that are inconsistent with the values of the Kingdom of God. Too often, in the emotion of the moment, the Church fails to discern the difference between those values and the values of a nation, especially a nation in crisis. With our nation literally wrapped in the patriotic symbols of red, white and blue, this is a time for the people of Faith, the people of the Word of God to stand "outside" of the immediate situation and then ask those critical questions that relate to this national/global tragedy. While one must NEVER endorse acts of terrorism against civilian populations, either by us or by our enemies, we must also recognize that the people of Faith have a special responsibility to follow the words of Jesus, "Blessed are the peacemakers; for theirs is the Kingdom of God." St. Paul's words to the early Roman Christians (who faced barbaric terrorism on every hand!) take on special meaning for me today: "Do not repay anyone evil for evil.... live at peace with everyone.... Do not take revenge." Romans 12:17-19.
I feel such a heavy sorrow, not only for the victims in New York and Washington DC, but I feel for the victims of those innocent people who have suffered from our own acts of violence. This is a day, not for revenge, but for repentence. This is a day to not only condemn the barbaric acts of this week's violence; it is a time when every Christian has a responsibility to ask serious questions as to why so many of the world's people have such deep anger against American and Western nations and the "global economy" they control; an economy that provides excess and luxury to a minority of the world's people by building on the sweat and labor of millions who have no access to these luxuries, nor no realistic prospects of escaping their personal bonds of poverty. This is a time, not for recriminations, but for some critical and BIBLICAL (prophetic) thinking about the shapes and forms of injustice in our world.
I received a very thoughtful piece from the War Resisters Council that I pass on to you as one perspective that can help all of us in reflecting upon this weeks events. As Christians, we must seek long-term answers, not just short-term solutions. Be encouraged in the fact that ultimately, our only promise and hope is in God: "God is our refuge and strength, an ever present help in trouble...."
Art Beals
STATEMENT FROM THE WAR RESISTERS LEAGUE
"As we write, Manhattan feels under siege, with all bridges, tunnels, and subways closed, and tens of thousands of people walking slowly north from Lower Manhattan. As we sit in our offices here at War Resisters League, our
most immediate thoughts are of the hundreds if not thousands of New Yorkers who have lost their lives in the collapse of the World Trade Center. The day is clear, the sky is blue, but vast clouds billow over the ruins where so many have died, including a great many rescue workers who were there when the final collapse occurred.
Of course we know that our friends and co-workers in Washington, D.C. have similar thoughts about the ordinary people who have been trapped in the part of the Pentagon which were also struck by a jet. And we think of the innocent passengers on the hi-jacked jets who were carried to their doom on this day. We do not know at this time from what source the attack came. We do know that Yasser Arafat has condemned the bombing. We hesitate to make an extended analysis until more information is available but some things are clear. For the Bush Administration to talk of spending hundreds of billions on Star Wars is clearly the sham it was from the beginning, when terrorism can so easily strike through more routine means.
We urge Congress and George Bush that whatever response or policy the U.S. develops it will be clear that this nation will no longer target civilians, or accept any policy by any nation which targets civilians. This would mean an end to the sanctions against Iraq, which have caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians. It would mean not only a condemnation of terrorism by Palestinians but also the policy of assassination against the Palestinian leadership by Israel, and the ruthless repression of the Palestinian population and the continuing occupation by Israel of the West Bank and Gaza.
The policies of militarism pursued by the United States have resulted in millions of deaths, from the historic tragedy of the Indochina war, through the funding of death squads in Central America and Colombia, to the sanction and air strikes against Iraq. This nation is the largest supplier of conventional weapons in the world and those weapons fuel the starkest kind of terrorism from Indonesia to Africa. The early policy support for armed resistance in Afghanistan resulted in the victory of the Taliban creation of Osama Bin Laden.
Other nations have also engaged in these policies. We have, in years past, condemned the actions of the Russian government in areas such as Chechnya, the violence on both sides in the Middle East, and in the Balkans. But our nation must take responsibility for its own actions. Up until now we have felt safe within our borders. To wake on a clear day to find our largest city under siege reminds us that in a violent world, none are safe. Let us seek an end of the militarism that has characterized this nation for decades. Let us seek a world in which security is gained through disarmament, international cooperation, and social justice not through escalation and retaliation. We condemn without reservation attacks such as those which occurred today, which strike at thousands of civilians may these profound tragedies remind us of the impact U.S. policies have had on other civilians in other lands. We also condemn reflexive hostility against people of Arab descent living in this country and urge that Americans recall the part of our heritage that opposes bigotry in all forms.
We are one world. We shall live in a state of fear and terror or we shall move toward a future in which we seek peaceful alternatives to violence, and a more just distribution of the world resources. As we mourn the many lives lost, our hearts call out for reconciliation, not revenge."
Sure: http://www.cbsnews.com/now/story/0,1597,311268-412 ,00.shtml
Je pose le problème : :-( ). Sachant qu'il est très surveillé, ça n'a pas choqué les américains ? Sont-ils si débiles ?
- il est reconnu que tout le monde savait qu'il y aurait quelquechose dans le domaine des attentats, sauf les américains ?
- l'utilisation des avions comme bombe géante n'est pas nouveau (israël a déjà du abattre un avion pour cette raison. En france, l'avion qui avait du atterrir pour manque de carburant à Marseille, aurait du être abattu s'il avait pu rallier Paris commé prévu (dixit le ministre de l'intérieur de l'époque)). D'ailleurs en France, il y a des avions prêt à décoller, 24/24h, avec les pilotes sanglés, et le moteur en chauffe, pour pallier à ce genre de drame. Or, en Amérique, un premier avion tombe, soit, personne n'est parfait. Mais le deuxième 18 minutes plus tard ? Et le troisième 40 minutes plus tard ? De qui se moque-t-on ?(je rappelle qu'il y avait déjà des hélico de reporters avant le deuxième crash, donc les chasseurs auraient eu le temps de décoller et d'agir)
- Comme par hasard, c'est l'avion qui devait finir sur la maison blanche qui a raté son coup (1 sur 4). étonnant, non ?
- Vous ne trouvez pas que l'enquête va beaucoup trop vite. Sur RTL et France info, on apprend même qu'ils ont retrouvé... les papiers d'un terroriste dans les débris des twin towers !!!!
- Tous les analystes ont dans un premier temps dis que le crash sur le pentagone avait décapité l'armée américaine (de nombreux hauts gradés auraient du y laisser leur peaux). Or, surprise, aucun ne bossait ce jour-là, que des secrétaires et des trouffions. Quel chance, non ?
- Ben Ladden a spéculé quelques jours avant le crash sur la chute des marchés à partir de la bourse japonaise (pas con le gars, il vient de gagner des milliards
Maintenant, regardons à qui profite le crime. Aux américains bien sûr ! :
- Moins de 6 heures après les attentats, le FBI était déjà en train d'installer des machines carnivores-DCS1000 (qui enregistrent le traffic Internet) chez tous les FAI américains pour les besoins de l'enquête.
- ils vont enfin pouvoir interdir la cryptographie chez eux, avec la bénédiction des américains.
- On commence à voir des reportages où on laisse entendre qu'il faudrait améliorer le réseau échelon. On croit rêver !
- Ils sont redevenu le centre du monde géopolitique en moins de 2 heures, même les russes et Cuba les soutiennent. Ils vont pouvoir refaire ce qu'ils veulent, ce qui était de moins en moins le cas.
- Tout le monde veut s'enrôler chez eux, le pied pour un bush qui ne rêve que de faire la guerre (vous avez vu son sourire quand il parle de ça ?, alors qu'il devrait avoir un visage triste mais déterminé, seul attitude acceptable vu la situation)
J'ai encore une batterie d'arguments, mais je vous laisse les découvrir tout seul maintenant que je vous ai mis sur la piste. Je sais que c'est affreux ce que j'avance, mais c'est la seule explication logique, et il vaut mieux en avoir conscience. (au fait, le pakistan posséde l'arme nucléaire, il faudrait peut-être pas trop déconner)
Possibly nobody, though it should be obvious if the plane doesn't attempt safe cruising altitude.You need a regular passenger/cabin crew to notice the problem and a spare pilot on-board. Unlikely. However, I don't want to spend the last 15 minutes of my life banging on a metal door with a replacement pilot besides me.
A sealed door becomes the only weapon the terrorist needs, nothing needs to be smuggled in, but it guarantees safe continued control of the aircraft, you just have to figure how to get on the cockpit side. Otherwise, you need a group of terrorists with weapons in order to take and maintain control of the whole airplane. And we have good security measures that (when used) are designed to prevent this. Personally I prefer the odds of 300 passengers against 6 terrorists rather than a surprise attack by 1 pilot against 2 other cockpit crew.
Yes, you can't prevent a suicidal pilot, who heads straight for the ground. But a terrorist has a target, and reaching that target will take time. But by introducing a locked door, nobody can act on any suspicious activity.
What worries me is that the pilot will be unable to get help for any other emergency in the cockpit. It is not a case of the problems it prevents, but of the everyday problems it can introduce - The cure is worse than the disease.
Now you think about my post. The number of suicidal hijackers is very small compared to the number of suicidal ones. Do you honestly believe that we will ask civilian pilots to sacrifice innocent lives on the slight chance that their hijackers are suiciders, just to make a point?
Apply some real world thought to your own glib solutions.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
The same reports also say that 5 Israelis were caught by NY police after being seen taking pictures, laughing and celebrating the bombing hours after it happened. One of them was reported to be a Mossad agent. Again. Any confirmation?
I wish I can post a link, but I read this in several Arabic newspapera that attributed the news to a Lebanese TV who in turn attributes it to members of the Israeli government. That is why I am asking for a confirmation here. I tried to post the above on CNN but it would not allow me to register and post. Seems they are banning M/E domains from joining the discussions.
I am very doubtful that news such as the above will make it to the mainstream American TV.. at the same time that any glimmer of rumor on Muslims is instantly published (remember that they clamied as a hijacker guy who died one year ago!)
Regards,
I still think you're a lot more likely to have issues if you allow people to rush the pilot when they think there's an error, than if you lock them off and only have to deal with the odd suicide pilot.
But there is a halfway measure...
Give both sides of the plane the ability to contact the ground. Have the door open to a code, which the air-traffic control can provide if they think the plane is being hijacked. I think removing the ability of passengers, hijackers or not, to storm the flight crew will be the correct response a vast majority of the times.
Good idea. But rather than a code, why not put air traffic control in charge of the door altogether?
Put an emergency alarm on every plane inside and outside the cockpit door. If the alarm on the pilot side goes off, the door could be remotely deadbolted, or if from the other side it could be unlocked. This will allow the pilot to leave the cockpit (say for a toilet break, or swap with a relief pilot) but stops them being coerced from opening the door upon hijack.
Of course, both sides will claim the other is the hijacker, but that is up to air traffic control to decide.
Well, I'd think that for security you'd want to prevent any routine access to the cockpit. If terrorists simply booked the front row of seats (for leg room) and attacked as the pilot was walking through the door, they could gain access.
The idea of a remotely controlled door doesn't seem much different that having people use a code, it's a bit faster, but more error-prone. Six of one...
From the moment a plane pulls away from the airport, the pilots, imho, should be locked away from any passenger hijinks. And yes, this does mean all relief pilots would have to be in the cockpit all along, and they'd need a private washroom.
I think the idea of a plain-clothes air-marshall armed with frangible (will break into pieces instead of penetrating the cabin walls) would really help this... provided they were told that rescuing the whole plane is a priority, over saving individuals, so that they stayed hidden as long as there was a chance that things would end peacefully (to keep the terrorists from smoking him out and killing him.)
You need to study some history child. There are several ways of winning this war without holding land. Especially since the target in this is a network of terrorists who've aligned to create a confederacy.
The ultimate trick will be getting these bastards to feed upon themselves. Consider this, more Afgani's died from the ensuant civil war, then when the Russians occupied their territory (what the Russians did wrong was try to hold objectives long after they nuked them).
This means disrupting the organization to a point where bloody infighting insues. This means killing/removing/incapacitating leaders/field generals. It means creating logistical nightmares. It means cutting off their money supplies.
Of that last point, I'm still bothered by types like bin-Laden, who have millions of dollars, yet seek war instead of turning those funds around to help the very people he claims to lead. Think of how much infrastructure and industry $500 million could have done for Afganistan ?
healyourchurchwebsite.com - WWJB?
And because the "liberals" *spit* are too weak to do the right thing.
Wow Toivo--I can't imagine what must be constantly going through Tamim's soul at a time like this, as well as the hearts of many frustrated people in Afghanistan who are held captive by Osama and the Taliban. It sounds like Tamim supports a ground war, but clearly he fears for the further loss of life in his already mortally wounded homeland.
I wonder if the fleeing Afghani refugees fear a ground invasion or welcome it as one of their only hopes to rid their country of Osama and his Taliban cronies once and for all? Like Tamim, I don't know what the best solution is, but if it takes us going in there and overthrowing Osama and his Taliban to save Afghanistan as a whole, I support it.
However, on the same side of the coin, I am glad Bush is, to this point, acting with caution and reserve instead of "bombing the hell out of them"; I hate the phrase "collateral damage" because it de-humanizes the many, many already-hurting people who would lose their lives at the expense of a relative few bastards who insist on power and greed (under the false guise of "religion") to fulfill their selfish ends. I only hope (and will write to encourage this) that we will continue to act with the same resolve and reserve, so that we can focus on making the best decision possible for not only us, but for a peaceful and terror-free world community.