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.
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!
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
A good percentage of the American people surveyed said they will be patient until the right people are found.
Thank goodness, I say. I was quite surprised.
The last thing we need is American forces going in there, killing people out of rage or revenge. There are a lot of diplomatic things to do as well.
America needs to come out of this showing that it knows what to do, that it can do the right things, and that it can rise above the mentality of terrorists.
Dear G.W. Bush: please take your time and think everything through. I know you're not to skilled about these things, but the people around you are so listen well.
As for the union stuff, I thought they were turning away unskilled workers because that pile of rubble is also a crime scene and needs to be handled more delicately.
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"
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
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.
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.
"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
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.
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.
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
Referencing your sig, the thing to be woried about here is that old age, treachery, and terrain advantage will always overcome youth, skill (including technology) and numbers. Afghanistan has a history of successfully repelling foreign invaders...
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Nice conspiracy theory, though. I give you 4 Art Bell's out of a possible 5.
If god had intended you to be naked, you would have been born that way.
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....
Actually, his name is not displayable in a Roman character set!!
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
If the plane still doesn't work in safe mode, you can use the "Command Prompt Only Plane".
It has no engine. Plus, you have to be blindfolded when you're in it.
But at least you'll still be in the sky for about 40 seconds.
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?
What has happened is that some people have woken up and realized that a ground-war in Afghanistan is serious business. (Joking line about ground wars in Asia...)
Sersiously, I think that it would be extremely difficult to infade Afghanistanand would likely take years or decades if the Soviet experience is worth anything. It will mean a lot of dead and wounded on both sides before it is done.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
-
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
Although, killing "just" Bin Laden (and a few of his closest followers) would be a good start. Yes other people will rise up, but as always within such hostile organizations, leadership is paid for in blood. The insuant fighting within the organization would not only thin their numbers slightly, but more importantly help to expose the organization as a whole. Where they are operating, what other groups in the world may have interestes in Bin Laden's operation, the size of his "armies", etc. The confusion and distraction of the power struggle will also weaken their power to both threaten and react to threats. I think taking out Bin Laden and his top ranking officials straight off is the best thing we can do right now. Picking off the rest of his followers will just be a matter of following the blood trail as they kill each other for power.
--I assume full responsibility for my actions, except the ones that are someone else's fault.
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.
First of all, the recession in 1981-1982 was far, far worse. So was the recession, post Gulf War. Technically, the US isn't even recession right now. So this would be a pretty fucking stupid thing to do right now.
Secondly, how is it that the 10 billion journalists haven't uncovered any hole in the current theory, that a bunch of fucks working for Osama Bin Laden did this and have been planning this for 5 years? Do you think that this "secret" US government agency somehow managed to convince 5 known anti-American terrorists to get on each plane?
Finally, this attack has completely ruined all of Bush's plans. Missile defense is looking like a really pointless idea now. There will need to be tax INCREASES to fund the military. And his isolationist policies are now looking mighty quaint. So this "secret" agency would have to be out to fuck the President's official policies.
How dare you even propose this concept. You should be ashamed of yourself.
-jon
Remember Amalek.
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...
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?
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.
He can't even spell his own first name? Yeah, I do that from time to time, too. My high school diploma says "Russell Niel Nelson". And nobody believed me when I blamed it on lysdexia.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
There's an interesting article in the Washington Post about how to attack a decentralized network of terrorists and how most of the tactics aren't really all that new. Check it out here.
This
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).
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.
\i{and don't forget Libya...}
Either Qaddafi is an incredible actor, or he didnt' do it. After the attack, he called on all Muslims to aid the US, regardless of the politics involved.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
You are very much mistaken, according to the New York Times.
How dare you even propose this concept. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Why do these theories anger you so? Right now CNN and the rest of the mainstream media are generally promoting the immolation of various muslim peoples around the world based on evidence which is no more credible than the various conspiracy theories going around. Should CNN be ashamed of itself?
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"?
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.
Not a theoretical scenario, either - Echelon and French security networks have both been used to pass commercial information to "friendly" companies. NSA and CIA apologists put some time into defending using national security systems to plunder allied country's companies and provide the details to US companies.
Perhaps if the spooks were doing their job instead of making Lockheed shareholders richer, there might be fewer corpses in NYC.
But that's alright, just give them more money and remove those pesky Congressional oversights that were put in place to try and stop the CIA hiring terroists and funding dictatorships. Then we can go back to the good ol' days of the CIA funding the likes of the Shah of Iran. That didn't have any downside, did it?
"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
Quick question that maybe those more knowledgable of world affairs than I can answer, if these countries are producing such massive amounts of something as valuable as oil, why are they so dirt poor. Or should I say, why are their citizens so dirt poor?
I'm sure crush will chime in here saying it's all because of the evil capitalists, but I think you would have to put alot of blame on the governments of the countries themselves.
Either, both.
Names in Arabic, Farsi and other Middle Eastern languages are frequently spelled differently when translted to English, depending on the translator.
Check the news archives for the spelling of Libya's leader:
Khadaffi
Kadaffi
Qadaffi
Qadafi
Gadaffi
Ghadaffi
I've seen all of the above used by various "big name" news sources.
Same with bin Laden -- Usama or Osama depending on who does the translating.
In all honesty -- "Walking Corpse" is probably more accurate.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
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.
Franklin, that is.
They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
"And like that
they are saying that NOTHING is going to happen
These two articles from the Daily Telegraph give a fairly detailed descriptions of the military preparation that is underway:
SAS to play key role in capturing bin Laden
SAS to join American special forces
Both articles describe a scenario involving cruise missles and air strikes followed by special forces brought in by helicopter. One article says the assault could begin within a week.
They anger me because it says that, for dubious political gain, the US government slaughtered 5,000 of its own citizens. They say this without a shred of evidence, just more of the mindless hatred of the US government which has been the hallmark of the lunatic fringe, both right and left. It diverts attention away from the real problem, the real people who we KNOW did this, who everyone KNOWS did this.
People who are making up these conspiracy theories are doing it because while the KNOW in their heart of hearts who did this, they can't bring themselves to accept that people that they have supported did it. So they make up fairy tales to delude themselves, and try to pass them on, hoping that they might have company in their delusions.
based on evidence which is no more credible than the various conspiracy theories going around.
Oh horseshit. The evidence for Bin Laden's involvement is well-known. He has means (hundreds of millions of dollars, thousands of followers), motive (he has repeatedly said that he wanted the WTC to come down. His group bombed it 8 years ago, and has performed synchronized attacks in the past.), and opportunity (19 known followers of his were on the plane, and flight manuals in Arabic were found in their rooms). If you weren't a fucking moron, you'd consider this a slam-dunk case.
What is your evidence for the US government doing this? Huh?
-jon
Remember Amalek.
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
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
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.
"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
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)
Yes, and the United States has a history of successfully winning wars.
I've been researching the past invasions of Afghanistan that have failed and which are now being trumpeted as cowardly reasons to refrain from attacking. This is not the same situation, and Afghanistan's past performance is not representative of what they can hope for this time.
First, UK's invasions of Afghanistan cannot be used to guage what will happen this time. The UK attacked several times in the 1800's and were involved in a final conflict in Afghanistan after WWI. The UK was just starting to recover from the first World War and was tired and uninterested in an umimportant foreign battle far from home that posed no threat to the UK. Also, in those times, the differences between the occupying military and a bunch of people with guns was not so significant, except the occupying military was an easily identifiable target and the people with guns weren't. So the UK failure in Afghanistan is not a valid comparison. The situation is too different to make a useful comparison.
More recently, the Soviets failed in their Afghanistan invasion from 1979-1989. A great deal of this failure was due to a lack of resolve at the highest levels of Soviet government and a resulting lack of commitment to the cause. Additionally, they had a very real concern about alienating almost the entire world in a time where it was important to have as many, or more, friends than their cold-war enemy, the United States. They lost Afghanistan for the same reasons the U.S. lost Vietnam: The politicians back home didn't allow them to go in with everything they had to win.
Additionally, Afghanistan was receiving support from Iran, Pakistan and, yes, the United States' CIA.
Given the Soviet politicians' unwillingness to give the military the green light to win, and considering all the countries that were supporting the Afghan opposition, it is not surprising that that invasion failed.
The difference here is:
I agree that Afghanistan is not the easiest target. They have no significant infrastructure to target.
But we can, and I suspect will, easily take Kabul, get the Taliban running into the hills where the opposition forces on the ground will be able to help take care of them, radio in their positions for air support, strifing runs, carpet boming. We have night-vision and infrared equipment that will make it harder for them to hide than normal.
And remember, I don't think we're looking at a long-term invasion. We're not looking to annex or particulary control Afghanistan, we're going to topple a terrorist government and probably give control to the opposition forces. Whether the opposition later starts killing themselves again and Afghanistan returns to civil war is not our problem here--as long as Afghanistan keeps the killing inside its borders.
So be skeptical of those that suggest that Afghanistan is somehow a force to be reckoned with; they just had favorable conditions in the past. This time everything is against them with the one and only exception being it could be a guerilla war.
Also, remember people were making similar warnings about Saddam's fearsome military. No need to remind anyone how fearsome that military really turned out to be.
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...
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.
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.
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
- On September 11, someone allegedly threatened the president with codes indicating inside knowledge of
the president's whereabouts. If this story true, it means there is a traitor somewhere at a high level in the administration. If it's false,
it means that the government is deliberately leaking false information, in an attempt not
to make the president look bad.
-
There is some evidence that there were warnings of the attack:
-
Circumstantial evidence of the US training terrorists.
Granted, there is not a lot of evidence here. But in the last few days the government and the media have been threatening and accusing a lot of people, such as the Lebanese and Palestinians, Iraq, Pakistan, or all of these at the same time. Although there is no credible evidence against any of these people, nevertheless they are targets of speculation.Security heightened at WTC, Bin Laden warnings, State Dept. advisory
Echelon warnings
Israeli intelligence
San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown
A crazed Iranian in Germany
A US army base in New Jersey
So why is it unreasonable to speculate about the US government?
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.
Pakistan tested _one_ nuke, mostly to keep up with India. Why do you think they backed down so quickly when presented with the US ultimatum?
Pakistan literally created the Taliban in Afghanistan - now they're being called to account, and brought to heal. It was made clear we'd go _through_ them to get to the Taliban and wipe out that illegitimate theocracy. Pakistan doesn't want to be first under the rain of fire that will follow in that region.
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....
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.
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.
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?
You sound like you know whereof you're speaking. Let's hope that the irrational perverts of Islam don't have much voice in Pakistan. I do pray so...
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.
I think he was implying that the extremist regime would have to either be kicked out, or start instituting some form of freedom and democracy. The Taliban has done a lot of good, if you can call it that, for the Afghan people. They feel safe to go outside because they aren't being robbed on the street. Their lives are better than they were 5 years ago... they are still starving of course... and they could have been receiving aid, if the Taliban wern't harboring a terrorist for the past 3 years. I'm sure the people there don't realize that it's their Taliban who is responsible - so it will probably be difficult to get them out with the people's support.
I still just can't get over that they destroyed all those ancient statues. Don't they have other things to worry about? Aren't there better ways to spend their time/money than to destroy works of art?
I'm with you! And I'd have to add: AND FOR GOD'S SAKE, PLEASE STOP SENDING ME KNEE-JERK EMAILS!!
I'm staring in amazement at the "public" Hotmail inbox I maintain. I've been up towards my space quota at least twice this past week. Without recourse to how bad Hotmail is, my spam filters are working, and I'm not seeing any of the really offensive, mercenary spam. But what I'm getting is duplicates, triplicates and more, many times over, of the same tired old patriotic blurbs, GIFS, unattributed quotes and diatribes, really inflammatory screeds, and missives from people who feel they need to update me every hour on what is going on and what this or that pundit's reaction to it is. I'm so sick of badly-written parallels between this and Pearl Harbor, this and 1776, this and every other war we've fought. I've gotten the bogus Canada message five times.
Most of the acquaintances sending this junk are technical illiterates. But at least one set is from the CEO of a nice-sized software/shareware company whose newsletter I subscribe to.
I'll admit I'm puzzled by this--though not entirely. What's motivating it? Does it make people feel like they're sharing? Fighting back? Do they figure they're telling everybody something new?? Is it happening because we were home from work a great deal last week and nobody had anything better to do? Is it because e-mail is "free" so we might as well use it?
Unless somebody can suggest another outlook, I'm just going to keep quietly deleting the stuff. But I can't help thinking about how much real good these people could be doing by spending five minutes with checkbook or credit card and the charity of their choice.
Just another Internet phenomenon, I guess--E-mail as bully pulpit and soapbox.
Anne
(Headed out the door to begin re-adding my tiny bit to the economy...)
DUCT TAPE: The Election Supervisors' Secret Weapon
I have written Reflections on The Terrorist Attacks on New York and Washington.
Helping with organizational effectiveness is our job.
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.
Yup, this is factually correct.
As numbing as it is, bombing Afghanistan would lead to nothing more than dead innocent Afghanies. So there can be nothing gained there, in fact if that was the actual case then the dead would be called martyrs and further galvanize the cause of the Islamic Jihad in the world. No, doing nothing is ot the answer either, that would just be silly, and serve to allow the terror spreaders to say "Look, america is weak, beaten.."
However, if bombing en-masse is not the answer, and doing nothing is just wrong; what can the Western world do?
I hope that a symbolic gesture will be enough, perhaps allowing the "honour" of the terrorists, I know the term is used in derision, giving them a chance to stand for Allah and face their accusers man-to-infidel and then face the justice of the world, regardless of religion.
This would serve to keep them from being Martyrs and also give the world a chance to take the villans on, using Global terms, without needless slaughter.
Of course, if they choose not to stand up, as holy warriors for Allah, THEN they can be Martyrs, as there can be no reasoning with these flawed "holy" people.
Hello Kettle,
You, my friend are as black as pitch.
With love, Pot.
The excuse was that British sailing vessels were enforcing a trade blockade against France, and the American ships wanted to be able to run that blockade with impunity. The reality is that the U.S. government learned that the indians had made treaties with the North American British, and the only way to get the land away from the indians was to wage war with the Brits. One result was that Northern New England nearly left the union, since they were so opposed to the war.
As for the burning of Washington, it was provoked when a british officer, advancing under a flag of truce, was gunned down by a sniper.
Isn't there enough source for outrage in the world without having to make up stories about the war of 1812?
-Eldurbarn
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
Perhaps I ought to clarify what rtaylor said.
Afghanistan is a country with about 2 major cities. Russia tried to take over the counrty, and found that the cities could be captured quite easily, but the countryside was extremely difficult to take control of, and they failed.
Beofre that, the British also tried and failed. The countryside is desert, surrounded by mountains, and has a feudelist-like society, making it very, very hard to occupy, you'd need to carpet the country with soldiers, literally.
In other countries, you'd shut down the industry, banks and communications by capturing the cities, but the standard of living is so low, it won't make a difference, there are no highways, a few poorly-mantained roads, and that's it.
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
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!
I'm afraid it's bound to happen. If you wear a turban (or veil) and don't look like them, you're automatically a suspect. They're thinking with the place they sit down, not with their brains. Unfortunately, anything that fosters bigotry and dis-unity now will serve to undermine our collective efforts to combat the real source of the problem.
An idea: Just for today, maybe each of us should take a minute to speak with, and get to know, somebody who doesn't look just like we do--somebody of a different race, religion, or ethnicity. Maybe we should encourage our children to do the same. Maybe we should try to make a habit of it.
Anne
DUCT TAPE: The Election Supervisors' Secret Weapon
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.
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.
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!
The total is nearly $6 million, pretty impressive.
-schussat
The hour of noon has passed. Let us go and get some Kentucky Fried Chicken.
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!
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
One has to realize that the last time we truly won a war was WWII. We have been involved in Military conflicts since then and have a mixed record. Sure we "won" the Gulf War (and Saddam still outlasted any of his enemies...), we won Kosovo, and Panama. However, these are pretty minor compared to Afghanistan.
First, we don't have a good record with land wars in Asia (appologies to "The Princess Bride"), and second and more importantly, the terrain is more akin to Vietnam than any other conflict on our record. And the Afghani's have a perfect record of repelling foreign invaders.
I have been thinking long and hard as to what the terrorists hoped to accomplish. This attack was not aimed at "getting America out of the Middle East," at least not directly. It was designed to get America angery, with the hope that an enraged America would make a serious error. In short, the terrorists are looking for our military response so that they can either weaken us or use it to gain more recruits. I believe that this is the only reasonable explenation for their actions.
If America wages an impossible land war in Afghanistan, then we will be playing into their hands more than they could have dreamed, and it will be to our detriment.
These terrorists are not the terrorists we are used to seeing-- they are about as professional as terrorists get. Remember, they hit the most important targets that they could, and tried to hit others (most notibly the white house).
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
And the fact that the Pakistan/India/China border has been pretty volitile. There has been a sort of low-scale war going on there for a long time. What happens if we give aid to the Pakistanis and they use that aid to secure Cashmere? How will Inda react? How will China react to a war between India and Pakistan? They tried to invade India last time in the 80's, and before that in the 60's. Seems like they are about due for another attempt...
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
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.
Here is the correct link:
State Department Press Release
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.
Even though we don't know exactly what they're going to do yet? Writing a blank cheque is pretty stupid, unless you trust the US to do what's right all the time. And I don't. I remember the alleged "surgical strikes" of the Gulf War, which in reality were nothing of the kind. Essential civilian infrastructure was targeted and the country was devastated.
Female Prison Rape in NY
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.
The thing about Bin Ladden is that has motive, the means, and we know that he trains terrorists. Is it that far of a jump to think that at some level he was involved? How much evidence is needed?
In a word, yes. He may have the motive, means and opportunity, but it doesn't mean he did it. If you habitually drive fast and you own a fast car, would you like to be convicted on the grounds of "well, the cops heard something doing 100mph last night, they didn't see it, but we all know you do that sort of thing"?
Evidence is needed that Bin Laden was involved. When this exists (and that share-dealing looks like a good place to start looking), then something will be done. Until then, any action is premature.
Grab.
I truly wish there were a hell for these fuckers to rot in. Call me flamebait, I don't really care.
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.
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.
Thank goodness, I say. I was quite surprised.
May I ask why you were surprised? I've always thought of ourselves as often misguided - but not the blood-thirsy thugs that Universal Studios whould have you beleive.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
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.
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.
Of course you don't know any of this any better than she does. And she managed to get through her whole article without calling anyone a stupid cunt. Imagine that.
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
Sounds like perfect grounds for calling the US Government complicit in the slaughter of its citizens and igniting unfounded global fears of worldwide terror.
You asshole.
-jon
Remember Amalek.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
How the heck did a post with the word "sheep-fuckers" in it get modded up?
I'm the stranger...posting to
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.
Who said anything about getting rid of Israel? They just need to give Palistinians basic human rights.
Apartied/segregation is evil.
bash-2.04$
bash-2.04$yes "Don't you hate dialup connections?"| write USERNAME
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.
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.
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.)
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,
I assume you are aware that Aghanistan, like Iran and Pakistan is not populated by Arabs? Or at least arabs are the minority?
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP