U.S. Shuts Down Somalia Internet Access

BrianGa writes: "This article reports that Somalia's only internet company and a key telecom company have been forced to close because the United States suspects them of terrorist links."

Comments

look out...

[FatSean]

By suggesting the use of google to find terrorist links, you have become a terrorist link yourself. Prepare to have your plug pulled...

Suspects??

[RedOregon]

Suspects? No proof... we just _think_ this is the case? This bothers me...

Re:Suspects??

[kfg]

The US state dept.,( as reported by CNN), has now admited that they bombed the Red Cross center in Afghanistan, multiple times, * knowing that it wasn't a military target* because Taliban members and troops were *suspected* of pilfering some amount of food from it.

At the same time, of course, the US was randomly dropping food supplies all over the place, for anyone to pick up, including Taliban troops.

This bothers me a good deal more. It is not only the targeting of a known civilian humanitarian aid station, but smacks more than just a bit of hypocrisy.

The shutting down of an ISP hardly compares to killing civilian aid workers on *suspicion* that the opposition might be able to snag some Hershey bars from them.

The arrogance is the same in both cases though, although, of course, as everyone knows, the Internet "belongs" to the US, so I guess they can just do what they please with it.

KFG

Re:Suspects??

[swagr]

And what's proof?
If I witnessed a terrorist act first hand and witnessed the terrorists put up a website and told someone about it, is that "proof"? What if I witnessed no such thing and lied?

Re:Suspects??

[CaptIronfist]

Me too, along with all the american crap the rest of the world is getting since the last terrorist
manifestation.

I like to make conspiracy theories usually, but here it's just too damn easy.

Re:Suspects??

[Anonymous DWord]

The US state dept.,( as reported by CNN), has now admited that they bombed the Red Cross center in Afghanistan, multiple times...

They killed four American Red Cross workers in the first couple of days of bombing. I haven't seen that mentioned on any major network though. Granted, I don't watch a lot of TV.

At the same time, of course, the US was randomly dropping food supplies all over the place...

Including into known minefields. "Here's some food, just watch your step! You can thank us later... if you have any limbs left." It doesn't seem to matter much though, as long as CNN spins it right.

Re:Suspects??

[Joe Decker]

The US state dept.,( as reported by CNN), has now admited that they bombed the Red Cross center in Afghanistan, multiple times, * knowing that it wasn't a military target* because Taliban members and troops were *suspected* of pilfering some amount of food from it.

Missed that, do you have a reference?

Re:Suspects??

[Anonymous Coward]

What you weren't told (or choose to ignore) is that the Taliban regularly parked military vehicles right next to the Red Cross center thinking that the US wouldn't attack them.

Re:Suspects??

[strAtEdgE]

It's the american way! Mom, apple pie, and killing anyone who stands in the way of 'furthering the cause'.

Terrorism:
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

It's funny how americans block out the bigger picture, thinking somehow that when they commit terrorist acts, they aren't terrorists.

Re:Suspects??

[fobbman]

Lest we forget, the United States has yet to deliver proof to it's own citizens that bin Laden even masterminded the attacks on the World Trade Center.

Color me flamebait, but right now us US citizens have only been told "We have proof he did it, and that's all you need to know".

I'm sorry, but there are large groups of people (many Muslims, in fact) who don't accept this as enough proof. He's widely considered to be not sophisticated enough to come up with such an attack on his own.

Do I know who did it? Of course I do. I have proof, but I won't tell you what that proof is. Just trust me.

Re:Suspects??

[__donald_ball__]

This is moderated as a troll? Bad use of mod points, the author is actually trying to make a point.

Re:Suspects??

[fosh]

On September 11th and 12th, the United States saw many small planes and helicopters traveling from Afganistan (Talibana controlled areas) to Somolia.

Still think this is unjustified?

Take a look at the use of code words used by our (probable) attackers, as reported by the economist: http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID =876925.

Now, imagine the damage a constantly changing table of what code words correspond to what real words on the internet somewhere. Hell, imagine knowing that the details for an attack are contianed in an encrypted message!

I am as much a proponent of civil liberties as the next (member of the ACLU) guy, but I am especially fond of the right to LIFE.

--Alex Fishman

Re:Suspects??

[Joe Decker]

I'm guessing that the moderator in question believes that the poster made up the comment about CNN reporting intentional Red Cross bombings. My own watching of CNN, and searching through the CNN web site, shows no such article. If the person did in fact make that alleged CNN reference up, then I'd think that troll was an appropriate mod. I am not, for the record, a moderator at this time, and was not involved in the moderation of that comment (as you can tell by the fact that I've posted here.)

Re:Suspects??

[bleah]

They killed four American Red Cross workers in the first couple of days of bombing. I haven't seen that mentioned on any major network though. Granted, I don't watch a lot of TV.

I think you mean four Afghan employees of a UN mine removal program were killed early in the bombing. The building they were in, which was very close to a target, was hit. They had been asked to move to safety, but chose to stay where they were.

Re:Suspects??

[Lars T.]

So? Do you think those planes (where is the proof by the way) were the second attack wave? The rest of your post makes even less sense.

Re:Suspects??

[FreeQ]

but you belive US propaganda ! ... good point ...

Re:Suspects??

[Joe Decker]

He's widely considered to be not sophisticated enough to come up with such an attack on his own.

Precisely how much intellectual sophistication do you believe is required to plan the 9/11 attacks? Seems like learning to fly for the hijackers was probably the most intellectually difficult task. The rest was simple patience, committment, and money, none of which are in serious question.

Re:Suspects??

[fosh]

No, this was bin Laden and the rest of his crew escaping from Afganistan......

Sorry for the confusion, I just assumed it was clear...

--Alex

Re:Suspects??

[chowpalace]

Aint you a blossoming comic... how short a memory people seem to have... the visual imagery of a Ranger being dragged dead and naked throught the K5 circle didnt stick?? geeez...

Re:Suspects??

[Sj0]

But WE'RE the good guys!

posting anonymously because at this point, I've posted this exact same message twice....It applies to both. There's also the people who can't understand irony and sarcasm.

Re:Suspects??

[Sj0]

Shit...

I am a hedge...carry on. (well it worked before!) :)

I'm never posting anonymously again. Too dangerous.

The point of my message(s) remains.

Think of it like this; when you are surrounded by people who agree with you, people who oppose you are evil, and they likely consider *you* evil.

Re:Suspects??

[kentm]

It worked in "Speed", and Keanu wasn't evil.

Think before you speak!!

Re:Suspects??

[aminorex]

The media were reporting for a while that bin Laden
publically accepted command responsibility for for
the September 11th attacks. I can't find the State
of the Ummah video that supposedly substantiates
this report, however, and since the CIA manages CNNs
editorial policy, I'm not willing to accept the
report without direct, verifiable references.

If the report is accurate, then since bin Laden was
at the time the acting minister of defense of
Afghanistan, a declaration of war on Afghanistan is
just, as an act of self-defense. The September
11th attacks were, in this case, an act of undeclared
war.

However, the current campaign is in direct
violation of the Constitution and laws of the
United States. The Constitution requires an
act of Congress to enter into war. The Congress
of the United States declined to declare war
when the Bush administration requested it.
Therefore, the current bombing campaign is
just an act of mass-murder, and the president
of the United States is a mass-murderer,
arguably guilty of genocide, just like his
predecessor, William Jefferson Clinton.

Re:Suspects??

[PD]

You forget that Osama has been already found guilty of other terrorist acts, specifically the attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa.

So, we don't need the smoking gun for Sept. 11th. He's already known to be guilty of other terrorist attacks, and he will serve his sentence, one way or another.

Re:Suspects??

[arkanes]

a couple problems here...
1) If those planes were Bin Laden fleeing Afghanistan, then why the hell are we bombing them?
2) Do you have any proof that these codewords were in fact on the internet somewhere, and not on a piece of 81/2 x 11 binder paper that one dude had in his pocket?

Re:Suspects??

[elefantstn]

How does total stupidity like this get moderated up? If we have only been told "We have proof he did it, and that's all you need to know," then what the hell is this? Have you ever watched the news? Do you pay attention to current events? Or is the only exposure to the outside world you get filtered through the rants of paranoid nerds on Slashdot?

Re:Suspects??

[jorgegv]

Why on the bloody earth has this been moderated as FUNNY? It's really scary...

Re:Suspects??

[fenix down]

Anyone who participated in the events that led to me seeing that movie is evil in my book.

Re:Suspects??

[dragons_flight]

I do remember this story. I also remember a Pentagon press briefing in November where Rumsfeld made a statement to the effect of: Upon further investigation, we have determined that these warehouses were correctly identified as legitimate military targets, despite being nominally controlled by the International Red Cross.

No elaboration was given as to what made them legitimate targets. Of course from previous reports we know that these were warehouses in a district with a number of other warehouses which were also bombed and not owned by the Red Cross. If the Taliban were moving things from their warehouses into Red Cross buildings, then they would certainly seem fair targets, though I have no evidence that such was happening.

For the record I did a search with several news agencies, and could find no record of the statement I'm citing. In fact I can find no record that the US admitted intentionally bombing the site (which I remember as well). Don't know what's going on, but interpret as you will.

Re:Suspects??

[tsieling]

I clicked the this link, but it goes to a bunch of nothing. Kinda like the proof! Were you making an ironic joke or are you just a fuckwit?

Re:Suspects??

[cookie_cutter]

Guilty in the court of public opinion.

Whatever happened to due process and no trials in absense of the defendant.

Don't get me wrong, I think Bin Laden is guilty, but let's not act like the current actions in Afghanistan have anything like a legal sheen to them.

Re:Suspects??

[kfg]

Of course I was told that, nor did I "choose" to ignore it. The statement I'm refering to was a statement that that original claim was "official misinformation."

KFG

Re:Suspects??

[vandan]

Step 1: Fuck the world, quick!
Step 2: Ask questions later ... when the world is not in a position to do anything about it
I'm REAL glad you guys in the US voted in that trigger-happy terrorist for president ... NOT!!!

Re:Suspects??

[kfg]

I'm afraid I don't. I saw it reported on CNN television live, as it came " hot off the wire."

That's why I put my source, and put it in parenthsis, in my original post. I cannot refer to it, and seems not to exist on the CNN web site.

In a time when the federal governemt is trying to get libraries to destroy existing public documents that dosn't exactly surprise me.

If I were to go looking for it I'd start with the BBC or The Federalist.

As often happens in times of war we likely won't have clue what's actually going on right now for several years, at least.

KFG

Re:Suspects??

[kfg]

There is a an apparent belief among many, including moderators, that an opinion, just because it is controversial or not widely believed is a troll.

I suggest that such people look up the term in the jargon file to find out what the hell it means.

There are also those that feel that a troll is inherently malicious in intent.

Pity. J. Swift, M. Twain, and H.L. Mencken were perhaps the finest trolls in history, and Twain's biting, cynical, letters to newspaper editors are some of the finest trolls ever written.

I occasionally wish there were a way to mod a troll *UP*, but Slashdot seems to among those that believe a troll is always malicious.

The posts of which I tend to be the proudest arn't the ones that just get modded up to five, but rather the ones that seems to incite a "moderator war," with several mods up and down.

It let's me know that I might have actually written something vaguely important.

KFG

Re:Suspects??

[Rasta Prefect]

Regardless of whether we have publicly available proof for this particular attack, we certainly have his own words for a number of others, including the bombing of US Barracks in Saudi Arabia.

Re:Suspects??

[paraducks]

Once again 1984.

Kind of OT, but a scary thing about the Internet is how quickly and easily history can be rewritten. I don't know that CNN.com has done this, but it is so believable: anything can change and who could prove it? Even cached pages could be altered.

Any openings at the Ministry of Truth?

Re:Suspects??

[paraducks]

So, do you believe me or your own eyes?

Re:Suspects??

[Performer Guy]

What bothers me is jet liners packed with innocents slamming into skyscrapers. The Somali's put all their eggs into one basket, and the terrorists held that basket, too bad.

Re:Suspects??

[Performer Guy]

Sigh, this is sad, the arrogance of the USA? This isn't arrogance, it's self defense. The USA could immolate any number of countries and they don't. Do you really think if the tables were turned that the USA would be left alone by the miscreants you support?

The USA was not randomly dropping food supplies, your choice of words betrays your true intent. You use a humanitarian gesture as a means to attack the country dropping food aid. Reminds me of the Taliban, who while raiding UN resources, and blocking UN food convoys, was complaining about the looming humanitarian disaster.

That is real hypocricy, you really have to muddy the waters and confuse the issues on all sides to support your strained position. You're greatest regret in all of this is that millions of refugees aren't staving and you can't point a finger at the US and accuse it of causing the disaster.

We did hear of a guard on the door of the Red Cross injured in the first attack. The rest we only have the word of the Taliban and the journalists in their pockets who they guided around a very select set of incidents, giving one side of the story. For a time all we heard about from the media was civilian casualties, in the most targeted air campaign in history. Then we heard of how US air power and the Northern Alliance would never defeat the Taliban. How reliable do those sycophantic sources look now.

Good for the USA, defending our freedom and values against the enemy and against the evil hypocrites who seek to distort the truth and have us disarm ourselves in the face of emotional blackmail by the most despicable characters imaginable.

If you're feeling bad about the Somali ISP just cast your mind back to Sept 11th or back to Mogadishu when the US Rangers were dragged through the street after being attacked by bin Laden backed Somalis. If you'll remember that mission started out as an attempt to feed starving Somalis until Aidid attacked and killed *Pakistani* UN troops.

Re:Suspects??

[Performer Guy]

You're a confused idiot, just remember that you, your kids and your grandkids have to live in the world you manage to construct. Self defense is entirely legal and legitimate, which rules out your definition. Americans aren't blocking out any bigger picture, but you have to be very selective with the information you choose to ingest to arrive at your warped position.

Re:Suspects??

[Performer Guy]

We've all seen the interview where bin Laden called for the murder of all Americans reguardless of whether they were in the armed forces. We've SEEN this, and the US should have acted before we had 5000 dead as a pretext to defend itself. Too bad for you that bin Laden as good as admitted his guilt since the attacks in his video to his followers. All you idiots now have to go find another anti-American cause.

I want to make this point clear, it is idiots like you who contributed to the attack on Sept 11th. Your moral ambivilence is abhorrant. The USA should have acted more forcefully before the 11th to get bin Laden but couldn't because you the willfull confusion and deliberate obfuscation of the facts by fools like you. Now even after that attack you don't crawl back under your rock, instead you're out in full force accusing the USA of the very thing that has been inflicted upon it. The case has never been clearer, there is more than enough evidence to go after bin Laden and his supporters (and there was even before Sept 11th), and the Taliban had their chance to turn them over and didn't. Of course they were never going to because they are complicit in his irrational Islamicist expansionist designs.

Re:Suspects??

[FleshWound]

It doesn't seem to matter much though, as long as CNN spins it right.

Gotta love it when people put their own spin on something, and then berate some news agency for doing the same.

I believe that's called "hypocrisy."

Re:Suspects??

[Watts Martin]

His "warped position" is that terrorism can be defined as "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." Personally, I'd simplify the definition to: "committing an act of war against non-combatants."

Tell me how the hell the legitimacy of self defense has anything to do with that definition.

Bluntly, what you're offended by isn't the definition, but by the unpleasant truth that an objective reading of what terrorism is sometimes condemns the good guys, too. You don't want to hear it.

The war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda is probably the closest to a "just war" that we've fought, at least since World War II. Get over the idea that we're spotless and wonderful, though. Yes, Americans are blocking out bigger pictures. We condemn the idea of killing innocent civilians for political ends, but we go on the record as saying that thousands of Iraqi children dying a month from sanctions is an acceptable tactic to try to overthrow Hussein (not that it's doing any good). This goes back to our actions in World War II as well as the enemy's: by all reasonable definitions, killing tens of thousands of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was terrorism. Don't kid yourself into thinking anything else. The entire point was to send the message, "If you don't surrender, we will kill not your soldiers but your families, your wives and your children, with weapons more terrifying than you can possibly imagine."

People seem to be under the apprehension that those of us pointing out that America sometimes does Bad Things are excusing having Bad Things done to us. We're not. We're saying that two wrongs don't make a right. And we're saying that if we're going to set a moral example for the rest of the world--and it's not American arrogance to say that given our position as the only superpower, we damn well better be willing to set that example--we've got to be moral. We can't be doing this "situational ethics" shit anymore, can't act like "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" does us (or anyone else) any good, can't loudly praise democracy while quietly supporting fascist dictators who are open to foreign investment--and even helping them overthrow democratically-elected governments that seemed a little too socialist.

Maybe in your eyes it's "warped" to talk about America's foreign policy failures. If so, what you want isn't patriotism--it's jingoism. I hope for our country's sake that enough people understand the difference. True patriotism isn't "my country, right or wrong." It's helping your country do what's right, and trying to prevent it from doing what's wrong.

Re:Suspects??

[kfg]

Unfortunately I too lost friends in the attack on the WTC. Some of my closest relatives who survived are now homeless. One may lose his business as well.

None of them were armed or any threat to either bin Laden or the Muslim religion.

Let me ask you this, you say that all of your friends were ministers.

As ministers, were they the sort of people who would advocate the bombing of a Red Cross station dispensing food to the starving civilian population in a war torn country, or were they, perhaps, more likely to be the sort of person manning such a station, even though it was behind enemy lines?

Re:Suspects??

[kfg]

I'm curious, I have my own reasons for considering the Red Cross "miscreants," and I can't help but wonder what yours are.

Nonetheless, in this case, yes, I do support them. They were relying on the fact that the US is a signitory to the Geneva Convention, and has in the past been quite vocal in maintaining that such convention be upheld. Bombing a Red Cross facility is contrary to such convention.

As for whether they would leave the USA alone if the tables were turned, history bears proof that they would not. They have come to the aid of the USA many, many, many times, and many US soldiers owe their lives to their good auspices. Bombing them seems poor compensation and a lack of enlightened self interest.

As for the rest of your post, I would dearly love to respond to each and every point, but after reading it slowly and carefully three times now, I havn't the foggiest idea what it is you are even trying to say.

KFG

Re:Suspects??

[Malcontent]

I think there is profound difference if some joe blow spins a story and CNN spins a story. Apparently for you it's the same thing.

Re:Suspects??

[Malcontent]

" I'm sorry, but the last time I checked, no United States citizen has killed one of these alleged "thousands of Iraqi children." Which one have I killed? "

All US citizens helped kill over a million iraquis including over 500,000 children. Sure you did not go out there and pulled the trigger but your govt did it and you are responsible for your govt. By your insane and utterly stupid reasoning we should not be bombing Afghanistan because "No afghani citizen killed americans" All those terrorists were from saudi arabia or pakistan. Jeez no wonder you posted anonymously that was the stupidest post I have ever seen here.

BTW try and justify nagasaki in your mind sometime. There was no reason to drop THAT bomb. We did it because we enjoy killing so much. We can't seem to go for more then a few years without killing some dark skinned people someplace.

Re:Suspects??

[Malcontent]

Go ahead and make a case for how killing afghanis which had nothing to do with the WTC is self defense. None of the people we have killed so far could be considered responsible for what happened. They are just some poor 15 year olds drafted into some godforsaken army. How is killing them self defense? If you want to talk self defense we should be bombing saudi arabia or germany or spain or even canada. That's where the terrorists came from.

Re:Suspects??

[Performer Guy]

Self defense is a lawful position, that's in the UN charter. What kind of fool would think self defense is unlawful? Even if it's not written down in black and white (which it is), it's a fundamental principal of natural justice.

Re:Suspects??

[Performer Guy]

You seem to ignore the uncomfortable fact that it was the USA which was attacked. Oh and FYI, I'm not a citizen of the USA. Maybe you'd like the world to turn to shit and have the USA sit back and let cavemen (yes, that isn't a pejorative term, it's where these guys live) fly airliners into buildings, but I don't. The USA was more than content to leave Afghanistan to the influence of Pakistan's ISI and Iran, but when it hardboured terrorists who massacred innocents on US soil something had to be done. It may infuriate you that the USA is kicking ass in Afghanistan, but that's what happens when you initiate a war on America. It comes as a surprise to many who saw the USA turn tail and run when they were attacked during peacekeeping and humanitarian mission, but that's because they believed the prognosis of bin Laden and his ilk. This is justified action and I'm thoroughly satisfied with the actions of the USA and the consequences. If the USA hadn't acted against these murderers, observers like you would be dancing around saying what a paper tiger the USA was as you laughed up your sleve at the murder of thousands in NY. Meanwhile bin Laden would be gearing up for further attrocities. No thanks, well done Uncle Sam. The fact that you have an opposing opinion doesn't mean that you are half right, simply because the media entertains fools of all kinds doesn't mean your position is morally equivalent. No, you are dead wrond, and morally bankrupt. The only case you can make is to confuse the issues beyond recognition. Thankfully clearer minds prevail in Washington D.C. and America is taking the fight to a regime which has initiated a war against the USA.

Re:Suspects??

[bero-rh]

We've all seen the interview where bin Laden called for the murder of all Americans reguardless of whether they were in the armed forces.

Along with a translation provided by CNN.
Can we really be sure the translation is accurate?

Judging from the overall media coverage of this war (and other wars), I wouldn't be too surprised if the translation was edited to make him sound even more like a villain than he actually is, to gather support for any actions against Afghanistan, both legitimate (going after real terrorists) and illegitimate (throwing splinter bombs, throwing food at mine fields and any other action taken against civilians).

(Not saying it happened that way, though - maybe he actually did say these things, nobody who can't listen to and understand what he originally said can tell for sure.)

Re:Suspects??

[Elvis Maximus]

You're a confused idiot, just remember that you, your kids and your grandkids have to live in the world you manage to construct.

That's an interesting point: how did the world we're currently living in come to be constructed?

Self defense is entirely legal and legitimate, which rules out your definition.

Is it really that simple? There are many in Iraq and Palestine who have excellent reason to feel they are under attack by the United States, either directly or indirectly. There are a significant number of civilians in Afghanistan who have been killed or rendered homeless by American bombing; there are thousands more who lived in fear of it happening to them. These people have a real fear of losing their lives or property as a result of American policy; do they have a "legal and legitimate" right to attack the United States?

Osama bin Laden and his followers believe the holy places of Islam are under threat from American troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, and that they have a duty to defend them. You may not agree with them, but their opinions are sincerely held. What are their rights of self-defense in this case?

Whatever you think the answers to these questions are, do take a moment to consider that to many people they are not academic or distant questions, but have a very immediate significance to their daily lives. And, moral considerations aside, consider whether or not it is in the interests of America's national security to minimize the number of people who have real reason to ask such questions. And how hard, really, would that be to do?

Re:Suspects??

[Performer Guy]

It's moderated just fine. Just look at the moderation on the rest of this thread, it's heavily weighted the other way. It is absolutely clear that the belief that America was hamstrung and a paper tiger led in part to the obcenity of Sept 11th. Even now some want the USA to do nothing in defense of freedom when there has never been a clearer case for self defense. Some accuse America of agression which gives succor to those who comitted the attrocity, and encourages others to do the same. It strains me to imagine just what kind of abhorrant obcenity it would take before you'd actually have the USA defend itself, and not accuse it of naked aggression.

Re:Suspects??

[Performer Guy]

Unlike you I have a relative who speaks fluent Arabic. You're only betraying your utter bias now. It was actually an ABC interview long before September 11th in which bin Laden called for the murder of innocent Americans. You can try to pull the wool over everyone's eyes, but even English speakers know there would have been a massive outcry if the translation was incorrect, because there are huge numbers of Arabic speakers who saw the taped interview. There was even discussion in Arab circles as to whether he had the authority to issue such a Fatwa. At that time bin Laden wasn't trying to deny his attrocities, and relished his position as the leader who poked the "great satan" in the eye.

Re:Suspects??

[Performer Guy]

The case is not for killing Afghans, it's for killing the Taliban and Al Qaida. Some would like to confuse the two, or pretend that only innocent civilians are being killed but that is not the case. I don't like war, and if we could resucitate the dead innocents in Afghanistan who wouldn't? However we cannot competely disavow war as a means of self defense when attacked. That's a recipie for madmen across the globe to kill innocents and hide amongst civilians. There would be no end to the carnage. The fact remains that even after the Northern Alliance freed Mazar-e-Sharif and Kabul, the people on the street were celebrating their freedom. I would put it to you that as a nation most people of Afghanistan would look back on recent events as a small but terrible price to pay for their freedom from the Taliban. You are practiced at pointing out the attrocities of war, but you haven't suggested an alternative that wouldn't invite disaster. Not everyone has been raised on your diet of Disney feature films, there are bad people in the world who will exploit the weak, both nations and people.

Re:Suspects??

[Performer Guy]

I see...the concept of an indirect attack. It has to come to this. Paint a big conspiracy and then accuse the USA of the worlds ills. You have to ignore a lot of facts to buy into these theories however. You have to ignore refusals by Saddam to allow arms inspections, or to sell is quota of oil in exchange for medical supplies. It's emotional blackmail with the lives of his own citizens as the cannon fodder. You have to ignore the duplicity of the PA, and the fact that Yasser Arifat has been in the White House more times than any other 'world leader'. You have to ignore the sheltering of Hamas and other organizations who kill innocents in Israel, or the territorial concessions made by Israel in recent negotiations, after which Yasser Arafat decided to pack up shop and unleash the intifada-II and suicide bombers, afterall if he could get this much without a drop of blood just imagine what he could get if he turned to mass murder.

I agree these are not academic and distant questions, but your notion that the truth or middle ground lies half way between any too opposing positions is fundamentally flawed.

It never occurs to you to examine the facts in these cases and ascribe some degree of fault or culpability. That is a very academic and distant notion. If we applied it in reality as we seem to be doing increasingly, we will all end up in ruins, simply because anyone cynical enough can manipulate our emotions to the point where we ignore their actions, and concede half the ground between us and them, even if they are utterly wrong. Then they can go for round two with the same tactics.

Re:Suspects??

[Performer Guy]

After a Red Cross facility has been occupied by enemy forces, it ceases to become a Red Cross facility. But then you new that I was referring to enemy forces. In the face of war and enemies who literally seek to destroy us, your cute little word games are inappropriate. This is not some academic point of debate, lend the issues the gravity they deserve. As for your closing point, you are used to moral equivalence and arguing by analogy, it is the factual nature of my post which confuses you.

Re:Suspects??

[seann]

you said it.
praise allah!

Re:Suspects??

[Performer Guy]

You seem to have missed the point of the post I responded to. Don't you realize that he's calling Amreican actions in Afghanistan terrorism. Self defense has everything to do with this, within the confines of his definition, personally I prefer your definition, but I'd throw in a 'deliberately' in there. The point is that the USA seems to be concerned with his definition also, if you'll remember it released documents to the UN stating that it would need to act with military force against Afghanistan and possibly other nations in order to defend itself. This is the legal justification for the war within the confines of the UN charter. That is a simple fact, you may not like it but it's the basis for the legality of current US military actions. Self defense is what makes this action legal.

You've waded in and assumed I've taken a position contrary to the one I infact did. I agree this is a completely justified war. I strongly object to anyone calling it terrorism. This is the kind of sick confused moral equivalence that disgusts me.

Re:Suspects??

[seann]

The answer is because the internet is a cancerus virus that spreads amongsts humans like my aunt pattis strawberry rhubarb pie.

You blame the internet (your problem), the internet has problems, the problems go away.

Re:Suspects??

[Performer Guy]

Those workers were mine clearing staff who were living on the air base which got bombed. I don't see that in your post, nor was it easy to find in the news reports which DID get broadcast many times. It's an old trick, pretend that it was covered up by the news when it was all over the place. Do you even watch US news services?

And the US wasn't dropping food into known minefields. This was part of the propaganda that the US media DID put out, one US pres corp reporter was concerned that they might hit a refugee on the head with a food parcel. The next thing they were concerned that refugees might run through mine fields to get the food. Humanitarian agencies were even complaining about the cost of the food drops, this at a time when the Taliban were blocking the roads. The anti-American sentiment was flowing, and over what? Food drops!

Disgusting, you and others were finding any excuse to bash the US, food drops on minefields was just one of the more reprehensible pieces of propaganda.

To this day there's not a single shred of evidence to support this, and you sure haven't seen any, yet you still post the accusation here, amidst any other seditious anti-US diatribe you can scrape up.

Re:Suspects??

[goldspider]

"All US citizens helped kill over a million iraquis including over 500,000 children."

I suppose the fact that the Iraqi government has spent most of its money on weapons projects instead of food and agriculture has nothing to do with the problem over there.

"There was no reason to drop THAT bomb. We did it because we enjoy killing so much."

I guess you would have preferred to have sent hundreds of thousands of American marines to their deaths in an invasion of the Japanese mainland. Actually your reasoning suggests that you'd have preferred that we did not defend ourselves against Japan and let them eventually invade us without a fight, because violence is bad.

Apparently the concept of cause and effect is as foreign to you as the idea of supporting the country that has given you the freedoms you now enjoy.

Re:Suspects??

[XyouthX]

FYI: Bin Laden does all his speeches in an ancient form of arabic dating back to the 6th century. even if you are fluent in modern arabic you would not understand a word.
a few imams and other scholars who have studied old version of the koran and ancient arabic cultures are able to translate this.
he probably does this to give his appearances a more prophetic "feel".

Re:Suspects??

[shawnseat]

"All US citizens helped kill over a million iraquis including over 500,000 children."

I suppose the fact that the Iraqi government has spent most of its money on weapons projects instead of food and agriculture has nothing to do with the problem over there.

It might also have something to do with the fact that the United States, over the objections of even Great Britain(!), has not permitted chemicals necessary for cleaning municipal water to enter the country. This is a violation of Article 45 of the Geneva Convention, but then the US only uses the UN when it's a convenient scapegoat.

Re:Suspects??

[Elvis Maximus]

I see...the concept of an indirect attack. It has to come to this. Paint a big conspiracy and then accuse the USA of the worlds ills.

Not exactly. When the US gives weapons to the Israelis, who consistently turn around and use them in contravention of international law, and then more weapons are sent again the following year, one does not really have to paint a big conspiracy to find a connection.

You can say whatever you want about Saddam Hussein, and most of it will be true, but it does not change the fact that US policy in Iraq is not just inhumane, but just plain stupid. All it has succeeded in doing is giving the ruling government a convenient bogeyman to blame all the country's ills on, while at the same time making sure that the population is too busy trying to scrape out a living to mount a decent opposition. Saddam is still able to get whatever he wants; just about the only thing that gets through the sanctions in bulk is military materiel. There have been recent attempts to ease the sanctions that have been opposed by nobody but Saddam Hussein. The sanctions are probably what has kept him in power.

The point of my last post was that in ten years or so, there will be a whole generation of millions of desperate Iraqis who have grown up with every reason to hate the United States. I do not expect your arguments that it was Saddam's fault will hold much weight with them. You may think they're wrong, and you may even be right, but that won't improve your security much.

Re:Suspects??

[plague3106]

That doesn't make it ok though. Remember we have laws about people unintenionally killing people, and its still considered murder. Manslaughter comes to mind. And i believe there are laws against 'high risk driving' which will get you in trouble. Basically not being careful enough. One could argue US bombings are not being careful enough...

Re:Suspects??

[PD]

Somebody marked me flamebait? Unbelievable.

I'm going to repeat it:

Osama has already been found guilty for other terrorist attacks, so that's the basis under which we can pursue him. He WILL pay the price for what he has done.

Re:Suspects??

[Deflatamouse!]

Yes, the United States Armed Forces is a terrorist organization. They must have killed or injured more innocent people in Afghanistan since 9/11 than the 9/11 WTC event. We are also the only country in the world to actually use a nuclear weapon. and 2 fucking times! Talk about hypocrisies! Gee, I wonder why the Mideast countries hate us so much.

Yes, we may respect human rights, but only the humans within the country. This country does not respect the human rights of other humans on this planet.

Re:Suspects??

[Malcontent]

The ignorance of the typical american never fails to amaze me.

What makes you think the iraquis spent most of their money on the military. We armed them gpretty good when we encouraged them to go war with iran. The people dying have died due to sanctions (of course we killed over a 100,000 during desert storm too).

As for your all so ignorant remark about nagasaki. Maybe using that argument you could have justified dropping the bomb on hiroshima. But once you dropped the bomb and once they knew that you were willing and able to commit wholesale slaughter of civilians they were ready to surrender. But we dropped another bomb anyways just because we enjoyed killing japanese so much.
Once again justify the second bomb.

Re:Suspects??

[Malcontent]

You can not even make a case for killing the taliban. Taliban were not responsible for WTC. As for Al Qaida most of them are scattered all over the world. The people you are killing are not Al Qaida. they are not even taliban by and large.

"there are bad people in the world who will exploit the weak, both nations and people."

Yes and most of them live right here in the united states.

Re:Suspects??

[goldspider]

"But once you dropped the bomb and once they knew that you were willing and able to commit wholesale slaughter of civilians they were ready to surrender."

And you know this how? Common, rational sense doesn't apply when yer dealing with fanatics, as we have so recently and painfully learned.

Re:Suspects??

[Performer Guy]

What's inhumane is letting Saddam get away with tooling up for another major conflict in the Middle East. The people saying we should give relief to the Iraqi people are the same who said we should stop the Desert Storm on the the road to Basra. You need to be very short sighted to support your position.

You see, there are real consequences to releasing all restrictions on Iraq, and those consequences are extremely unpleasant. This isn't some pristine environment where we can deal with issues in isolation. It is criminally irresponsible to ignore the fact that Saddam has been hell bent on developing weapons of mass destruction and has used such weapons before against his own people. He's using the deaths of his own people to stirr your emotions when he has the power to releive their suffering and wont. Unfortunately people like you selectively pick and choose from the available facts to paint an anti-American picture and play right into Saddam's hands.

On the issue of US arms to Israel, and their constant use in contravention of international law, that depends on how you interpret the situation there. Self defense does not contravene international law. Frankly it's a miracle Israel has survived this long if you look at the attacks against it. You seem to forget that it was US pressure which stopped Israel rolling all the way into Cairo when Egypt and other beligerants attacked it during a holy festival. Just as it was US pressure which forced the UK to stop it's recapture of the nationalized Suez Canal. US policy has never been as one sided as you pretend it has, but Arabs seem to have a conveniently selective memory on these issues. Recent administrations put considerable pressure on Israel to make concessions, which led directly to the recent escallation in violence. The cynical PA thinks it can use it's new found PR skills and bloody slaughter as a political tool to gain territory.

Re:Suspects??

[Elvis Maximus]

The sanctions are working pretty well then? Saddam is unable to pursue weapons of mass destruction? The majority of inspectors seem to disagree with you.

American policy toward Israel since the sixties has been pretty one-sided. That they occasionally curb the worst of the Israelis' excesses doesn't change that.

Your position seems to be that any information that does not fall into a black and white category is to be disregarded, because the world is black and white.

Re:Suspects??

[Malcontent]

Once again justify dropping the second bomb. You quoted me but everything in my quote is true.

True or false?

We were willing and able commit wholesale slaughter of civillians

We slaughtered an entire city called hiroshima to demonstrate to the japanese that we would kill every single one of them if required.

Then instead of asking for their surrender and accepting it (even though they were ready to surrender). We dropped another bomb just for the joy of killing japanse.

There is no justification for dropping the second bomb. It was an act of pure evil that dwarfs even the holocaust.

Re: Suspects??

[Inthewire]

He was sought for trial. Oddly, he never showed.
However, since he is not and will never be an American citizen, well, he is not granted the rights of citizenship.

Re:Suspects??

[goldspider]

I am still not convinced that we would kill thousands of people just for shits and giggles.

The truth of the matter is that the Atomic Bomb was used to REDUCE Japanese civilian casualties. At the time of the decision to use the Bomb, it was estimated that over 2 million Japanese civilians would be killed along with hundreds of thousands of U.S. Marines.

You will also find that, contrary to your statement, the United States demanded Japan's unconditional surrender at the Potsdam Conference on July 26, 1945: over a week before the dropping of the first bomb.

I think if you did some research, you will find that Japan was not yet willing to surrender after the first Bomb was dropped.

Re:Suspects??

[goldspider]

"At the time of the decision to use the Bomb, it was estimated that over 2 million Japanese civilians would be killed along with hundreds of thousands of U.S. Marines." if we were to go ahead with the planned invasion of the Japanese mainland.

Evidence?

[czth]

A little evidence would be nice before one goes and cuts off a whole country from the 'net. The fact that they denied it is irrelevant; anyone would deny it, especially knowing that the US is on the warpath. But it's pretty hard to see the US having an ulterior motive for shutting them down; Somalia isn't exactly a force to be reckoned with. Unless the motive is to use Somalia as a "test case" to see how the world reacts to US/Europe flexing its muscles a little....

OTOH, this doesn't affect me personally at all... no servers I use are in Somalia, I don't even know any sites there.

But it's a disturbing precedent.

Re:Evidence?

[Cally]

A little evidence would be nice before one goes and cuts off a whole country from the 'net.

...but it's not just the net; it's also taken out most of the country's telephone network. This means people working abroad can't send money back to their families back home.

This is a direct attack on the civilian infrastructure of a neutral, non-combatant country. When is the U.N. going to stand up and say that this has GOT to STOP? Oh wait, the U.N., the US doesn't even pay their subscriptions to the UN.

Re:Evidence?

[Joe Decker]

Oh? Is that actually true?

Re:Evidence?

[Joe Decker]

I actually find UBL's admission to be proof enough for me. You might question the fuzziness of the translation of his comments, but a few friends who speak Arabic as a first language tell me that they find the connotation of admission of guilt in UBL's 10/20 statement to be clearer to them in the Arabic than in the current translations in the US press. Your standards of proof may vary, of course.

I'll note that the UN did not question UBL's guilt in the murder of hundreds in the embassy bombings, that led to their resolution demanding UBL's extradition from the Taliban in 1999. (UN Resolution 1267, if you care to look it up.) Pity that the UN didn't enforce that resolution.

Re:Evidence?

[Joe Decker]

And, again, looking at the content of the (translated) text, as you indicate, it is not even that clear from the quote that it even indicates guilt.

You're reading and mine vary. That's okay. That's why I provide links, you're welcome to make up your own mind.

And as someone else pointed out here, the quotes are taken out of context without reference.

Absolutely. Please remember that my own readings of this are colored by additional translations of the same speech that are not published. This is not meant to convince you, (there's no particular reason I expect to you trust my friends) merely to explain why I am convinced. If I were you, I wouldn't trust my judgement there, either. :)

Re:Evidence?

[Joe Decker]

In a situation like this you can't be sure about anything. The "war against terrorism" seems to be an excuse to do all kinds of things.

I'm with you there, man.

Re:Evidence?

[aozilla]

A little evidence would be nice before one goes and cuts off a whole country from the 'net.

What evidence do you have that there was no evidence? The title of a slashdot article?

Re:Evidence?

[paraducks]

In my faulty recollection, this link has changed considerably since this afternoon. Obviously, the Ministry of Truth pays attention to /.

Keep in mind, this is not a somalia company

[Joey7F]

The US and the UK gave them access. They (we) can take it away.

--Joey

I seriously hope this is a weak troll, becaus....

[TheCaptain]

They are not talking about hyperlinks there skippy....go read the article.

Hmmm...

[Sj0]

Does that mean that the US are now "hacker terrorists" for causing a crime of mass disruption?

BOMBS AWAY!

Re:Hmmm...

[gzerod]

Nope, that would make them "hacker counter-terrorists". You have to remember that we are on morally superior ground, and besides we write the history books.

Re:Hmmm...

[Sj0]

You have to remember that we are on morally superior ground,

...So are they.

Re:Hmmm...

[chowpalace]

only the Victorious write the books. By no means is the US victorious yet.
The USofA has only succeeded in driving out the Taliban regime.
Who (btw) did [and for all practical matters-DO] support terrorist behavior.

Re:Hmmm...

[archen]

the good news is that because the Taliban outlawed women learning to read, that we can have more people read our truth in our books than they can have reading theirs.

Re:Hmmm...

[Nathaniel]

"The USofA has only succeeded in driving out the Taliban regime.
Who (btw) did [and for all practical matters-DO] support terrorist behavior."

I've yet to see a definition of "terrorist behavior" that includes the Taliban regime but not the United States. Can you provide one? Can you point at a class of actions that the Taliban has ingaged in but the United States has not ingaged in?

Please understand the the implementation details don't distingish a class of actions.

As an example, piloting a metal cylinder full of jet fuel into the side of a building containing innocent civilians has the same effect as dropping a metal cylinder full of explosives into a building containing innocent civilians, at least as far as the innocent civilians are concerned.

What has the Talinan regime done that the United States has not also done, perhaps to a greater degree?

Re:Hmmm...

[mikec]

Destroyed the World Trade Center?

Coincidence

[ROBOKATZ]

It's a coincidence that they are the ONLY ISP in Somalia and that they're suspected of terrorist links. As much as some people here would like to believe it, I'm sure the US is not trying to curtail the Somalian people's "freedom" to use the Internet.

Re:Coincidence

[Anonymous DWord]

Uh huh. If they have the power to shut it down for being suspected of terrorist links, why don't they just install Carnivore, to MONITOR the terrorists? It could be very useful- I'm sure Somalia doesn't have the same traffic that say, AOL in Miami does. This is bullshit.

If you had read the article, etc, etc, etc, . . .

[kfg]

You would know that the "links" refered to are not www hyperlinks, but "links" in the sense of associated with.

i.e. they are suspected of actually being actively involved in terrorist networks, including supplying them with funding.

Linking to information is irrelevant to the action.

And how a relevant got into my pajamas I'll never know.

KFG

Medicine Factory

[hotsauce]

Isn't this the place we struck after the embassy bombings? We claimed we bombed a chem weapons plant. Turns out we destroyed their largest pharmaceuticals factory.

Great.

Re:Medicine Factory

[bmasel]

No. That was Sudan

No Offense But...

[NitsujTPU]

Good for Somalia. The US took action against a company, not the country, just because it happens to be the only provider in that country doesn't make them any different. Do you think that the US Government shouldnt' split MS since the public thinks they're the only thing on the desktop?

Re:No Offense But...

[salvo_jnr]

At least Microsoft got a trial and was allowed to argue a case.. this precedent of justice being slanted to revenge rather than due process, fair representation and finally, if guilty, a reprisal for unjust actions.. These changes across the face of the American "justice" system is more than disturbing, it is scary!

Re:No Offense But...

[NitsujTPU]

You're talking about a bust on a money laundering front for terrorists. The government's been watching these people for a good while. I doubt that they got this wrong.

Re:No Offense But...

[C_nemo]

and they've never been wrong before?

Re:No Offense But...

[NitsujTPU]

This is a war. Would people be bitching and moaning if Somalia was in war and cut a supply off to us?

*cough cough*

OIL

*cough cough*

New Market for AOL

[kilocomp]

AOL should go into that market. There will be 0 competion and should be easy to buy off the government to keep it that way.

Re:New Market for AOL

[Cyrano de Maniac]

Hehe. So, everyone using that service would now be considered SOL?

Re:New Market for AOL

[jeffmock]

"You've got hunger!"

Re:New Market for AOL

[paraducks]

Somalia On Line?

Before Everyone Over Reacts..

[lkaos]

We have to trust the intellegence community has solid evidence against these companies. It would be political sucide if they didn't.

It's horrible that the Somalians have essentially been shut off from the outside world but while such an action may have negative short term effects, it will benefit the Somalians in the long run.

If these companies are washing money for terrorist groups they are obviously corrupt. The next question is what other bad things have these companies done.

Hopefully, this will open up the market to another honest company that will in the long run benefit the Somalians.

Re:Before Everyone Over Reacts..

[Anonymous Coward]

We have to trust the intellegence community has solid evidence against these companies. It would be political sucide if they didn't.

Oh my, GWB really is a good brainwasher. So you have to trust the US government now do you? This is the same government that asked you to trust them when they bombed the largest pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, and then said 'oops sorry', and also the same government that bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade and then said 'oh damn we had old maps'. Give me a fucking break. At the very least you owe it to yourself and your country to at the very least scrutinise and question every single move your government makes.

Right now GWB is basically playing the 'my dick is bigger than your dick' game and dragging the whole of the US and the Middle East into it.

Re:Before Everyone Over Reacts..

[Sj0]

There's no such thing as political suicide through incompotence in the US. As long as you can spin it as being good, no matter how unbelievable the explaination, you'll have the sheep believing you, and the minority who understands the world will be told that "they are in bed with the terrorists".

"sure, we nuked the entire middle east, but we're airlifting supplies to the mutated survivors! It's their fault for resisting our invasion in the first place! We've made our point that terrorism will not be tollerated."

too far from what would happen? Likely not. I have no respect for the US government, or the American people, who allow themselves to be manipulated.

Re:Before Everyone Over Reacts..

[fireboy1919]

Political suicide? Riiigghhhtt. The US has done FAR worse things than remove an ISP. We've brought economies to our knees because we suspected them of supporting our enemies. Which is worse, cutting of an ISP of a starving country or causing a country to starve (please note that I'm NOT saying we caused the conditions in Somalia - I'm referring to other countries)?

We've also broken the rules of war (yes, they do exist, albiet informally) by hurting the innocents without cause, and without a good enough pretext.

Re:Before Everyone Over Reacts..

[Cally]

We have to trust the intellegence community has solid evidence against these companies. It would be political sucide if they didn't.

Since when were the FBI and CIA elected? Wake up and smell the coffee!

Re:Before Everyone Over Reacts..

[Zemran]

"We have to trust the intellegence community has solid evidence against these companies."

You mean like the evidence they had against the Lockerbie bombers? It now turns out that they had more evidence that it wasn't the Libyans but they were the best fall guys. The UK helped cover up the fact that the PanAm luggage storage at Heathrow (somewhere the Libyans had no access to) was broken into and the bomb was most likely put on board there... but hey, that would mean that it was most likely the IRA and they are funded by the US and that would look bad.

Re:Before Everyone Over Reacts..

[Pstrobus]

It's horrible that the Somalians have essentially been shut off from the outside world but while such an action may have negative short term effects, it will benefit the Somalians in the long run.

Negative Short Term Effects:

• the two companies are together, the largest employer in Somalia (think shutting down GM and GE)
• Many Somalis depend on folks outside the country to send them money. With the lines shut down, no money gets in. (think of the US if 60% of the cash were to simply vanish, no grease for the wheels of commerce).
• And yeah, there's that whole thing about Jus in bello where you do not harm non-guilty parties
• While we're at it, with all this talk about "new war" how come the US hasn't simply arrested/assasinated the guys who ran the damned thing?

Re:Before Everyone Over Reacts..

[Nathaniel]

"If these companies are washing money for terrorist groups they are obviously corrupt."

So if the dry cleaner down the street cleans a shirt for a terrorist, then the dry cleaner is obviously corrupt as well, right? If not, why not?

In both cases, the company might be involved and complicit, or they might not be. This is a dicision for a court system. That is what court systems are for. Snap judgements by concerned parties with an emotional attachment to the issues are often wrong.

The damage to society caused by ignoring the legal systems will be larger than the damage inflicted by the terrorists.

Re:Before Everyone Over Reacts..

[lkaos]

Everyone seems to forget. We are in a war. It's as simple as that. We were frigging bombed with our own planes and lost ~5000 cilivians.

This isn't some silly exercise of whose dick is bigger, this is a war so we can be safe in our own country. The fact that we are dropping bombs with such precision that we only destroy the air strips on the airport as to not totally destroy the airport is friggin incredible.

So what, we missed a few times. People are kicking and screaming but we aren't fire bombing like we did in Dresden and we're not dropping atomic weapons like we did in Japan.

But even those above things are justified because it is war. War is a part of human nature and it's winner take all. Period.

Re:Before Everyone Over Reacts..

[kaimiike1970]

Talk about a sore loser. Methinks thou doth protest to much. More to the point, did you read the article? The international gateway was closed. This gateway was OWNED jointly by AT&T and British Telecom. These are businesses. If they want to cancel a 'users [somalia]' service they can. End of story. If this causes a Somali ISP to close their doors whose fault is that?

Re:Before Everyone Over Reacts..

[lkaos]

The rest of the world is at war with us. Bin Laden and all those oil tycons have declared war on the US. It's not about religion or anything else, but it's about money. And if you honestly don't think that a way is going on, then go to New York and take a look at the front lines.

That's total bullshit about the Red Cross warehouse. It was propaganda put out by the Taliban. It was never substaniated.

I'll tell you what happened in Somalia, our solidiers went in on a peace keeping mission trying to feed the starving people who weren't receiving the food being sent to them because of the troops from their civil war were preventing it from getting there.

So, to show their graditude, the somilians killed the solidiers and drug their bodies through the streets so that the whole city could descrate the bodies. Peace keepers...

I think it's time to grow up and see the world for what it really is. There are bad people in the world and they need to be dealt with.

And yes, I'm posting this with my nick because I am not a karma whore. Tad bit ironic to critize so heavily anonymously...

Re:Before Everyone Over Reacts..

[totenkopf]

In both cases, the company might be involved and complicit, or they might not be. This is a dicision (sic) for a court system.

What court system? The one in Somalia? There is none.

Re:Before Everyone Over Reacts..

[zenyu]

"Trust Us"

Oh come on, they want to stop anonymous transfers of money. Their justification is that they could be used by terrorists. Their failed justifications in the past have been to catch tax cheats, to close black and gray markets, to avoid the inconvenience of filing tax forms, etc.

Our leaders don't give a damn how many people die if the Somalian government collapses, they wrote off Africa a long time ago. Africans don't yet have terrorists to catch our attention, when AIDS has collapsed the few good governments left and the buildings start falling at home we'll wonder at how cheaply we could have avoided the problems. Much as we all wonder at our stupidity at squandering the opportunity to restore a participatory government in Afghanistan after they won their battle in the Cold War for us.

Honest company my ass, what MSN, AOL?

The Balkanization of the Internet

[vlad_petric]

Great Firewall in China and Saudi Arabia

US shuts down Somalian ISP

....

What next ?

France DOS-ing sites that trade Nazi memorabilia

Muslim countries attacking sites that advocate women's rights

...

Eventually, each and every country will attack the sites that it considers offensive ...

The Raven.

Re:The Balkanization of the Internet

[firebat162]

In China and Saudi Arabia's case, they are preventing their OWN people from accessing the internet. If that is what the government wants, then there really isn't anything terribly wrong legally.

But on the other hand, if it is another country shutting off your country's internet then that's another level of injustice in my eyes

Re:The Balkanization of the Internet

[aminorex]

:they are preventing their OWN people from accessing : the internet. If that is what the government
: wants, then there really isn't anything terribly
: wrong legally.

You assume that anything the government does is
legal. You assume that human beings have no rights.
You ass, u.

Re:The Balkanization of the Internet

[charon_on_acheron]

Right, human beings have no rights. Get over it.

The only places with 'human rights' are those places where the populace have forced the authorities to enumerate those rights.

And if the government doesn't make something illegal, for the area that government controls, it is legal. It might not be 'right' in your eyes, but you don't count if you're not under the jurisdiction of that government.

Ever hear of national sovereignty? Keep your petty thoughts out of others backyards.

Re:The Balkanization of the Internet

[zenyu]

What next? Muslim countries attacking sites that advocate women's rights

Heh, I sold all my Compaq stock when my SO was blocked from women's engineering sites. She was a SWE officer, but didn't actually get mad until she was later blocked from a literary site on her lunch hour and her e-mail to me held for review.

Ummm, in relation to the topic at hand...we should have some of our rights protected by our government if they ever decide they've put enough natural fertilizer on the founder's overheating graves (all that spinning has to generate some heat.)

Not those kind of links...

[j_lazz]

They are talking about financial ties to terrorists. Though the article is a little vague about how those companies were used to support terror, it mentions that the Somalian Government is looking into the companies in question. The two companies responsible for the telephone connection in Somalia (AT&T, British Telecom) are from the two major players in the coalition against terrorism. How can they not comply and still be considered patriotic?

Re:Not those kind of links...

[Russ Nelson]

There is no "Somalian Government". There is a faction calling itself the Transitional National Government, however they only control several blocks and a hotel in Mog. Many people in Somalia are sure they don't want any kind of government, so it's not likely that the TNG will go beyond those few blocks.
-russ

My thoughts...

[eadyb]

I think Somalia has more presseing problems to worry about than worring about the few hundred lucky Somalians who have internet access.

IMHO feeding starving people is more important than checking email, reading /. etc...

IMHO

Re:My thoughts...

[Joe Decker]

You might, uhh, reread the article. It discusses the effects the loss of the 'net and phone system are having on UN humanitarian aid.

Re:My thoughts...

[hotsauce]

IMHO feeding starving people is more important than checking email, reading /. etc...

Actually, checking mail and reading /. is how companies thrive. It's called infrastructure. When companies thrive, they hire and pay people. Who can then eat.

And reading news and participating in discussion is how strong and stable democracies and governments are built. Infrastructure is more important than food drops.

Re:My thoughts...

[trilucid]

Hmm... doesn't fly. I understand what you're *trying* to say, but I think you fall short on the overall consequences of this action.

Here in the U.S. (and most other Western nations), everybody seems to be making a huge deal out of how "if you can't compete in the electrontic marketplace, you're out of business". Now, whether this is truly a fact or not remains to be seen, but it's almost certainly becoming more true every day.

Think about it. From that standpoint, a single company lacking the resources to compete in the digital marketplace, or even to leverage technology to compete in pure "meatspace", risks losing big-time. Now, extend that concept to the economy of an entire nation. Pretty ugly, eh? Yep, it sure is... I for one feel bad for the doubtless *many* legitimate businesses in Somalia that will suffer from this.

What's the end consequence? You can't really say "oh, they'll just get their access elsewhere", because any nation that reconnects them is begging for U.S. backlash. As a nation (and yes, I am an American citizen), we have a disturbing habit of not only "taking our ball and going home", but dropping bombs on anyone else who wants to let others use *their* ball to play. This tendency is only becoming more pronounced. I don't know how much longer the rest of the world will tolerate the cry-baby tactics of this nation, but hopefully it won't be too much longer.

Just my thoughts, eh?

Web hosting by geeks, for geeks. Now starting at $4/month (USD)!

Yes, this is my protest to the sig char limit :).

Re:My thoughts...

[xcomputer_man]

From the article:

"Hassan Barise in Mogadishu told the BBC's Network Africa programme the said more than 80% of Somalis depend on money they receive from relatives outside the country."

"He also pointed out that the United Nations, local and international aid agencies, as well as the government itself all relied heavily on internet access, now denied."

"Somalis living abroad use it to send money to their relatives back home as there are no other banking systems in Somalia since the downfall of the Siad Barre regime in 1991."

It bothers me how many people are ignorant of what poor countries go through. Of course, you've probably never had to depend on a brother living in a foreign country for money to live on. Email isn't just for recreation--perhaps you failed to realize that.

We are also talking about a nation deprived of its number one employer, causing mass unemployment and strangling an already impoverished economy. How selfish and heartless can Americans be?

Not good.

[exceed]

Imagine what the Somalians think now to hear that the United States has shut down their two major communication companies? This will just create more anti-American tension within the world of Islam.

Re:Boohoo!

[Sj0]

Browse at -1.

I wish that they would show messages modded beneath your threshhold if there are messages at your threshhold attached to it, or just don't show any of the messages in the thread. It just serves to confuse.

Yeah, right!

[Tokikenshi]

First Echelon, and now this? Gee mom, uncle sam's getting paranoid!

Sad, sad situation

[Rogerborg]

So it's come to this again. Because we need or want to get rid of some controlling individuals, but won't go in and do it directly, we apply larger scale sanctions that mostly hurt the people that rely on them. Although this is really small scale stuff compared to Iraq and, what's that other place... oh yeah, Cuba.

I know, I know, it's up to the the locals to clean their own house, but I have to question our record on applying and lifting sanctions. Here we are cosying up with communist China, and one faction in Afghanistan, and yet we still sanction communist Cuba and Iraq and are bombing the crap out of our ex best buddies in Afghanistan, racking up civilian casualties among the populations we profess to want to liberate, while not being willing to take the media hit of spending the life of one US serviceman (volunteers all) to get the guy we originally went in after.

It would be nice if just for once, we could say "Here is a list of the bad guys. We are going to get them, but we will go after them, and only them, and will lose US servicemen in preference to killing civilians and discounting their lives as 'collateral damage'" Then without any ceremony or fanfare or spin doctoring, we sit and wait for six weeks until they've got complacent and cocky, then quietly blow the fuckers' brains out in dark alleyways.

This is tough on Somalia, but Somalians can at least count themselves lucky that they're not Iraqis or Cubas. God damn, I hate the hypocrisy of politicians.

Re:Sad, sad situation

[swilcox]

I love it when flaming liberals bring up Cuba. We are the ONLY nation on this planet that doesn't trade with Cuba and yet the US gets blamed for the sad state Cuba is in. Ever thought it might be the fact that the government is COMMUNIST! Sheesh. Every other nation is free to trade (and alot do, France, China, Canada) with Cuba but the US continually gets blamed for Cuba's state of affairs by the more ignorant among us. As far as Somalia goes, what are we suppose to do? If there is a company that is aiding a terrorist organization you shut it down if possible. Hmmmm, lets see. Internet access for a third world nation or less resources for terrorist organizations. I know what I choose.

Re:Sad, sad situation

[Pauly]

If there is a company that is aiding a terrorist organization you shut it down if possible.

That's great news! That means of course we can expect Chevron, British Petroleum and all the other western oil companies that trade with Saudi Arabia to be closed!

After all, it is that trade that creates the wealth of the Saudi Arabian aristocracy. Saudi Arabia's public works projects exclusively fed the businesses of the Bin Laden family for decades, making the entire family, including Osama, among the richest in the world. This same oil trade (and America's oil addiction) continues to make make wealthy many Middle Eastern supporters of Al Qaida.

Does this make sense or do you drive a SUV with a American flag sprouting from every window?

Re:Sad, sad situation

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be nice if just for once, we could say "Here is a list of the bad guys. We are going to get them, but we will go after them, and only them, and will lose US servicemen in preference to killing civilians and discounting their lives as 'collateral damage'" Then without any ceremony or fanfare or spin doctoring, we sit and wait for six weeks until they've got complacent and cocky, then quietly blow the fuckers' brains out in dark alleyways.

Because of EO12333, the US cannot conduct those kind of operations (basically what amounts to assassination). Until that portion of the executive order is changed, the US has not choice but to resort to dropping bombs and hope they get lucky. It's hard to drop something that can take out a city block or destroy a building without having 'collateral damage'.

Re:Sad, sad situation

[Pope]

Ever thought it might be the fact that the government is COMMUNIST!

The 50's are over, senator.

Re:Sad, sad situation

[drnomad]

Every company doing business with Cuba is boycotted by the USA, well, actually that is what they want. So in terms of billiards, the ball is played through one of the sides, not directly into the pocket!

Re:Sad, sad situation

[malkavian]

Ok, considering the amount of funds channelled into the organisation by US agencies to support them while Russia was in Afghanistan, I take it you also advocate shutting down the US security agencies?

There's a little quote I seem to remember somewhere, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone..".
If people actually listened, the only people eligible to throw stones wouldn't want to. And the ones with the least right to throw stones usually lob the largest.

Re:Sad, sad situation

[SubtleNuance]

that the government is COMMUNIST!

Listen up you ignorant, rabid mccarthy-ite: What the FUCK do you know about Communism? You say "that government is COMMUNIST! Sheesh" just like a clueless, indignant moron.

I assert that the present American "success" isnt 'proof' that capitalism works at all. I believe it is really because every american had been propagandized into hysteria regarding the 'communist threat'. They mobilized to protect those who exploit them - fueled by this ColdWar anti-Commusit hysteria you so properly displayed. Good Citizen, here is your Soma.

When the world was building out of WWII, you Yanks sat back and got filthy rich. There was no domestic fighting (save Hawaii) THIS SIMPLE FACT is what has put USofA into its present position. History will , Im certain, prove your system horribly wrong...250 years from now, when armed conflict begins in the US to liberate the population from the control of your Plutocratic owners (think serf & king here) you Yankees wont be so fucking smug about "Communism". The Democratic control of the economy will look like a pretty good fucking idea when the planet is belching, the garbage is neck deep but the Bosses are all fat and rich and happy as ever - 99.999% of the population will NEVER be able to crawl out of the gutter because the game has been rigged in the favour of the present leaders.

This is gonna get me off modded as flaimbait, I dont fucking care. I just get fucking sick and tired of hearing this kind of clueless, self-righteous grandstanding from people who know NOTHING of what Communism and Socialist principles are.

You might want to take a step back and start wondering about reality of your "Democracy" at present. The fear of "Big Government" is really been an idea pushed by your PRESENT GOVERNMENT (that hasnt changed for 120 years) that wants to make sure power doesnt end up in the public body - your country would then be democratically controlled(!) - why not just keep the real power in their Plutocratic bodies and keep the farce playing. Dont try and tell the world how to run its affairs... the US is hardly a "success".

Re:Sad, sad situation

[Asic Eng]

Every other nation is free to trade (and alot do, France, China, Canada) with Cuba

I think that may not be totally accurate, IIRC companies from other countries face sanctions too, if they trade with Cuba. I don't think that's enforced much, though.

On the other hand, one of the problems which Cuba is facing today is that a lot of it's farmland has been exhausted by monocultures of sugar cane. Their own fault, really.

Re:Sad, sad situation

[jmv]

Every other nation is free to trade

Or maybe you forgot about the US attempt to prevent other nations to trade with Cuba with the (now dead I think) Helms-Burton (sp?) bill.

I wonder why the US is still trading with China, they too are COMMUNISTS! It's funny how you don't even need to say how someone (or some country) is bad, you can just say COMMUNIST... or ARABS, or TERRORISTS (which is probably the same as the previous in the american dictionary). These are just buzzwords, the same as in the McCarty/Nazi/whatever era.

Re:Sad, sad situation

[GlassUser]

. . . I take it you also advocate shutting down the US security agencies?

Actually I'm in favor of that too.

Re:Sad, sad situation

[swilcox]

Or maybe you forgot about the US attempt to prevent other nations to trade with Cuba with the (now dead I think) Helms-Burton (sp?) bill.

OK. Here we go.
I didn't forget it about. However the key word in your sentence is attempt . Hello!??!? It didn't happen. Some Senators TRIED to do it and the attempt failed. Cuba is still a third world nation even though EVERY other nation in the world is free to trade with it.

I wonder why the US is still trading with China, they too are COMMUNISTS!

That is simple. China has the potential to become a very powerful nation. The conventional wisdom being trade with China will ultimately change China's communist ways. Oh, that and money. Whereas Cuba is a tiny island nation that is really no consequence/threat to the free world.

It's funny how you don't even need to say how someone (or some country) is bad, you can just say COMMUNIST... or ARABS, or TERRORISTS (which is probably the same as the previous in the american dictionary).

No. It's not funny at all. Communist and terrorists are one in the same in many peoples books. Arabs are not. It's people like yourself whose attempts to associate the latter with the former that is truly disgusting.

Re:Sad, sad situation

[jmv]

The conventional wisdom being trade with China will ultimately change China's communist ways

I think you don't get my point: what is your problem with communism? The problem with both Cuba and China about dictatorships (sp?) and lack of freedom, not about communism in itself. You have communist dictators, you have capitalist dictators. None of them is better in my opinion.

Communist and terrorists are one in the same in many peoples books. Arabs are not. It's people like yourself whose attempts to associate the latter with the former that is truly disgusting.

OK, I will assume you unintentionally totally misunderstood my point here. I'm saying that those who say "communist=we must eliminate" and thow who say "arab=we must eliminate" ARE BOTH EQUALLY DEAD WRONG. There is currently a kind of "arab=terrorist" witch hunt, a bit like the previous communist witch hunt.

For your information, I have several arab (christian) relatives (so I slightly know what I'm talking about here), but I don't have a communist party membership card.

One of the Companies IS involved

[zulux]

Al-barakatt is the Somali version of Western Union - they take money and 'wire' it over to Somalia for delivery. Unfortunatly, the terrorists are taking a cut of all transfers:

US Government View

http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/01110 71 1.htm

Al-barakatt is an ISP, kind of like how the mafia is a security firm.

I imagine the "Blame America First" crowd it running around gleeful: Look America is crushing open communication in Somalia.

Re:One of the Companies IS involved

[Rogerborg]

• Al Barakaat's founder, Shaykh Ahme Nur Jimale, is closely linked to Usama bin Laden.

If we believe this, we're right to take action. But direct action. Punishing the company and the country for the actions of one man is rank hypocrisy. For all our vaunted military might and intelligence, we do seem to have a real problem when it comes to putting a bullet in the brain of the real bad guys.

Re:One of the Companies IS involved

[Ryan_Terry]

It's about time someone came up with some REAL information for a change. I wish I had some moderation points to give your way.

Re:One of the Companies IS involved

[zulux]

It's even muckerier than that: Al Barakaats services are really needed - a lot of Somali immigrents here in Seattle need the service to wire money to their *starving* families at home. Western Union charges too much and requires ID to hand over the money - ID is something that most Somalis don't have. It's a difficult situation, with no easy answers. Hopefully, andother comapny will fill the void.

Personally - I think that killing Al-Barakatt as a company is ligitimate. The world would be a better place if we had a corporate death penelty for companies that are guilty of murder. Al-Barakaat should be joind with RJR Tabacco and BMW Jewish-Slave-Labor-Vehicles.

Re:One of the Companies IS involved

[Joe Decker]

If we believe this, we're right to take action. But direct action. Punishing the company and the country for the actions of one man is rank hypocrisy.

So, if I pay someone to kill someone else, I'm not guilty, only the person who actually does the killing is?

Mind you, I am extremely concerned (more by the loss of the telephone network than the 'net) about the damage that's being done by this in Somalia, and it is my strong hope that conenctivity is reestablished in a very, very short period of time. But I do take issue with your thought that all the 'blame' belongs on one individual.

Re:One of the Companies IS involved

[sehryan]

Looks like now is the time to invest in a Western Union franchise in Somalia.

Re:One of the Companies IS involved

[zulux]

If they don't have ID, then they probably are in the US illegally and should be deported.

I wasen't clear - it's the Somlians in Somaila that don't have any id. Western Union is happy to take money here is the state - their one office in Somlia won't hand the money over without photo-id.

Most Somalis here in Seattle are pretty cool people, they will be an asset to our country. Unlike some other immigrent populations that I won't name.

Re:One of the Companies IS involved

[Christian Smith]

What, like that north european rabble?

OffTopic (Sorta...)

[Ryan_Terry]

Did we really have to put 2 of the top 3 stories from bbc? On the day after thanksgiving we're slashdotting one of the only things keeping me awake...:(

Re: Video of Taco dissing his readers!

[Cheshire Cat]

Woah, that is pretty crazy. I've met Taco once at a Linux con a long time ago and that video definately looked like him. It could be faked, but its pretty interesting nonetheless. Can anyone else confirm if this is him or not?

Other means of access.

[thetechweenie]

This won't prevent satellite internet access, and I though that Bin Laden had access to this? Also, some of the international lines are up, so they could get through.

Re:Other means of access.

[zulux]

This won't prevent satellite internet access

Good. Most people now use the Iridium satellite service, of wich the US State Department has a $70,000,000 contract with. I imagine our govenrment gets to listen on any conversation they want to. I don't know about Imarsat though - lugging around a suitcase dosent seem portable anymore.

Re:Other means of access.

[thetechweenie]

You have a point, but if they're passing an encrypted message allong, then it's pointless. The feds still haven't cracked Mitnicks hard drive... I can see it now, a new Dnet project to crack terrorist encryption...

Re:Other means of access.

[zulux]

You have a point, but if they're passing an encrypted message allong, then it's pointless.

The could tell where the things are used though:

I took delivery of my Motoroal 9505 Iridium phone a few months ago and went to southern France, made a call and poped ofer the border into Spain and made a call. I was only 500 meteres into Spain. Imagine my supprise when I came home and the bill was neatly catagorised by country of origin. Kinda creapy that they are that accurate.

I wish I could by the 9505 voice-encryption module for the back of the phone, but then I'm not a spook ;)

Re:Other means of access.

[GlassUser]

I wish I could by the 9505 voice-encryption module for the back of the phone, but then I'm not a spook ;)

But do you value privacy? Do you send all your mail in post cards, so everyone can read and make sure you're not a terrorist? Why not, do you have something to hide?

Exercise your (assumed) right to privacy, or someone will be sure to take it away. Use it or lose it.

"Why do they hate us?"

[melquiades]

I saw a long article on the cover of one of the news rags (Time or Newsweek; can't remember) asking "Why do they hate us?" They had a long, fairly historically informed argument about the breakup of the Ottoman empire, the controversy of the Israeli state, and the rise of fundamentalism. It was a pretty good analysis, but its basic undertone was "the Muslim world is angry and backward".

There's a shorter answer to "Why do they hate us?" in this article about Somalia. I don't care how much our intelligence services swear that the ISP was run by terrorists -- it's just impossible not to read this as, "You primitive black people don't need the internet, and now we're smacking you down to size." When the US has "severely restricted international telephone lines and shut down vitally needed money transfer facilities", that sure sounds like an act of economic terrorism to me -- justified or not.

Remember that when the US bombed that "nerve gas factory" in Somalia, we were never able to present any hard post-hoc evidence that it was not, as the Somalis claim, a medicine factory. Eventually, the Pentagon mostly kind of sort of admitted it was full of shit. "Oops, sorry! We'll be more careful next time!"

"Why do they hate us?" Because we're a bunch of self-righteous bastards who think we can do whatever we want to the rest of the world.

When we cut off the Somalis' access to medicine, phones, internet, and money transfer because of suspected terrorism, we have a responsibility to step in and make sure that those services get provided somehow -- otherwise we are not punishing terrorists, but creating them.

Re:"Why do they hate us?"

[Software Cowboy]

Uh, hate to point this out on such a fine rant, but we attacked a Sudanese aspirin factory, not a Somalian one. Same continent, different country.

Why do they hate us? Maybe because even when we do something stupid, most of the public (including those who were obviously upset by it) can't remember which one of those backwards, third world countries it was....

Just a thought.

Re:"Why do they hate us?"

[bradasch]

You're right. Absolutely right. But your opinion (like mine) won't change anything. Not here on /., not anywhere.

Why? Because 90% of the Americans aprove George Bush, most without even knowing what they're aproving.

So, till the next terrorist attack, people will continue thinking "yes, let's punish those bastards, let's show them who's the boss". And, IMO, few things are going to change.

Re:"Why do they hate us?"

[ZPO]

Quick Review of the facts;

1 - The executive order was signed on 23SEP2001

2 - AlBarakaat (sp?) may fall under the label of a "telecom" company, but is really just a money-wire service.

3 - AlBarakaat doesn't require such formalities as proper ID to wire money

4 - AlBarakaat actually operated in several (100+) countries, Somalia is just the one someone chose to write about since it has an inflamatory angle.

5 - Both organizations had their assets frozen

Conclusions:

- This is being reported 60 days after a freeze of the assets. Somalia Internet Company most likely got cut off after not paying their bills. The BBC article doesn mention the little detail of *why* their international gateway got cut off. AlBarakaat simply doesn't have any float funds to wire around and pay out.

- Gee, a money transfer company that doesn't require ID, etc being used to launder/distribute funds to terrorists? What a novel idea!

- If Somali's *WORKING* in the US don't have proper ID then they aren't here legally are they! If they aren't here legally then what the hell are they doing working?

- We don't have access to intelligence sources and methods do we? Perhaps if we did we might know much more about how these conclusions were reached. Do I advocate blind trust in the government and/or intelligence community? No, I don't.

- Was the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade and accident - probably not. Just a little message the China needed to get.

- What was the pharmacuetical company in Sudan really producing? Where did the funds to build it come from. What was it's chain of ownership? What other possible uses did it have? Were other operations being conducted (or preparation being made for) at the site? If you don't know all the answers to these questions then perhaps you shouldn't be deciding whether it was a valid target or not.

- Since when is it a US responsiblity to make sure a country has multiple forms of money wire-transfer services and internet access before they take action to freeze assets?

Re:"Why do they hate us?"

[melquiades]

Ha, right you are. Well, here I stand, a living example of US ignorance!

Re:"Why do they hate us?"

[Zemran]

The pharmacuetical company in Sudan was built by an English company from Gloucestershire and maintained by that company. The workers from that company that worked in Sudan assert that there was no illegal activity going on there. OK, they would if they had become involved but I cannot imagine random experts being sent and all converting to terrorists.

Re:"Why do they hate us?"

[DrSpin]

You have clearly never been to a third world country.

In most of them there is no such thing as a genuine ID.

You want a document, you pay and you get - no pay, no get.

I got plenty dollar

What document you want

I want passport, birth certificate, bank statement, driving licence

OK, bring dollars tomorrow - same time, same place.

The procedure is the same whether you are dealing with the mafia or the government, - hell, in most of them the government IS the mafia! Pointless asking for "legit documents" when you know there's o such beastie.

Re:"Why do they hate us?"

[Nathaniel]

"If Somali's *WORKING* in the US don't have proper ID then they aren't here legally are they! If they aren't here legally then what the hell are they doing working?"

You misunderstood. This company was prefered because the recipients of the wire transfers don't have IDs. People who want to receive a wire transfer will now need an ID, but if they can't get one, they will not be able to receive a wire transfer. Apparently it is quite common to not have an ID.

Re:"Why do they hate us?"

[ZPO]

Yes, I did misunderstand. If the amount is under $10K (should prevent IRS CTR requirements) then it would seem to be the corporate policy of Western Union that is getting in the way. If WU still wants to make money in that region then it can change it's policies.

I don't see it as the responsibility of the US to ensure that countries (failed central governments or not) have access to international money transfer services.

Same thing for Internet access. Internet access is available via satellite. The executive order didn't say "hey, let's really punish Somalia". The executive order said to freeze the assets of X number of international companies.

Re:"Why do they hate us?"

[Anthony Boyd]

"Why do they hate us?" Because we're a bunch of self-righteous bastards who think we can do whatever we want to the rest of the world.

Well that's one opinion. I would rewrite it just a tad: "Why do they hate so many countries?" Because they're a bunch of envious, disempowered people who cannot do whatever they want to the rest of the world.

Re:"Why do they hate us?"

[Malcontent]

"Because they're a bunch of envious, disempowered people who cannot do whatever they want to the rest of the world."

Well that and the fact that we keep killing them like cockroaches.

Shame on the U.S. Government

[Cally]

With the over-reliance on technological solutions pedalled by pork-barrel defence contractors over good-old-fashioned human intelligence already acknowledged as a factor contributing to 9/11, and the long-awaited acceptance that the "terrorist facility" in Somalia that was attacked with cruise missiles in 1996 was a perfectly legal pharmaceutical factory making (mainly) antibiotics - one of the few in the country, or indeed region - they carry on making the same mistakes. This will just alienate even more people who were previously neutral in "The War Against Terrorism". As the BBC correspondent says: very, very depressing, and hif (he) had a stronger word he could use, he'd use it.

Please don't mod this as a troll; I really do think this is a straightforward tactical mistake.

Off-topic: there seem to be very few posts today, anything to do with Quest's DSL network going down? in the same week as BT's national network went down? I don't believe in coincidences like this. Someone has a zero--day sploit against the network hardware - something from Cisco is my bet...

Re:Shame on the U.S. Government

[brunes69]

More due to the fact that /.'s MySQL and CrapCode have been pukeing again today, as usual

Re:Shame on the U.S. Government

[gordguide]

Minor point: The Pharma Factory attacked by cruise missiles was in Sudan, not Somalia.

a vicious cycle

[smilinggoat]

This is exactly the kind of action that spawns terrorist attacks. The U.S. imposes their power upon other countries who neither need nor want "help" and with only heresay as evidence destroy a country's only communications system. And they wonder why they are attacked...

The Dictatoship or USA

[Anonymous Coward]

What gives the right to US people to shut down and interfere with the internals of another country? If there was NATO or UN or something like that, behind a *request* for a shut down, then yes, it would be somewhat appropriate. But USA? Shutting down? Without asking permissions? PLEASE!

A Greek person (I have nothing to do with Somalians or Afgan people, but still...)

Re:The Dictatoship or USA

[rm3friskerFTN]

The UN Security Council Resolution 1373 appears to authorize this action.

US out of hand

[firebat162]

It sickens me that the US is terrorizing so many more people by shutting down and closing key telecommunications companies. In the article, it has stated many times about how the citizens of Somalia desparately need the cash from family members working abroad. If you do not remember, Somalia is a very poor third world country (i remember just a few years ago our churh was sending canned food and things like that to them).

It is fine that the US wants to capture bin Laden, but it is completely another thing to do this doing 'whatever it takes'. I believe the US should realizes the ramifications of it's decisions and either sets up temporary management for the phone company or reinstates it.

And from a non american point of view, I can't help but think that the US is taking this too far.

Re:US out of hand

[mselmeci]

Exactly. One day, when the war is over, the US will notice how much shit the world will be in (mostly because of their own actions) and then probably blame either the previous administration or somebody unrelated. In any case, I'd be running for the hills.

Re:US out of hand

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

What I *can't* understand though is all of the hatred developing countries seem to have for this bastion of freedom.

Those who forget history. . . , etc

[kfg]

Historically it has only rarely been proven wise to simply trust the intelligence community. I'll bet on the swift and strong, thank you.

I might also add that it is the first responsibility of every US citizen, indeed the *primary* responsibility, to trust nothing.

Only the cynic is the "true" American and patriot. It is a structure of political *equals.* Indeed, in many repects the simple citizen is politically superior to the president himself. It is the citizens who chose him and the citizens who may dismiss him.

He will be president for a maximum of 8 years. A citizen is a citizen for life. He must then protect his political interests for *life,* and the life of his decendents, not meerly a few years.

The intelligence community is the place where the greatest *ememies* of the state reside.

KFG

KFG

Re:Those who forget history. . . , etc

[CeramicNuts]

Only the cynic is the "true" American and patriot.

Amen! I was watching the call-in portion of CSPAN, and a lady caller literally said "We shouldn't be questioning the president now, we should be standing behind him." I couldn't beleive what I was hearing. this is exactly the time when we SHOULD be questioning the actions of our leaders. remember the Bill of Rights, the most important document in the last 400 years, a document way more important than the Declaration and the rest of Constitution itself? it was put in there by sceptics of the government!

sadly our media is driven by popularity, and since dissenting opinions are not popular they are not heard. dead afgans are not a popular image, so we better not show that. wake up people!

Somalia's Internet

[Bowie J. Poag]

It shouldn't be a problem, really. There are plenty of tin cans and string laying around to rebuild the network with. Those African bushmen who communicate with eachother using clicks and clucks might come in handy. Get one of them to whistle a tone, and make the other send data at 300 baud. :)

Re:Somalia's Internet

[jsarek]

How do you mod somebody to "Ignorant Bigot" again?

Re:Somalia's Internet

[Bowie J. Poag]

Ahh, how soon we forget....

These fuckers dragged a Marine's body through the streets, and here you are, screaming "racist!! RACIST!!" on their behalf. Yeah, i'm such a bad boy. Boo fuckin hoo.

Since when is pointing out that some African tribesmen use clicks and grunts to communicate? Its true, is it not? Oh wait -- I'm sorry, I can't expect an overemotional dolt to understand logic. Nevermind.

Oh please

[dkone]

"He added the impact would be felt even more strongly because the cuts have come during the holy month of Ramadan."

If I correctly remember the Islamic teachings... Ramadan is a month of relaxation and meditation in which one downloads porn from the internet.

Inocent?

[Ashcrow]

Arn't they inocent untill proven guilty? If not then we Americans are a bit unfair with our dealings with others.

It Remembers me the History of the Dark Palladin.

[famazza]

Everybody who have once played AD&D for sometime have ever headr about the Dark Palladin.

Once upon a time, a long long time ago, a woman (I don't remember her name), a palladin (lawful good) that have promissed to fight against all evil in the world if her child survives the terrible plague.

Once her son has survived she went to the holy fight against the evil, killing with no mercy all evil she could encounter, and destroying all the evil in the region.

Once she had destroyed all the evil (chaotic evil, neutral evil and lawful evil) she decided to destroy every soul that is not good. Many was killed, even innocents and children was killed.

She generated horror all around the reign destroying every soul not good, and now she started to kill non-lawful (chaotic good and neutral good). It was horrible, the fear was everywhere, nobody could ever know when the palladin could appear.

One day, after killing dozens of non-lawful-good she was praying when a strange mist came all around her beloved church. Her shining armor became dark and a voice told her: "You have done a wonderful job, but now I have something even bigger for you."

Now she has a whole realm for her in Ravenloft.

replace the ISP

[vinnythenose]

I don't know whether or not it was linked to terrorists.

But assuming the US government is right, since this was the only ISP in Somalia, wouldn't the political thing to do be replacing the ISP with one that perhaps has more controls? An ISP that perhaps when they feel things are safe again, then could hand over to Somalia?

After all, they've effectively cut a nation off of the Internet.

If Bush ruled Somalia...

[musicmaster]

From what we know from Bush we can easily predict what he would do if he was in the position of the leaders of Somalia: he would ask Al Quaida to destroy MAE East in Virgina. Problem is that someone else might get the same idea.

Can someone please explain to this egocentric man that if you treat others badly it will come back to haunt you sooner or later?

You can only build a "new world order" if countries start to treat each other in a civilized way. As long as the US thinks that it can do what it wants there will be lots of frustrated people who turn into terrorists.

Microsoft to supply Somalia with Internet service

[jc42]

Redmond 11/13/1999

As part of the US Government's shutdown of the only Internet Service Provider (ISP) in Somalia, Microsoft has announced a new povision of their pending punishment from the US Justice Department. The Microsoft subsidiary msn.com will now provide Internet service to Somalia. It will be free for the first month, after which market rates will determine the cost of further service.

As part of the arrangement, all equipment and servers in Somalia will be converted to the latest Microsoft products. Previously, the service had been provided with old hardware running such unbranded systems as linux and FreeBsd. Microsoft and US government spokesmen claim that this will provide for improved service, at least during times when the new computers are up and running.

The CIA has expressed a desire to cooperate with the installation. A spokesman said that previous Internet gateways in Somalia had been "overly difficult for information gathering, due to their support for unbreakablel encrypion." The new systems will presumably cooperate fully with the recently-announced email virus that uses Microsoft Outlook to install keylogger software.

Minor Correction

[Carnage4Life]

Remember that when the US bombed that "nerve gas factory" in Somalia, we were never able to present any hard post-hoc evidence that it was not, as the Somalis claim, a medicine factory. Eventually, the Pentagon mostly kind of sort of admitted it was full of shit. "Oops, sorry! We'll be more careful next time!"

Actually it was a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan not Somalia. Interestingly enough the fact that the US bombed a factory that was producing medicine for in a poor country that is torn apart by famine, disease and strife is one of the rallying cries that Bin Laden used to recruit and swell the ranks of Al-Qaeda.

Re:Minor Correction

[platypus]

Interestingly enough the fact that the US bombed a factory that was producing medicine for in a poor country that is torn apart by famine, disease and strife is one of the rallying cries that Bin Laden used to recruit and swell the ranks of Al-Qaeda.
no, the bombing makes sense, if you assume that
a) it was a quite important factory (market leader of malaria treatments in north africa).
b) they suspected bin laden and his network of (partly-)owning that factory

See:

http://globalization.about.com/library/weekly/aa 10 2899.htm
http://www.apbnews.com/newscenter/majorcases/bin la den/1999/09/24/missile0924_01.html

Re:Minor Correction

[nihilogos]

Doesn't make any sense to me with those assumptions. Are you a boot camp sergeant major?

And your links are broken.

Re:Minor Correction

[platypus]

just strip the slashcode has inserted into the links...

forget it, just click here and here

funny thing is that the second server just seemed to die.

Re:Minor Correction

[kaimiike1970]

His links aren't broken. You have to have been around /. for a while to understand how to use them is all. The 'lameness' filter adds spaces to long text strings to prevent spammers from making the /. pages insanely long side scrollers.

Use this instead:

Link

The second link does indeed seem to be broken, though.

Re:Minor Correction

[melquiades]

Actually it was a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan not Somalia.

Duh -- right you are. It's so hard not to be a dumb American. <:)

Money Transfers and terrorist links

[No-op]

Just recently several money transfer services in my hometown of Minneapolis were shut down. these were services used by our large Somali population to wire money back home to family members- they are a form of money tranfer based on trust called "hawalla". rather than paperwork etc it all is based on money transfers happening because people can be held to their word.

these organisations (that were shut down) were purportedly having money skimmed off the top of each transfer by members of the Al-Qu'eda network. whether or not this was happening, and whether or not the proprietors were aware of it, it has had a large negative impact on the US Somali community.

The Somali companies shut down that this article references were conduits for these money transfers, and I personally expect to see dire consequences come from this. as it states, 80% of the money coming in to somalia is from foreign workers sending money home. Do the math on that, and you come up with a large number of hardworking US residents having no way to support starving family members back home! this isn't a good thing.

I fully support shutting down organizations and companies that are funding terrorist activities- but how hard would it be for Bush to help out these hawallas and open up alternate methods of transfer? I'm sure that some of them would be willing to some oversight into their financial transactions as well, vs. being put out of business permanently.

I'd like to see a little more of that "compassionate conservatism" and a little less of Bush's ethnocentric reactionism. let's pray that he comes to his senses and stops harming innocent civilians in this crisis.

Re:Money Transfers and terrorist links

[cosyne]

I fully support shutting down organizations and companies that are funding terrorist activities...

Well, I'm not sure i support shutting down the entire US government, but if we could shut down the sub-sections which are more directly responsible for terrorism, that might help reduce the deep-seated hatred which make people willing to die for the chance to get back at us.

We're not going anywhere until we stop the hypocrisy.

Re:Money Transfers and terrorist links

[SirSlud]

Amen. Kinda hard to swallow all this when it still funds the NED, etc ...

Re:Money Transfers and terrorist links

[istartedi]

In the short run the Somali immigrants will be hurt, but in the long run they are better off getting rid of Hawallas and getting a real banking system. If this encourages them to do that, it will, in the long run, be seen as one of the best things we could do for them. Why? Because the Hawalla charges ridiculous cuts just for transferring the money. It's somewhere in the neighborhood of 5 to as much as 15% according to an article I read in the Washington Post.

This is really ironic when you consider that they are always getting on the case of the "Jewish conspirators" for charging "usery".

These hawallas are "check cashing" fronts that bilk their own people, and they get what they deserve.

Re:Money Transfers and terrorist links

[Shadowlore]

...but how hard would it be for Bush to help out these hawallas and open up alternate methods of transfer?

It wouldn't matter to would-be, or existing terrorists. if the Us were to open an alternative, and close down the linked one, we would be accused of replacing a "native provider" with a western provider for purposes of furthering it's business interests withing somalia.

The fact of the matter is, that regardles of what was done, the ignorant would accuse the U.S. of acting in a prejudiced way to the Somali people. If we did nothing, we would late rbe accused of allowing to happen. This, like nearly all such situations, is a no-win scenario for the US in the political front. When that happens, you ignore the no-win aspect and use the most effective solution.

Essentially it would have been either the crap we see here, or "There they go again, destroying businesses that aren't theirs? Where will this economic imperialism end? "

Furthermore, most terrorist don't think about these things, they only react. Anything the US does, including nothing, is seen as an excuse to kill innocents, period. When someone has been raised to believe someone else is pure evil, and the enemy, it takes a helluva lot of major convincing to change their mind, and even then, it is a long shot.

The facts that demonstrate reasons to not hate a given country are never acknowledged by the terrorists. For exmple, the mid-east terrorist never acknowledge that the very oil sites that provide the dictatorial governments with their resources are of western design, build, and disovery. of course, that fact is ususally not taught in schools either. Not much mention is ever made about how the Arabian countries took the oil fields from the western countries (and that the western countries just let it slide for fear of being called racist or something).

In the final analysis, the US does have a major weapon in the fight against middle-eastern terrorist that is not being talked about. Science and Research.

Since the terrorists are funded by oil revenue, if the US, and western worlds were to dramatically cut, or eliminate it's importation of crude form the countries knwn to harbor, fund, or promote terrorists, it is undeniable that the terrorists would dramatically suffer funding issues. Furthermore, there would be an inability to cry "it's for the oil", when there is no import of oil from said countries.
But, alas, this has yet to permeate the western thought space.

Re:Money Transfers and terrorist links

[Xross_Ied]

> > This is really ironic when you consider that they are always getting on the case of the "Jewish conspirators" for charging "usery".

Minor Correction:
The distinction between "usery" and percentage charge for a service is the time factor and compounding.

This is why "usery" is consider "haram" (illegal) under islamic law.

Re:Money Transfers and terrorist links

[slyall]

In the short run the Somali immigrants will be hurt, but in the long run they are better off getting rid of Hawallas and getting a real banking system. If this encourages them to do that, it will, in the long run, be seen as one of the best things we could do for them. Why? Because the Hawalla charges ridiculous cuts just for transferring the money. It's somewhere in the neighborhood of 5 to as much as 15% according to an article I read in the Washington Post.


Western Union doesn't list prices for Somalia but they charge $22 for moving $200 from New York to Yemen. An article in this week's Economist Magazine says charges are more commonly less that 5% by systems.

Hawala systems exist between countries where banks and western Union already operate because they are cheaper and easier for poor people to use to transfer small sums of money.

If banks really were more effecient for Somali then they would have been established ages ago. Argueing that overcharging Hawala transfer is keeping out a "real banking system" is just dumb. Obviously the combination of lawlessness in Somali and better services offered by Hawala is the real reason.

Re:Money Transfers and terrorist links

[Malcontent]

"t's somewhere in the neighborhood of 5 to as much as 15% according to an article I read in the Washington Post."

If they are only paying 5 to 15% they will get screwed if banking gets established instead. The going credit card rate is around 18% and some loans are even higher. 5% sounds like a great deal.

Re:Money Transfers and terrorist links

[Stormie]

If they are only paying 5 to 15% they will get screwed if banking gets established instead. The going credit card rate is around 18% and some loans are even higher. 5% sounds like a great deal.

He's not talking interest rates, he's talking "commission" for wire transfers. ie you send home $100 via this service, your folks only receive $85-$95, the company skims off $5-$15.

However, given that most banks (in the UK and Australia at least) tend to have about a 10% difference between their buying and selling exchange rates, AND charge several % in commission, AND have a minimum commission for small conversions.. it all doesn't sound too bad to me.

Re:Keep in mind, this is not a somalia company

[dlek]

Yeah, and who cares if their actions will mean poverty-stricken Somalis won't get money they desperately need. Who cares if the UN is unable to perform their aid functions there.

Obviously not the Bush administration. Their idea of "social responsibility", if they have one, doesn't cross the border.

Sudan, not somalia

[StandardDeviant]

Remember that when the US bombed that "nerve gas factory" in Somalia, we were never able to present any hard post-hoc evidence that it was not, as the Somalis claim, a medicine factory. Eventually, the Pentagon mostly kind of sort of admitted it was full of shit. "Oops, sorry! We'll be more careful next time!"

Not to detract from the rest of your argument, but the pharmaceutical factory in question was in Sudan (Khartoum iirc), not Somalia.

Arrogance

[g8oz]

It seems to me that this company is guilty of nothing more than being a non-Western financial institution. Therefore as something alien it is threatening and must be shut down.

The White House release says al-Qaida used their services. Well of course they have, the firm has locations through out the Islamic world. al-Qaida has used plenty of Western banks like Britain's Barclays as well. I don't see much happening to them.

I'm sure the officials who decided to shut down the company don't think of themselves as racist. But the thought of shutting down a Western bank wouldn't even occur to them, especially if it was the largest employer in its country.

Re:Arrogance

[wingspan]

Apparently Slashdot is populated by morons today. Have any of you heard that financial institutions must have charters from a state or the federal government? The hawalla is a financial institution, but without the required charter. They are unlicensed, and are operating illegally, just as if you hung out a shingle in the US without the proper license. You dingbats! You slander without thought just to pander to your political persuasions!

And before buying the line about money no longer being sent to poor Somalis, THINK! Banks exist, Somalia has BANKS! We have banks. Banks transfer money to other banks. Amazing that Slashdotters could be so stupid!

You are the one who is arrogant today. Go hide in shame.

Innocent until proven guilty...

[edgrale]

I guess that's a thing of the past?

Re:Innocent until proven guilty...

[archen]

I think we've been going on "guilty until "proven" guilty" for a while now

Re:Innocent until proven guilty...

[smarner]

No. Of course, the term comes from an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and deals with a person's rights in a U.S. court. How this has anything to do with private enterprises in foreign lands terminating business relations with certain groups is beyond me. And, of course, even in the context of an individual's rights in the U.S., the concept does not prevent the government from removing that individual from society - - removing the threat - - PRIOR to proving that person's guilt.

Re:Keep in mind, this is not a somalia company

[Anonymous DWord]

The US also provides worldwide GPS access, which they can take away at any time. That doesn't make it right. God forbid you're trying to do a job in any region even remotely close to terrorism. Basically what US foreign policy is saying is:

• Don't be a terrorist
• Don't harbour terrorists
• Don't live in a country that harbours terrorists
• Don't live NEAR a country that harbours terrorists
• Don't try and contact anybody who lives in a country that harbours terrorists

This is getting silly. The US harboured terrorists for 4 years before said terrorists blew up the WTC. What now, tanks in the streets?

A key phrase in the article explains justification

[Sonicboom]

From the article:

The two firms, Somalia Internet Company and al-Barakaat, both appear on a US list of organisations accused of funnelling money to the al-Qaeda network.

Pres. Bush has declared war on terrorism, in particular the al-Qaeda network. The al-Quaeda network is very active in Somaila.

So what's the problem?

I'm not about censorship... but if those companies are using their PROFITS to funnel money into the hands of terrorists then I see no problem in shutting them down!

3rd World Quick ISP Kit

[wytcld]

Plenty of techs in the US passed through the stage in the early 90s where folks who'd been running BBS systems (for instace, FidoNet) transitioned to starting local ISPs.

If you were advising someone in a minor 3rd-World town about a minimal working setup to provide local ISP service, what would they need? Sure, a line in. Power. A couple cheap clone PCs with Linux. Modems. More phone lines - or are there places where wireless or even local ether would make more sense?

Are there Net resources - or books - that provide basic instructions for the would-be local startup 3rd-World ISP? Because Somalia's problem is it only had two, and their lines were to companies under US sway. If they had 20 ISPs - or 100 - linked out through many other nations, this wouldn't be trouble. If new ISPs came up faster than old ones could be shut down, also just a nuisance.

Once the kit is designed, what would be required for it to enable stealth ISPs, say in China, Tibet....

Re:3rd World Quick ISP Kit

[jc42]

Also, note that satellite radios that function as modems are quite available, and are in use in many parts of the world without ground-line access. With such a radio modem, you can get Internet access from pretty much anywhere (though coverage at the poles is a bit spotty).

Re:3rd World Quick ISP Kit

[jc42]

Yeah; I just wrote this up as a fake news item. I was real disappointed that it didn't ger rated "funny". What do you have to do to get this rating?

Of course, one problem may have been that the person who rated it didn't think it qualified as humor, because this is probably what will happen.

It can be difficult to write satire. By the time you finish writing, the world has passed you by and done something even worse than your poor attempt at satire.

Re:3rd World Quick ISP Kit

[iritant]

Are there Net resources - or books - that provide basic instructions for the would-be local startup 3rd-World ISP?

Absolutely. We just completed a three week seminar for countries who are still getting their feet wet with the Internet. That seminar taught them POP design, building Internet exchanges (without spending an arm and a leg), fault management, security management, etc. We do this semi-regularly.

Your point is spot on. The answer to being cut off by two countries is to be connected to more countries. But America has a tremendous amount of financial power that transcends technology. This is why we geeks cannot absent ourselves from the political world.

Re:Wrong

[Carnage4Life]

We're not a bunch of self righteous bastards who whink we can do whatever we want to the rest of the world, we're a bunch of self righteous bastards who KNOW DAMN WELL we can do whatever we want to the rest of the world.

Yet people like you wonder why people are willing to die to give Americans a taste of what they live with daily due to the self righteous, do what we DAMN WELL like foreign policy decisions of the American government.

WHO THE HELL CARES what they think of us? You can't fight the actual individuals who are working towards the kind of attacks that we have been the successful and unsuccessful targets of. You can't threaten to bomb them -- they expect to die. All you can do is start making life as difficult as possible to live (or impossible to live in the case of those who end up under one of our bombs) for those guilty-by-association (and unfortunately those innocent people who have chosen to stand by and allow the guilty to operate). We can't stop terrorists directly with threats or direct actions, but if the threat of suffering and death makes the people around them take action and prevent their actions, then so be it. Good for us for having the ability to do that.

All this does is make more people mad enough at America that they are willing to die for revenge. What you suggest is a self perpetuating cycle of violence that will most likely turn the US into a totalitarian police state in efforts to prevent terrorism while alienating most of the world because of the US's seemingly imperialist policies.

As for expecting poor, starving civilians to change the policies of armed governments or pseudo-militia that is as ridiculous as Bin Laden thinking that terrorist attacks against the US would turn the American populace against the US government and make them change their foreign policy instead of uniting them in hatred against a common enemy (kinda like how the Iraqi sanction situation has ended up).

unbelievable

[Tom]

taking a whole country offline. wow.

I'm sure the perspectives are different in a country where most people don't know where their next meal will be coming from, but from a geekish perspective, that's incredible.

not only does it show just how much the internet has moved away from the initial highly resistant setup, it also shows that technical dangers (including physical loss of connectivity due to the line ceasing to exist after a bombing) aren't the only ones you face.

the article also shows that we're not talking about a "mommy, I can't surf porn anymore" situation. the countries largest employer has been destroyed, money transfers that lots of ordinary people rely on are frozen, human aids groups have lost contact to the outside world.

I see exactly one country that engages in terrorist activities, and it ain't afghanistan or iraq.

Internet Access

[CleverNickName]

If I can't access the internet while I'm in Somalia, then the terrorists have won.

...oh.

Re:Internet Access

[waffle zero]

Shut up Wesley.

(Please someone get this.)

Re:Internet Access

[Dasher42]

Yes, yes, clever and original.

Re:Internet Access

[Wil_Is_Cool]

No you shut up! Wil is cool! Check out his homepage. He does it all. http://www.wilwheaton.net/

And direct action we shall indeed take

[FreeUser]

Al Barakaat's founder, Shaykh Ahme Nur Jimale, is closely linked to Usama bin Laden.

If we believe this, we're right to take action. But direct action.

Which we undoubtably will. But lets finish with Afghanistan first. Folks, get over yourself. America is at war, really at war, not just scratching an itch. For the first time since 1945. Bitch and moan all you like, but places like Afghanistan and Somalia, which btw is also know for having numerous Al Qaida camps, will be taken down and the terrorists killed. Wail and moan all you like, it will change nothing. We're through kowtowing to every wannabe critic for being the sole superpower and not magically creating the perfect world according to 6 billion different definitions of the above. We were attacked, and we will exterminate our attackers, wherever they hide, wherever they are given sanctuary. And if you are giving them sanctuary, then you too shall suffer. Get over it, and be glad that, for now, all we've stopped are wire transfers.

And I say this as a liberal, generally very harsh critic of our government. Imagine how the moderates and the conservatives feel, right now. We are relentless, and when angered we are ruthless in ferretting out and killing the enemy. Since the events on 9/11 we are very, very angry, and countries like Somalia and Afghanistan, that harbor terrorists, are going down. One after another, like dominos, until we have accomplished our task.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled, anti-American bashing, bitching, and moaning, brought to you by the First Amendment coupled with a large dose of absolute cluelessness and knee-jerk "I'm politically informed yes I am" wannabe parrots.

Re:And direct action we shall indeed take

[aminorex]

Actually, we are not at war. Only Congress can
declare war. Congress declined to declare war
when requested by the Bush administration. As a
result, the current bombing campaign is a criminal
action, and George W Bush is a mass-murderer, just
like his predecessor, William J Clinton.
.

Re:And direct action we shall indeed take

[Nathaniel]

"Folks, get over yourself. America is at war, really at war, not just scratching an itch. For the first time since 1945."

No, we aren't at war. That's part of the problem.

In order to be 'really at war' congress must declare war. This is a really important point. One of the reasons this is important is so that everyone know who we are war with, who we intend to kill, and when the killing will stop.

We have placed to restrictions on the killing, but somehow we expect to make things better, to recude the number of deaths.

Instead of formally declaring war we are killing people in foriegn countries, and claiming it is justified because we suspect that someone else killed some of our people.

Don't you see the flaw in Bush's logic? He is effectively saying 'If someone from country A kills people in country B, that is terrorism.', then proceeding to have people killed in another country and claiming it is justice.

When our citizens are killed in our country (elligedly by someone who doesn't live here) we call it terrorism. When we kill Afgans in Afganistan without declaring war it is also terrorism.

The difference is only that we've managed to kill more people, and we are broadcasting reports of how well we are doing the job. We are responding to terrorism with more terrorism, but trying to hide that fact behind some hand wringing and tears.

Bush promised us justice. What is being done is not just.

The United States is engaged in terrorism. Bush is the leader of the United States. Bush is a terrorist leader. Bush is telling us that he will hunt down and kill terrorist leaders. Doesn't it bother you that our president has a death wish? We need a suicide watch for Bush. He is insane.

Re:And direct action we shall indeed take

[mickwd]

"...countries like Somalia and Afghanistan, that harbor terrorists, and going down. One after another, like dominos, until we have accomplished our task"

I shouldn't really rise to this, but here goes....

Taking down whole countries now are we ? How many innocent people will this kill ? How many people will become sworn enemies of the USA as a result ? How many of these will want to take direct action to avenge the deaths of their innocent loved ones ? How many more innocent Americans will die as a result ?

Just getting angry and shouting your mouth off might make you feel good, but it isn't going to help anyone.

Yes, the US should go after Bin Laden and co (if they're sure they were responsible for Sept11), but going after people who just happen to live in the same country as terrorists is not sensible.

After all, you might be living in the same country as someone who's causing terrorism with Anthrax.

I do hope this doesn't appear "clueless" or "knee-jerk" in response to your reasoned post.

Re:And direct action we shall indeed take

[trilucid]

MODERATORS: Please mod parent up! That has got to be the most effective, concise insight into my (sadly) nation's disgusting actions I've seen to date. All I can say is "wow". Nathaniel, thank you.

Oh, and before anyone starts flaming me for being a "bleeding heart liberal", you should probably know I'm a staunch Libertarian. I know insanity when I see it, and this the current "war" the U.S. is waging is fucking insane.

Web hosting by geeks, for geeks. Now starting at $4/month (USD)!
If you're gonna email, use the public key!

Re:And direct action we shall indeed take

[QuickFox]

The WTC pilots learned piloting in flight academies in Florida, IIRC. Florida harboured them and taught them. By your logic Florida should be bombed.

Should Florida be bombed? Of course not. Try better logic.

Give a man a fish, and you have fed him for a single day. Teach him how to fish, and he'll eat for a lifetime, all the while calling you a miser for not giving him your fish.

Re:And direct action we shall indeed take

[kaimiike1970]

You actually are a braindead kid. Vietnam was a police action. Please do *some* research into *history*. It wasn't that long ago.

Re:And direct action we shall indeed take

[QuickFox]

Wow, I didn't know the Florida flight school knew their students were going to crash into the WTC!

That's exactly my point! Those schools couldn't know that, and mustn't be punished for what they couldn't know. And the Somalian money senders and money receivers couldn't know it and shouldn't be punished for it.

The people of Florida must not be punished, nor the people of Somalia.

That's exactly my point!

Give a man a fish, and you have fed him for a single day. Teach him how to fish, and he'll eat for a lifetime, all the while calling you a miser for not giving him your fish.

Re:And direct action we shall indeed take

[QuickFox]

As for the people of Somalia being punished. Your statement is like saying that because someone commited murder that he should not go to jail because he happens to be the father of two children.

Not at all. As for the people of Somalia being punished, my post is like saying that the people of Florida and Somalia should not be punished because terrorists chose their flight schools and banks.

Give a man a fish, and you have fed him for a single day. Teach him how to fish, and he'll eat for a lifetime, all the while calling you a miser for not giving him your fish.

Re:And direct action we shall indeed take

[bmajik]

No one is innocent.

Ever.

Before you can see things with any clarity, you must admit - no one is innocent. Everyone has choices. How you make your choices is what makes you human.

If you're an "innocent civilian" in afghanistan - tough shit. You have an important choice to make, with at least 3 obvious options:

1. Fight your countries corrupt government internally, probably end up getting killed
2. Flee from your corrupt government because you know they're stepping on the wrong toes, probably end up getting kiled
3. Do nothing, let it be someone else's problem, decide by indecision that you support the practices of your government, get killed by US or coalition fire/bombs.

Either way, you die, and you even get to choose how.

All you're really guaranteed in life is a shot at choosing how you die. No one, not even the US, has the power to deny that choice to people.

So next time you look upon history with rosy colored glasses - leave out innocence. Its a figment of the popular imagination. And it really muddy's the water.

Re:And direct action we shall indeed take

[jestapher]

Folks, get over yourself. America is at war, really at war, not just scratching an itch. For the first time since 1945.

Technically speaking, we are not at war. We don't have war unless Congress declares it, as per Article 1, Section 8 of this silly thing. So call it whatever you like; just don't call it a war. We haven't had one of those in quite a while.

Peacekeeping would be a better description of America's actions in other countries. Because we definately do not have wars.

Re:And direct action we shall indeed take

[Dasher42]

Your logic really evades me. The "harboring" that led to our military action in Afghanistan was a determined obstruction of justice, the sheltering of a known criminal.

If Florida were a rogue nation with an illegitimate government harboring a mass-murderer that gave evasive bullshit responses instead of behaving responsibly, if diplomatic channels failed to give a meaningful responses, yes I would say destroy its military capability and send in the troops.

But Florida isn't. It's a respectable, if imperfect member of a respectable, if imperfect nation that the WTC pilots entered because, bless our naive hearts, we allowed them free movement in our open society with precious little attention to their background. The terrorists weren't known for what they were.

The two places don't remotely equate, and you should study the differences more closely.

Re:And direct action we shall indeed take

[Dasher42]

It's a war in every aspect including the freedom of action that Congress has authorized the President, and should be considered as such.

Re:And direct action we shall indeed take

[QuickFox]

Interesting link, thanks. Of course something must be done. But before shutting down the entire network they should at least make serious attempts to get at the criminals. Obviously not every office and employer and money sender and receiver cooperates with the terrorists.

As an example, if they should find that top staff at Western Union were funneling funds to terrorists, they wouldn't shut down the entire world-wide network of Western Union. They would arrest the criminals.

I haven't seen any hint that they have requested the government of Somalia to arrest the criminals.

Give a man a fish, and you have fed him for a single day. Teach him how to fish, and he'll eat for a lifetime, all the while calling you a miser for not giving him your fish.

Re:And direct action we shall indeed take

[QuickFox]

Oops, I expressed myself very poorly. Very poorly indeed.

FreeUser said "places like Afghanistan and Somalia [...] will be taken down"

The US actions in Afghanistan have not "taken down" the place. Rather the contrary! They have removed that extremely opressive and incredibly murderous Taliban regime, while doing as little damage as possible. Undoubtedly they have saved the lives of thousands of Afghans who would have been killed by the Taliban for religious "crimes".

Judging by available information, the US military has been very careful. It seems to a very great extent they have managed to do the right thing in an extremely difficult situation.

FreeUser seems to be talking about attacking the people of Afghanistan, attacking the people of Somalia, "taking them down", without caring about the innocent people. That's something else.

Give a man a fish, and you have fed him for a single day. Teach him how to fish, and he'll eat for a lifetime, all the while calling you a miser for not giving him your fish.

Re:And direct action we shall indeed take

[aminorex]

Surely you can distinguish between defense and
attack. It's not difficult in most circumstances
to make the distinction.

Re:And direct action we shall indeed take

[rtechie]

By this "rationale", Osama Bin Laden was 100% justified in attacking the WTC because it was filled with evil Americans who run around slaughtering Muslims because they feel like it. He was merely acting in self-defense.

Your statements completely justify all further terrorist attacks on the USA.

Shut up, troll.

Re:And direct action we shall indeed take

[TobyWong]

Hey give the guy a break, it's not like he actually took the time to think his arguement through before he barfed it out through his keyboard!

;)

Re:And direct action we shall indeed take

[bmajik]

I'm just saying theres no such thing as an innocent. I didn't say that that justifies anything.

Statistically this is obvious. If you load crime statistics for various crimes, and multiply by the number of adults in the building when it was destroyed, im sure you'll get plenty of "non-innocent" people. Rapists, a murderer or two, sex offenders, probably zillions of white-collar offenders.

It's not relevant, but theres no way you can look anyone in the face and seriously beleive in the idea of "innocence". Everyone in that building (unless theres some sort of convent, and even then, thats only according to _one_ possible moral structure) had done something wrong at some point in their life.

Also, I dont see where you pull the slaughtering muslims thing from. I suspect most of the people in the WTC pushed pens or keyboards all day. It really has no bearing though.

Anyway, getting to the point:
I am a US citizen. I realise the US has a lot of enemies. This puts me in potential danger, 24 hours a day. However, I also think the US does a generally good job, and we have a reasonably competant military. Knowing that no matter what, you cant please everyone, i'm hedging my bets and living here, even though it might be safer to live elsewhere.

I lucked out. I happened not to get killed on sep 11th. Maybe I wont be so lucky next time.

Similarly, the "innocents" in afghanistan are there because they haven't left. You might say "they're not allowed to leave" or some such bullshit. They know what their government stands for. They know the consequences of harboring terrorists. It's not like this is a surprise. The president spends a month saying "we will fuck up any nation that doesn't bend over backwards for us". We've been dropping leaftlets on the poor people for months. If anyone in the village can read, they've got a pretty good chance of "Getting the message".

The "innocents" in afghanistan know that their country has pissed us off, and we're going to be bombing the fuck out of it, pretty much indiscriminantly.

But they're still there.

If i were an afghani citizen, Instead of burning US flags and effigies of president Bush and celebrating in the streets over the attack (the innocence is really shining through, dont you think ?), I'd be saying "gosh, the US has more bombs than we have grains of sand, and we've really pissed them off, and i bet their just dying to turn my shithole country into a glass garden. Maybe I should pack my shit and move before my organs get turned into stucco."

I'm not "interested" in wether or not something is justified. Obvioiusly the taliban and washington have different ideas about justice. Thats the way it is.

For the first time in a long time, the US is more interested in getting shit taken care of then not stepping on other peoples toes. Too fucking bad for people with toes. You've been warned.

Re:And direct action we shall indeed take

[Malcontent]

Unfortunately the US is full of idiots like you. Idiots who think that it's our duty now to kill every body on the planet just because we can. Every Afghani is guilty so let's kill them all. Every iraqi is guilty so let's kill them all. Every german is guilty so let's kill them all. Now wait a minute those germans are white people maybe they are not all guilty just because a terrorist cell was established there. Oh I know every african is guilty because they harbor terrorists and they are not white so let's kill them all. Leave the italians, spaniards and the canadians alone though not all of them are guilty.

Oh one more thing. Not every american is guilty becaue we funded bin laden but every pakistani is guilty because they funded the taliban so let's kill all the pakistanis too. Oh wait a minute maybe that's not right either.

I know. let's kill everybody that our govt says is bad people. Yea that's the ticket. Anybody who does not agree are communist whiners so let's kill them too.

Re:And direct action we shall indeed take

[JimmytheGeek]

Bomb Florida? After the election, it sounds like a pretty good idea.

Re:And direct action we shall indeed take

[Dasher42]

Because the conventional definition of war would have political ramifications at odds with our goals. War implies that two or more countries are prepared to destroy each other. We are not out to destroy Afghanistan, but Al Quaeda and the Taliban.

Looking at the general sentiment of the American public, I think the distinction between these elements and the civilians is well acknowledged and respected. I'm glad the Taliban is on its last legs and I hope Afghanistan's society and infrastructure is brought to a healthy stability. No, declaring a conventional war would muddy these aims.

Re: And direct action we shall indeed take

[Inthewire]

Clap
Clap
Clap.

Magic of cut-n-paste...I do plan to repost, with full credit given.

Re:Keep in mind, this is not a somalia company

[Joe Decker]

The US harboured terrorists for 4 years before said terrorists blew up the WTC.'

You're using two different meanings of the word harboring. The terrorists lived in the US for four years, without US knowledge.

Usama Bin Laden lives or lived in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, with the understanding and support of the Taliban, and rejected the (powerless) United Nations attempt to extradite him from Afghanistan under United Nations Resolution 1267 (1999) for the murder of hundreds of individuals in embassy bombings.

It's one thing to have a murderer hiding without your knowledge in your basement. It's quite another thing to hide the murderer in your basement with intent.

They could do what the Cubans do

[pp]

And get their Internet access through Canada ;) (or just about any other country)

traceroute to vh-nt.ceniai.inf.cu (169.158.128.69), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
13 if-8-0.core2.NewYork.Teleglobe.net (207.45.222.21) 149.840 ms 146.416 ms 150.475 ms
14 if-9-0.core1.Montreal.Teleglobe.net (64.86.83.225) 154.642 ms 152.304 ms 155.128 ms
15 if-7-0.core1.Laurentides.Teleglobe.net (64.86.80.18) 169.620 ms 150.312 ms 152.973 ms
16 if-12-0-0.bb2.Laurentides.Teleglobe.net (64.86.81.71) 156.376 ms 152.884 ms 154.099 ms
17 ix-4-0-5-0.bb2.Laurentides.Teleglobe.net (207.45.219.14) 1705.787 ms 1568.233 ms 1727.330 ms
Sure is slow, though :)

Wrong URL

[BrianGa]

If you're going to use my story, at least USE MY CORRECT URL...

All of this anti-Americanism

[Bodero]

I'm sick of hearing all of this anti-Americanism on Slashdot. Every post I read seems to be something along the lines of "Where's the proof?" or "What's next, America shutting down dissident sites?"

Well, I'll have you know, we're in a war here. The rules have been changed. It's like those people who shout "We must bring Usama back and try him in our courts!" That's absolutely ridiculous. We didn't try Hitler, nor would we have even considered it if we captured him. It's wartime, the rules are changed. Somalia is just as bad, if not WORSE than Iraq in its harboring and promotion of international terrorists. This could signify the next location of American strikes after the Taliban falls. Imagine how silly you'd seem now if you said we shouldn't be cutting the information lines to the Taliban. That's how silly all of you anti-Americans will sound after the pressure sets in on Somalia.

Remember, this is a war. Your peacetime rules don't apply, so don't pretend to think that they do.

Re:All of this anti-Americanism

[Telek]

How the FSCK is this a war???????

I'm sorry if I missed the news announcement when the US openly declared war on all third war countries.

THIS WAS A CRIME, NOT A WAR we just have taken this as a convenient excuse for the atrocities that we will commit back in return just cuz we're pissed.

I REPEAT, THERE IS NO WAR.

here's a good article about it

Re:All of this anti-Americanism

[attackiko]

Really, Hitler wouldn't have been put on court? How about all other generals and staff, were they shot on-site? Where is the town of Nuremburg?

Re:All of this anti-Americanism

[Anonymous Coward]

> We didn't try Hitler, nor would we have even considered it if we captured him

errr, we did try high ranking nazi officials, and many were executed. Also Americans might not know about this, but Slobodan Milosovic is currently being tried in a UN court. So, yes, we do try the leaders of countries that we go to war with. If the USA starts executing foreigners without trial, Americans will have no right to expect any better treatment from other governments.

Re:All of this anti-Americanism

[cuyler]

> We didn't try Hitler, nor would we have even considered it if we captured him.

I believe many people in his party had some troubles with some "Crimes against humanity" charges at a wee event called the Nuremberg Trials. These were crimes committed during a war yet they were still charge.

Of course they would have tried Hitler, it was a big show to prove the war was justified. It was a huge disappointment (with respect to the trial) that Hitler went out and shot himself.

Re:All of this anti-Americanism

[imrdkl]

This ain't a war, friend. At best a manhunt, or perhaps a "menhunt". Congress has not declared war, and therefore it is not a war.

None of the words or meaning in the Constitution has changed, either. It still guarantees Justice to All. This includes a fair trial, just as much as it includes the lethal injection as punishment.

Hold onto that. Treasure it, and dont let it go, no matter the pain you feel. Patriotism sometimes hurts. But our country, and what it has Always stood for, is more important, even than our pain and loss. Patriots all down through our history have understood this, and it has not changed one bit with the location of the attack.

Re:All of this anti-Americanism

[krazy_kc]

I'm sick of seeing all this anti-american activity in the US government.

In the past 2 months we've seen

• Mass round-ups by federal agents, hidden in secrecy and unwilling to tell even how many have been nabbed.
  
• The Congress of the United States cowed into passing a resolution that allows the president to wage war without any more congressional oversite.
  
• The CIA bragging about anti-terrorist activities in Albania where they were only party to torturing 1 wrong person out of 6 people nabbed.
  
• Federal agents given power to enter your home without ever letting you know.
  
• A military campaign where we are proud of the fact that we are supported by China, Pakistan, and an alliance of warlords in Afghanistan.
  
• Implementing racial profiling as anti-terrorist mechanism while the US justice department admits that they believe the most recent terrorist attacks (antrhax in the mail) are from home grown terrorists.
  

I don't care if you have a flag decal on your car, if you believe that the United States stands for censorship, bullying, military tribunals, and people being dragged away secretly because of their religious beliefs, you are no patriot, you are a traitor.

Re:All of this anti-Americanism

[Maurkov]

"Where's the proof?" or "What's next, America shutting down dissident sites?"
...
Your peacetime rules don't apply, so don't pretend to think that they do.

So you're saying that since this is war, things like proof and constitutional rights dont matter?

Sometimes ya gotta feed the trolls.

Rules should apply, especially in wartime. It is specifically during times of great stress and urgency when they become important. My government is engaged in a protracted war with an 'ism' for an enemy. Bush said that the war on terror will end when "every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated," which is basically never. When should we expect our rules to start applying again? Is there a point to having rules if they only apply when expedient?

Here's an idea: Lets put all Middle Easterners into internment camps until this whole thing blows over. &lt/sarcasm&gt

Maurkov,
whose opinions are less valid because he doesn't have a thought provoking quote in his sig.

Re:All of this anti-Americanism

[TheMidget]

Where is the town of Nuremburg?

That town is called Nurenberg, and incidentally, its area code is 911...

Re:All of this anti-Americanism

[gregRowe]

Patriotism is dumb. I will never support a cause I do not feel is right. And patriotism is to support a country no matter what it does. BAD.

I am scared of what the US is doing. I am a US citizen. I imagine myself as someone in a another country and I would be worried that the US will use this "war on terrorism" as an excuse to attack any country it wants. And that is exactly what I am afraid the US is doing. The other super powers will not stand for that and eventually they will fight the US if they think that is where it is heading...and I would support those countries. Not because I am not a patriot, but because I will never support something that I feel is wrong.

Re:All of this anti-Americanism

[cjpez]

Urk. Why is criticism (sp?) of American policies "Anti-American?" Every citizen has the right to disagree with the actions his/her government is taking. It's what makes the country strong! Now is not the time to rally behind a government body and proclaim absolute servitude to whatever actions it takes; now is the time to dissent as much as possible. When I say, "the United States' bombing campaign against terrorism is both insane and unproductive," I'm not saying that America itself is some evil empire. I'm just saying that the current administration has its head up its ass.

I'm not petulatly threatening to leave the country in a huff because "it's all gone downhill," I'm just saying that I disagree. And it's this dissent, not some fake "unity" crap, that keeps the country together. Ideas gone unchallenged stagnate and degrade; we need the dissenting opinions to keep on growing as a nation!

So just because some of us are highly critical of the way our government's handled the situation doesn't mean that we've given up on the country as a whole . . .

Re:All of this anti-Americanism

[BrianH]

Well, since the Nuremberg trials were technically military trials, and since the military executed several of the people found guilty during those trials, your post actually gives credence to the way we're treating the terrorists.

Re:All of this anti-Americanism

[kindbud]

I'm sick of hearing all of this anti-Americanism on Slashdot.

Then stop reading it.

Every post I read seems to be something along the lines of "Where's the proof?" or "What's next, America shutting down dissident sites?"

Well, where IS the proof? It was promised before the campaign started, then the promise was withdrawn. And, what IS next? These are legitimate questions.

Well, I'll have you know, we're in a war here.

So I'm told.

The rules have been changed.

That much is obvious. There are questions as to whether it is justified, and even as to whether it is legal.

It's like those people who shout "We must bring Usama back and try him in our courts!" That's absolutely ridiculous. We didn't try Hitler, nor would we have even considered it if we captured him.

How do you know that? Hitler shot himself. The Nazis that managed to be captured were tried. What makes you think Hitler wouldn't have been tried as well?

It's wartime, the rules are changed.

You said that before. Funny thing about propaganda is that the people who spread it don't think of it in that way.

Somalia is just as bad, if not WORSE than Iraq in its harboring and promotion of international terrorists.

How do you know this? Do you believe it because important men on TV say it is so? Can you point to Somalia on a map? Who are the principal political forces within Somalia, and which ones should we hold responsible for harboring or supporting terrorists?

Remember, this is a war. Your peacetime rules don't apply, so don't pretend to think that they do.

You continue to repeat yourself over and over, but that does not change the fact that Congress has not declared war on any nation, nor is there much provision in the Constitution for declaring war on a person, or on a group of persons, or on an organization, or on an ideology. This "war" on terrorism is a war in name only, like the "war" on drugs, the "war" on poverty, the "war" on cancer, and so on.

Let me ask you something: In light of the Bush administration repeatedly stressing to the public that the "war" on terrorism will never come to a decisive conclusion, that it will take a concerted effort for an indefinite period of time; given that the new laws authorizing drastic curtailment of due process, habeas corpus and other legal protections, co-mingling of domestic law enforcement and overseas intelligence operations and other unprecedented actions that were not even considered in the wake of Pearl Harbor, were passed with no meaningful debate, with few if any dissenting votes, at a time when public feedback was hampered by the extraordinary anthrax infestations; given that, in this country and others going back to antiquity, the overwhelming tendency of those in power is to accumulate more and not relinquish it easily, and that even a cursory examination of the history of the world validates this conclusion with example after example; in light of all these things, do you really expect me to accept that it is unreasonable to even raise a question about what the hell is going on?

Re:All of this anti-Americanism

[jmv]

Well, I'll have you know, we're in a war here

What war??? (Germany+Italy+Japan) vs. (US+UK+France, ...) is a war. US vs. Usama bin Laden IS NOT! Or maybe the Oklahama bombing should have been considered a civil war? The thing is you've got a president who's been dreaming of declearing a war just like his daddy did and now he's happy cuz he can...

It's like those people who shout "We must bring Usama back and try him in our courts!" That's absolutely ridiculous. We didn't try Hitler, nor would we have even considered it if we captured him.

Had Hitler not committed suicide, he would probably have judged, just like all the other SS/
Nazi/... is Nuremberg (sp?)... or just like McVeigh was.

So as for you main point: "I'm sick of hearing all of this anti-Americanism on Slashdot.", all I have to say is that you have the right to think the US is the best country in the world and the only real democracy and the country that will protect the world... Just remember that, as much as CNN wants you to believe that it the case, most people outside the US don't watch CNN and often have a slightly different opinion (correct or not).

Re:All of this anti-Americanism

[Sj0]

Since You are at war with afganistan, can you attack canada too? How about the UK? When you declare war against one nation, you are at war WITH THAT NATION, not all of them. I know you think that the US has the god given right to remove other peoples rights because you're so used to it happening at home, but the US has NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to do things to other nations which it isn't at war with. If the US wants to declare war against the world, DO SO. Then we can come in and clean up your little monarchy(because you sure as hell aren't a democracy!). Otherwise, keep the efforts against the contries you are actually at war with, instead of playing the paranoia game with any goddamn country which you suspect being the enemy.

Secondly, on your comments on hitler, have you taken no classes in history? Are they all on how if you are righteous it's okay to kill someone without a trial if you're sure he's evil? Hitler would have been tried and found guilty, just like all the other monsters of WWII were if he hadn't committed suicide. You see, in free countries in the world, people are given a fair trial before they are excecuted for crimes against humanity. I know it's hard to fathom, being American, but not all people who are accused of such crimes are guilty.

If your goddamn "crusade" ends up waging war against a country like that for no apparant reason, then the USA is a nation run by evil international terrorists. Don't be suprised if "terrorism" on your own shores starts happening if you just start drawing names from a hat on which "evil terrorist" nation you will attack next. I know that if you were to attack *my* country(admittedly, not somalia) without provokation like you suggest the US is planning, I'd be fighting mad, and a little bit of "counterterrorist terrorism" would be a likely outcome, and I think that most nations on earth would join us, including many nations which have pledged to support the US.

Re:All of this anti-Americanism

[mami]

The important thing is not if it's a military tribunal or a civilian court, it's that the proposed military trials by Pres. Bush are allowed to be secret trials.

The presidential executive order allows President Bush to overwrite the current military code, which rules the judicial process in military courts. That's what is questionable. There is nothing wrong about using military tribunals, but then they should be used within the legal framework of current military code.

BTW, I would have died (if I had lived at that time) to see Hitler been put on trial. Eichman went through a trial and that was good. And the Nuremberg trials were one of the most educative pieces of documentation the surviving German generation and their off-spring had. If you want to bring someone to justice, you better show that justice to the world.

Secret military tribunals, that is what makes anyone with some common sense suspicious and rightfully so.

Re:All of this anti-Americanism

[TheMidget]

That's the German spelling. However, AFAIK, the French and English spelling is Nurenberg.

Just like you say Roma in Italian, but Rome in French and in English, and Rom in German. Or Straßburg in German, vs. Strasbourg in French. Or Bâle vs Basel...

Many of the larger European cities have different spellings in different languages.

Re:All of this anti-Americanism

[Dasher42]

I think it's absolutely silly to deny that the United States is at war because Congress has not dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's but the actions taken speak for themselves - and so do the necessities.

There is a manhunt going on, but an identifiable group has mass-murdered thousands of our civilians, has advocated the killing of any and all civilians of the West for years, and continues to threaten to do so. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are our enemies just as surely as the Nazis and Japanese were back in World War 2, or the Barbary pirates during our nation's first years.

The Constitution does not apply to Bin Laden; it is a contract between the people of the United States and its government. Bin Laden is not a party to it and is an enemy of ideals it represents. No doubt his ilk will call a trial under anything but radically interpreted sharia an atrocity. Are we in this to please these folks or to bring al Quaeda to an end?

In a war, a nation is not obligated to provide a trial to its mortal enemies. Trials are for when the guns stop shooting and the significant, widespread danger to the nation's people are over. Excessive idealism in this context will keep us from taking effective action, will cost us more innocent lives. There's a time for Miranda rights and a time to make a swift end of things. Remember that.

Re:All of this anti-Americanism

[cosyne]

This isn't a war. It's a media circus. Blood was spilt, revenge has to be extracted, or the populace will be unhappy (which seldom gets you re-elected). Nevermind that the people who attacked the WTC and pentagon are already dead, because they were willing to die for the opportunity to do that.

After (when/if) the pressure sets in on Somolia, it will be because we haven't found a scapegoat yet and we need to punish someone else to feel better.

As for all the anti-Americanism, why do you think people do things like fly planes into our buildings and kill lots of people? Do think it's because we're nice? Because we're friendly and help out the rest of the world? No, we support international terrorism as much as anybody else. We funded bin Laden. Oh, did you miss that? Let me say it two more times, so maybe you'll pick it up. We funded bin Laden. WE FUNDED BIN LADEN. We station nuclear arms outside our borders, we use heavy handed tactics to maintain world dominance, we exploit everything we can for the financial gain of a few rich americans, and you wonder why anyone could possibly harbor any anti-American sentiment?

OTOH, congrats on a very successful troll. Nothing seems to motivate /.ers to wax philosophical like the opportunity to enclue the clueless.

Re:All of this anti-Americanism

[smarner]

First off, there is a considerably larger number of players in the current conflict than just the United States and Bin Laden, even if you count only the nations that have troops involved in Afghanistan. Second, by some of the logic I've seen here on Slashdot, the U.S. hasn't been in a war for a VERY long time - - including the Korean War, Desert Storm, etc. I posit that we can be involved in a war without Congress having formally declared one - - especially in a situation like this, where Bin Laden actually did "declare war" against America (and Jews). Third, whether or not the author of the original post was articulate in voicing his opinion, I agree with it. There has been a HUGE amount of venom spewed in the U.S.' direction on slashdot of late, and I find that distressing. The U.S. is repeatedly referred to as being "the only terrorist," and trouncing on others' rights. Horseshit. The U.S. has been kicked around by Islamic terrorists repeatedly, and did nothing about it -- see the embassy bombings, the Cole, the first WTC bombing, etc. -- until the 9/11 attacks. The U.S. is punishing those responsible for the 9/11 attacks, and working to reduce the likelihood that Islamic terrorists anywhere will have the wherewithal to launch such a strike again. In the U.S. at least, everyone is certainly entitled to voice their opinions -- including those critical of the U.S. itself. But that doesn't mean everyone that disagrees with you is wrong.

Re:All of this anti-Americanism

[Lars T.]

Actually, it's N&uumlrnberg (German) or Nuremberg (English). BTW, both the Courtroom in which the trials were held, and the former Nazi party rally grounds can be visited today.

Re:All of this anti-Americanism

[jmv]

There has been a HUGE amount of venom spewed in the U.S.' direction on slashdot of late, and I find that distressing.

Maybe that's because Slashdot is not "only american" after all... Come on, get over it. As hard as it is to take it, not everybody in the world loves the United States. Since US has been involved (for better or worse, I'm not judging here) just about everywhere, you should expect that not everyone is happy about that (as shown in the middle easy for example).

While I believe that nothing can *justify* the 09/11 attacks (or the ones before, or any terrorist act for that matter), they can be *explained*. Regardless of what you think is wrong or right (which sometimes depends on you opinion and on where you live), the US couldn't maintain its current foreign policy without expecting any bad consequences. Note that I'm not trying to *justify* the 09/11 acts here (they can't).

I would compare this to the guy (wrongly or not) pissing off all of his neighbors in a "badly frequented" area. One day or another he'll end up with some broken bones. While nothing can justify him being beaten up, the guy sure asked for it...

In the U.S. at least, everyone is certainly entitled to voice their opinions -- including those critical of the U.S. itself. But that doesn't mean everyone that disagrees with you is wrong.

Well, at least we agree on something!

Re:All of this anti-Americanism

[interstellar_donkey]

Remember, this is a war. Your peacetime rules don't apply, so don't pretend to think that they do.

That's fine. What scares us is that when the war is over, the peacetime rules won't come back. Either that, or the war will continue to be defined so ambigiously that it will continue indefinitly until we've forgotten what freedom tastes like.

Re:All of this anti-Americanism

[charon_on_acheron]

"Congress has not declared war, and therefore it is not a war."

Go tell that to a Vietnam vet. Then sit still for 10 hours and let him tell you what he went through in a "police action". If after that you agree wars need Congressional approval, I'll listen to you.

Re:All of this anti-Americanism

[imrdkl]

I ain't really qualified to reply to this, but I do remember. It was a sad B&W distraction of my childhood. Likewise, I hope this incident will be much less even that kind of a memory for my children. I also know one person who I hope who would call me his friend, who is also a vietnam vet. He killed many people because he loves this country too.

If you are still listening, then i say only this: today our government holds our anger and power, and grief, in one hand, and our most delicate and precious, and unique, freedoms and liberties in the other. I only hope that the right hand wins.

The world (yes, and God) are watching to see if we mean what we say, as we always mean to. Do you get my meaning?

I really, honestly believe we have a chance to get it right this time, if our government looks in the right place for the wisdom and knowledge to do so.

Moderators: notice I specifically did not mention technology anywhere in this posting.

Re:All of this anti-Americanism

[imrdkl]

And they never will know. Hatred has no borders friend. And neither does justice. But, carrying justice across borders is a much more serious responsibility than carrying hatred.

As to my naivete, well, I'm debating a shadow. Perhaps you are right.

Re:All of this anti-Americanism

[CousinChimpy]

• A military campaign where we are proud of the fact that we are supported by China, Pakistan, and an alliance of warlords in Afghanistan.

Who says we are "proud of the fact"?

Pakistan is providing a necessary route into Afghanistan, as well as strategic information regarding Taliban positions. The Afghan Northern Alliance is strongly motivated to reclaim territory lost to the Taliban, and our joint effort with them is almost certainly saving the lives of U.S. and allied soldiers who would otherwise be on the ground.

Proud of the fact, no. But unfortunately, there seems to be an extent to which it is to our advantage to ally ourselves with the lesser among our regional adversaries. Yes, this is what got us into trouble before, back when we were backing the Afghans in their fight against the Soviets, and we have clearly got to be more careful this time in how we tie things up. But I don't see much in the way of better alternatives. Just look at the geography of the situation...

Re:All of this anti-Americanism

[imrdkl]

The Constitution does not apply to Bin Laden

Then just who is "All"?

Re:All of this anti-Americanism

[Shadowlore]

You continue to repeat yourself over and over, but that does not change the fact that Congress has not declared war on any nation, nor is there much provision in the Constitution for declaring war on a person, or on a group of persons, or on an organization, or on an ideology. This "war" on terrorism is a war in name only, like the "war" on drugs, the "war" on poverty, the "war" on cancer, and so on.

Yet, you will also see no restriction on the government, saying it can only declare war on a country. Specifically, the section to which you refer says "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;". Nowhere does it say who can and/or can not be declared war upon. The US should have declared war, and has the precedence for it, see "The Barbary Pirates episode in early American history (then note the similarities).

Re:All of this anti-Americanism

[Diesel Dave]

nor is there much provision in the Constitution for declaring war on a person, or on a group of persons, or on an organization, or on an ideology.

Quite wrong. There is in Art 1 Sec 9 Par 3. Such acts are expessly prohibited.

"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

As you can see the 'terrorist classfication' aspects of the new (and old) laws just passed are clearly unconstitutional.

For the unknowning a definition from this site:

Cummings v. Missouri (1867). It states, "A bill of attainder, is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without judicial trial and includes any legislative act which takes away the life, liberty or property of a particular named or easily ascertainable person or group of persons because the legislature thinks them guilty of conduct which deserves punishment."

Also of interest:

'A bill of attainder is a law or legal device used to outlaw people , suspend their civil rights, confiscate their property, punish or put them to death without a trial.'

Re:All of this anti-Americanism

[Anthony Boyd]

This "war" on terrorism is a war in name only

Wow. Really. What with all the troop movements and bombing, it appears to be a fairly real war to me.

Re:All of this anti-Americanism

[Dasher42]

Liberty and justice for all is an ideal. Translation into reality isn't that simple. Letting Bin Laden operate as long as he has has cost us thousands of innocent lives - what about their rights?

Have you really considered the implications of a lengthy legal wrangling? If we had Bin Laden, it'd be the tip of the iceberg. If our government tips too much of its hand and discloses the full extent of its intelligence on Bin Laden's activities, I guarantee you it will do far more harm than good. Even if we get Bin Laden, there will be other parts of the network that we'll still have to root out. Bin Laden is already known for what he is; he proclaims it openly. Why waste time?

No, much as if we had a rabid dog mauling people on the street, it's a social imperative to take prompt and decisive action. I think excessive fixation on a single aspect of our ethics without pragmatic common sense will just drag this situation out and create more victims.

Re:All of this anti-Americanism

[imrdkl]

Liberty and justice for all is an ideal

Yes, I recited the "Ideals of Allegiance" every morning when I was a kid.

Re:Wrong

[mesocyclone]

"It is better to be feared than loved."

Machiavelli

And if necessary, that is what the US must be. We have tried "love" and it didn't stop September 11. Now we are working on fear. It will work much better.

It is, however, rather amusing to see the outrage in this discussion. Do they really imagine that internet access will *stay* away from Somalia? Another non-terrorist company will move in and buy the assets. The only thing that will stop this is if the Somali government is still in league with the terrorists, in which case the loss of internet is the least of worries people should have for the Somalis.

Etiopien soldiers in Somalia

[El Prebso]

I really don't think they care about internet right now. Etiopia just sent 1000 soldiers into Somalia. The only place I've hear about it is the Danish tv station DR. Everyone else seems to be totally unaware of this action.

Re:Etiopien soldiers in Somalia

[Russ Nelson]

Last time they tried this, the Somalis threw the corpses over the border.
-russ

Email is more important than innocent lives

[Bobby Orr]

I for one would far rather that innocent people continue to die than for email and internet access to infringed upon.

This war, people. This is not an intellectual excercise. This is not a point-counterpoint trial where each person has time to prove their allegations in an organized manner. This is a war. We are the targets. Without quick thinking and quick action, we will all be dead. We are under a very real threat at this very moment.

I would like for you to have the continued freedom to question our capable military advisors, even though you don't know half of what they do. If you would like to have that continued freedom, then you better hope they do a good job beating the enemy. Winning a war somtimes takes drastic action.

I am in full support of this war effort, even if it means some internet access is taken down for a while.

Re:Email is more important than innocent lives

[torgosan]

I'm confused: first you say let the innocents die but hands off the 'net access. In closing, you say let the bombs rain down and so what if the wires go silent.

Which is it?

Re:Email is more important than innocent lives

[Russ Nelson]

You have lost to the terrorists. You see, their goal is not to kill as many of us as they can. Their goal is to cause is to hurt ourselves through our fear of them. And given that you think that "without quick thinking and quick action, we will all be dead", I'd say that you're pretty damned scared.

Buck up, man. Don't be such a frickin' pansy. Americans will kill ten times as many American citizens through car accidents alone, as any terrorist action has killed. If you're scared of terrorists, then you should be ten times as scared of getting in a car.
-russ

Re:Email is more important than innocent lives

[Bobby Orr]

And given that you think that "without quick thinking and quick action, we will all be dead", I'd say that you're pretty damned scared.
I am not scared of the terrorists. I am not scared because we will win and they will lose. I support my country beating them. I have complete confidence that we are winning and will continue to win because we are doing what it takes. They got several thousand of us in NYC, but that is the end of their victories. We will do the winning from here on out, BECAUSE we will do what it takes to win.

You see, their goal is not to kill as many of us as they can. Their goal is to cause is to hurt ourselves through our fear of them. You are mistaken. They are irrational. They want you dead and me dead. This article discusses it. It is their desire for America to cease to exist. Nevertheless, America will outlast them. This means, WE WIN -- THEY LOSE. simple.

If I had to give up my internet access for the next 10 years (this is reducing to ridiculous extreme) in order to destroy them so that I could live in free America, then I would gladly do so. This of course is not necessary and it won't be necessary for Somolia to do without for very long.
However, for a short time, in order to disrupt enemy communications, it is necessary to disrupt Internet traffic to Somolia. It is unfortunate, but it will aid in winning the war faster. The sooner we win the war, the less innocent people die on both sides.
Again, Human Life > Internet Access.

Re:Email is more important than innocent lives

[Nathaniel]

"This war, people. This is not an intellectual excercise. This is not a point-counterpoint trial where each person has time to prove their allegations in an organized manner. This is a war. We are the targets. Without quick thinking and quick action, we will all be dead. We are under a very real threat at this very moment."

We are not at war. We are killing people in random locations around the world, which is wrong.

I feel less safe now than I did the day before we started bombing. I feel I am more likely to be targeted by some future terrorist act than I was before we started bombing. We are creating more enemies than we are killing.

I look forward to the war crimes trails after which the former leaders of the United States are hunted down and brought to justice.

The United States is actively engaged in terrorism. I am embarrased to be a citizen.

Re:Email is more important than innocent lives

[Nathaniel]

"You are mistaken. They are irrational. They want you dead and me dead. It is their desire for America to cease to exist"

First off, I'm going to assume you mean the United States, not America. I'll grant you that it would be irrational to hope that two continents simple stop existing. ;-} When you mean the United States you should use the phrase "The United States", not "America", otherwise your careless use of language causes confusion.

Do you really expect us to believe that there are thousands or millions of people who share the same psychotic delusions? Isn't is possible that they have some motivation that makes sense to them?

Osama bin Laden has ask Muslims to fight until the foreigners are out of Saudi Arabia and there is peace in Palistine. That isn't the same thing as saying the United Sates should be 'cease to exist'. It is intirely possible that this conflict could be resolved without their destruction or your death.

When two parties set themselves up in a conflict without any chance of understanding the motivations of the other side they are likely to keep fighting until one side is completely destroyed.

At least one side (probably both) have access to weapons of mass destruction (nuclear weapons, biological weapons, and chemical weapons). Are you really suggesting that this conflict be 'won' quickly by doing "what it takes to win"? Are there any limits you would place on this conflict, any actions you would not advocate?

"Nevertheless, America will outlast them. This means, WE WIN -- THEY LOSE. simple."

Again, I'm assuming you mean "the United States", not "America". If I'm wrong, and you mean the continents, not the country occupying a portion of North America, you are probably right that this geographical feature will outlast them.

Anyway...

Why will we win? Because we want it we can make it happen, eh? Will the 'War on Terrorism' be more successful than the 'War on Poverty' or the 'War on Drugs'?

Are you able to contemplate the idea of an 'unwillable war'?

Can you tell me how many innocent lives it is worth to insure that the United States continues to have military troops stationed in more than half the countries in the world, and why that goal is worth any innocent lives at all?

Re:Email is more important than innocent lives

[Nathaniel]

I wouldn't advocate not responding. I simply think that the response was one of the worst possible, perhaps 2 or 3 on a scale of 10.

Re: Email is more important than innocent lives

[Inthewire]

I am embarrased to be a citizen.

It's a rectifiable condition.

Re:Direct action

[uberdave]

I've heard a lot about America'a war on terrorism. Who hasn't? However, I have only heard about attacks on Bin Laden's crew. What is the US coallition going to be doing about terrorism in Ireland, and in the Middle East? What about Rwanda?

Here's the article...

[kypper]

here.

Agreed. Fully.

Just how in the hell do "1,000-pound precision-guided bombs "inadvertently [strike] one or more warehouses used by the International Committee of the Red Cross."" One or more?? How can you 'inadvertantly' strike 2+ Red Cross stations?

This newspeak is killing me.

Re:Here's the article...

[Joe Decker]

No, that is not the article. I'm beginning to doubt there was one.

The article the previous poster claimed that the US bombed those targets knowing that it wasn't a military target and that the US State Dept. admitted such.

Whether the US did bomb those intentionally or did not, the article includes no such admission by the State department, and in fact specifically states that the buildings targeted were believed to house Taliban military equipment.

I quote: Although details are still being investigated, the ICRC warehouses were among a series of warehouses targeted by U.S. forces because the Taliban used them for storage of military equipment. Military vehicles had been seen in the vicinity of these warehouses. U.S. forces did not know that ICRC was using one or more of the warehouses.

Read the articles being referred to before accusing someone of newspeak.

The bombings of the Red Cross centers was tragic. The loss of telephone access (even more than net access) in Somalia is tragic. But that's no excuse for misreading "mistakenly" as "intentional".

Re:Here's the article...

[kypper]

I read the article.

I've seen articles change within a matter of hours. CNN does censor and alter its articles without ever mentioning it.

Sorry, it has happened. I bet it has been censored since this guy read it.

Re:Here's the article...

[statusbar]

Anyone who does not believe that this is true is naive. It happens, I've seen it.

Within a week after Sep 11, there was an interesting interview the CNN's Wolf Blitzer had with a former CIA director. He said that people are overlooking the possible involvement of Saddam Hussein in the terrorist attacks.

Within 3 hours, the article was deleted. But the link on cnn.com's front page wasn't. It was a broken link. Even today, the article is nowhere to be found on the site.

Read cnn.com regularly. Read between the lines. Learn about what they are not saying and what they delete.

--jeff

Re:Here's the article...

[swoopx]

I read cnn.com regularly, I havent really noticed what your talking about, but I think the fact is they update their web page based on current knowledge of what is happening. Meaning if some former CIA director thinks Hussein was involved in Sept 11th, they print it, then later when they found out the former director was wrong, or had no real proof, they change the web page to reflect the current facts. I honestly dont smell some global media conspiracy.

Re:Here's the article...

[Lars T.]

IOW they "knew" they were used for "storage of military equipment", but not that they were used by the ICRC. They "knew" that because "military vehicles had been seen in the vicinity of these warehouses". So much for Military Inteligence.

Re:Here's the article...

[kfg]

That is not the article I was refering to. As I stated in a reply above I saw it reported live on CNN as it was handed to the reporter off the wire.

It was reported as an admission that the article you link to was not true.

I have no way of proving I ever actually saw what I claim short of a brain scan.

KFG

Re:Here's the article...

[statusbar]

If CNN were publishing a newspaper, then they couldn't retract it. Technology allows them to change their own history.

--jeff

Re:Here's the article...

[unitron]

There may not have been an article but I definitely saw a "crawl" on either CNN or MSNBC (and I'm pretty sure that it was CNN) a few days after some Red Cross warehouse was bombed a second time saying that the warehouse was bombed on purpose both times.

Re:Here's the article...

[statusbar]

Yes, I agree with you.

But the CNN website DOES have archived articles that you can search. And the aritcle that I find interesting is no longer there. As far as anyone is concerned, it never existed.

--jeff

No government == nobody to buy off

[Russ Nelson]

If there's no government, there's nobody to buy off. The only route to a monopoly is the Alcoa method: reduce your prices and improve your product faster than anyone else can.
-russ

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Nice Troll.

[Nick]

Nice, and you actually got this one to be modded up to 5! Hah.

Slow down cowboy.

[Nick]

Saudi Arabia's public works projects exclusively fed the businesses of the Bin Laden family for decades, making the entire family, including Osama, among the richest in the world. This same oil trade (and America's oil addiction) continues to make make wealthy many Middle Eastern supporters of Al Qaida.

First off, the Bin Laden family are actually quite nice people and have had nothing to do with Osama. Since when did these said companies intentionally do business with known terrorists?

Next time, get your facts straight.

Re:Slow down cowboy.

[Pauly]

First off, the Bin Laden family are actually quite nice people and have had nothing to do with Osama.

Bundy was charming and intelligent as hell all the while he was serial killing. Do you know the Bin Laden family personally? Or did you gather this insight from Fox news? Choose your sources of information carefully on topics as complex and important this one.

Open your eyes and read:

• BBC
  
• Salon

Re:Slow down cowboy.

[Nick]

Your article on Salon is absolutely useless to the case in hand. It's not like I didn't already know the Bush family had big interest in the oil industry.

The link on BBC however at least refers to the point , but it is of no more then conspirist drivel. I like the disclaimer before the transcript. That article is nothing but people sitting around pondering if his family were linked. If there was involvement, don't you think we would have done something to Saudi Arabia?

I also remember seeing on 60 minutes about an american doctor who spent a few years over there who treated his family, said they were the nicest guys ever, very respectable and successful in their community.

Do we blame Manson's parents for his crimes he comitted later on in life?

Re:Slow down cowboy.

[Pauly]

If there was involvement, don't you think we would have done something to Saudi Arabia?

I would like to think so. I would like to be able to trust my leadership to make decisions based primarily what is best for the American people and for the rest of the "Free World." However, as you correctly observered, the Bush family is deeply involved in the oil industry. How do you know the lessor President Bush hasn't placed the interests of the oil companies that provide him, his parents, his extended family and just about every high ranking official in his administration tremendous wealth over and above any other? For the same reason you don't put the fox in charge of the sheep, you shouldn't trust oil magnates to provide unbiased leadership in middle eastern matters. Even defense contractors are prevented from hiring former government employees under certain circumstances to avoid just this sort of dangerous conflict of interest.

Since I'm doing all the research here, why don't you dig up some evidence Dick Cheney has complied with the standing request from the General Accounting Office's request for a list of people he consulted while forming the administration's energy policy? You know, the GAO may may need to sue the current administration to get access to this information. These are unprecedented times. I'm sure this information will get frozen using some wartime excuse.

...said they were the nicest guys ever, very respectable and successful in their community.

Televised anecdotes affirming someone's "niceness" have no weight in matters such as these. If you don't realize that, you're in trouble next time you are in the market for a used car.

While we may not be able to blame Manson's parents for his crimes, can we blame George Bush's parents for any possible wrongdoing? Unlike the Mr. and Mrs. Manson, George HW Bush has a healthy history of compromising American policy and American law to the benefit of other, conflicting interests.

Food "bombs"

[Pseudonymus Bosch]

At the same time, of course, the US was randomly dropping food supplies all over the place, for anyone to pick up, including Taliban troops.

In this Reuters story, a crate of US food destroyed the ceiling of an Afghan house. The repair will cost more than the food. And the food is unusual for the Afghan taste.

Re:Food "bombs"

[kfg]

Reports from Afghanistan indicate that despite the food drops food delivery to the needy Afghani people has been reduced dramatically due to "disruptions" in the systems already in place.

Like bombing Red Cross centers.

CNN showed an example of the food packages being dropped. The one they showed was labled clearly, * in English *, " Potato Vinegrette. *

Beyond the issues of language, ( two languages actually, since vinegrette is French), and the fact that the majority of Afghanis aren't literate in their own language, the cultural divide shown by providing them with potato vingerette is ubsurd.

Bricks of beef jerky with a picture of a cow on the package would have been more to the point.

KFG

Re:Food "bombs"

[kfg]

Afghanis cannot immediately recognize freeze dried food that's shaped like a brick wrapped in dayglo yellow mylar if they are not culturally aclimated to recogzine that such even *could* be food. Nor is it immediately recognizable as food when it is *unwrapped* unless you already know that it is.

I have actually lived in such areas where I have had to give lessons to locals that such is food, and how to convert it to such in an edible form.

Your criticism of my post is in itself confirmation of the increadable cultural divide between "us" and "them."

To YOU it is obviously food, and you obviously find it ridiculous to belive that thay wouldn't.

There's a pretty good chance that THEY know a few things are food that you would be hard pressed to believe is even edible.

A single mature cedar tree can support a man for a year. I'd hazard a guess you would starve to death sitting underneath one, totally unaware of the edible wealth available within your reach.

How on earth could you not recognize *food*!

Food, sir, is cultural.

KFG

Re: Food "bombs"

[Inthewire]

And the food is unusual for the Afghan taste.

Pardon me for not even pretending to give a shit.
Not recognizing it as food and thus not consuming it is certainly understandable.
Not recognizing it as "good" food...well, then, don't fucking eat it. Yes, I understand that they live in a ruined land. I'm willing to support airdrops of nutrition. Complaints about flavor will be ignored.
I don't think that's what you were saying, but if you were, hop on a moped with a hibachi and do something about it.

The US government has learned nothing.

[Kazmat]

I had hoped the WTC attacks would be America's wakeup call and alert them to the fact that their foreign policy stinks. It seems this is not the case. America continues to play chess, using the less powerful nations as pawns. It was this behavior that caused the WTC attacks and if the US keeps throwing it's weight around like it is, more attacks will follow. How many attacks will be needed to wake up the US government? Hopefully, not too many.

Anyway, the moral of the story is: Just because a country is smaller and less powerful than your own does not mean you do not have to be diplomatic and considerate when dealing with them. Antagonise people enough and they will bite. It's a shame the WTC bite only served to complete the vicious circle of retaliation and counter-retaliation.

Re:The US government has learned nothing.

[rm3friskerFTN]

Might want to read this

Re:The US government has learned nothing.

[t_allardyce]

Could someone please crash a plane into congress??? I reckon (with some flight sim experimentation) that you could hit congress _and_ the whitehouse with one plane!!! What do you guys think? could it be done? You would need to get up some speed, and also be a bit off center so as not to hit the needle head on, and you probably wouldn't be able to total the buildings, but you could propably get rid of Bush and most of the inuhviduals. Ofcourse, the up side of a long, low, and fast approach is that it would be harder to detect on radar and have enough time to evacuate (does anyone have the evac. times for the buildings?)

Also, i noticed that you can see the whitehouse and congress from the air when near the pentagon, why would the terrorists go for the pentagon, when the whitehouse would have been a _far_ superior target representing the whole country

Re:The US government has learned nothing.

[man_ls]

Please see the novel by Tom Clancey, I believe, that is immidiately before "The Bear and the Dragon" A disgrunteled Japanese 747 pilot, upset that the United States finally had enough of the Japanese double-dealing in trade relations, crashed his airliner into Congress, killing most of the government, and the president.

Lets not forget Black Sunday, where the blimp was used...

Re:The US government has learned nothing.

[t_allardyce]

Thanks, that should make some good reading... (lol. die political american scum!!!! HA HA HA HA think you can screw with the first amendment? bill this:!! CRASH!!!!!!)

To be honest, i really think the world would be a different and better place if they had hit congress and the whitehouse.

Re:The US government has learned nothing.

[frank_adrian314159]

Please see the novel by Tom Clancey...

Yes. I'm sure that all American diplomacy and strategy should be driven by the writings of a second-rate literary hack. As I recall, he also said that Ebola would be the bio-terrorism weapon of choice. Hoo-hah! Welcome to the age of surrealism.

Lets not forget Black Sunday, where the blimp was used...

Wow! I'm sure Goodyear is shaking in its boots right now.

Here's another novelistic scenario (suitably abridged) that we SHOULD TAKE VERY SERIOUSLY:

There's a small town in the Northeast, maybe in Maine. Strange (and evil) things have been happening - even to the town's law enforcement personnel. It turns out some unspeakable evil has taken over the town and only a plucky seventeen-year old can save the town.

Just ask Steven King.

I think that we ought to start mandatory testing for pluckiness and mandatory enrollment in the anti-unspeakable-evil corps for these plucky recruits. After all, if terrorism is here, can unspeakable evil be far away? After all, someone wrote A NOVEL about it. It might happen!!!!!!

Re:Keep in mind, this is not a somalia company

[aminorex]

: What now, tanks in the streets?

Yes, for example at the Miami Airport.
Welcome to the New World Order.
.

Somalia has problems

[zeda]

Just saw on CNN last night that in 1997 Ethopia actually INVADED parts of Somalia to attack terrorist training camps there, and they found and killed Arabs terrorists.

Ethopia now claims that members of Somalia's parliaments are allied with or controlled by the same terrorist groups that got their asses kicked back in 1997.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

UN Authorization Exists

[rm3friskerFTN]

The UN Security Council Resolution 1373 appears to authorize cutting Somailia off from the net.

Some key paragraphs from the UN Security Council Resolution:

all States shall: ... suppress the financing of terrorist acts;

all States shall: Prohibit ... making any funds, financial assets or economic resources or financial or other related services available, directly or indirectly, for the benefit of persons who commit or attempt to commit or facilitate or participate in the commission of terrorist acts, of entities owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by such persons and of persons and entities acting on behalf of or at the direction of such persons;

Decides also that all States shall: Prevent those who finance, plan, facilitate or commit terrorist acts from using their respective territories for those purposes against other States or their citizens;

other paragraphs here

Re:UN Authorization Exists

[Nathaniel]

"The UN Security Council Resolution 1373 [un.org] appears to authorize cutting Somailia off from the net.
Some key paragraphs from the UN Security Council Resolution:"

The UN Security Council is composed of representatives from four Christian countries and one Confusion country. It is imposing sanctions on mostly muslum countries at the moment. Any one of these five countries can veto whatever another country attempts to propose or pass in the UN.

The structure of the UN, particularly the Security Council, leave a lot to be desired. Suppose the five Security Council seats were randomly reassigned. Do you suppose this might completely change the sort of motions the UN passes? If so, that the Security Council is really in charge.

At the moment, the United Satets can veto whatever UN motion they please. Do you suppose the United Nations would pay attention to anything the UN passes if they no longer had the ability to veto anything they choose?

Re:UN Authorization Exists

[jheywood]

You know, it would be nice if people actually knew what they were talking about before they started talking....

The UN Security Council is charged with "the maintenance of international peace and security." It is composed of 15 members, 5 of which are permanent (US, UK, France, Russia, China), and 10 of which are elected by the General Assembly with "due regard . . . to equitable geographic distribution." The 5 permanent members can veto any non-procedural resolution of the Council. This does not apply in any of the other major organs of the UN: the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council, the Trusteeship Council, or the International Court of Justice. So you are wrong...the Big 5 cannot "veto whatever another country attempts to propose or pass in the UN."

You state that "The structure of the UN, particularly the Security Council, leave a lot to be desired." The structure was chosen to reflect reality. The painful experience of the League of Nations experiment taught that if you try to set up a "perfect, idyllic system", you get something that will not work. For the United Nations to work, the framers had to have great power "buy-in." The price of that buy-in was the veto. Without it, there would have been no United Nations.

Hell, I'm mad enough

[aminorex]

: All this does is make more people mad enough at
: America that they are willing to die for revenge.

Hell, I'm a midwestern Christian white boy, and
*I*'m mad enough at American to be willing to die
for revenge, if I didn't have dependent children.
In about 8 years that will, however, change.
If I flee the police state in the meantime, I
might be more concerned about my new home country,
however.
.

Re:Keep in mind, this is not a somalia company

[Monkeyman334]

The US taking away GPS access is perfectly right if terrorists were using it in missile targeting systems. And your foreign policy explanation means jack without any support. Using support from the article you're posting about, you can say that it's US foreign policy to stop companies that finance terrorism, which makes perfect sense to me.

Re:9/11 was the best thing

[drnomad]

I'm sorry, I don't consider this as flamebait, DWord has a point. This war has some conveniences. Osama Bin Laden was never proven to have anything to do with the atrocities in New York AND Washington AND Pensilvania (it was not only New York!). Seems that every state which Bush considers to be an enemy of the USA is now harbouring terrorists, like Northern Korea, Iraq, Syria, Libia and so on. Did you know that Ghadaffi, although for his past, actually now wants to improve foreign affairs? That's why he sent the suspects of the Lockerby crime to camp Zeist here in Holland. Did you know there is also very important evidence that the CIA was involved in the Lockerby crash, ie they sent people on a different flight and let this flight continue?

Don't forget 'propaganda'. I sometimes read a moslim newspaper just to get the 'other' side of the story. In my opinion, DWord has an important point. One of the most important democratic foundaitions is "everybody is equal", although sometimes we - the west - absolutly don't care about our direct or indirect involvements of massive deaths abroad. Will Saudi Arabia ever be convicted of harbouring terrorists? Do you know what kind of government they have? Having the US army stationary in S.A. gives the US cheap oil. So while you're driving your car without a worry, thousands of people die because the S.A. government kills its own opposition.

C'mon, it's only about the almighty buck. Even the war on terrorism is just simply part of the old Anglo-Saxen interest. DWord *has* a point, the war on terrorism is easily an excuse to eliminate all US foes, while the US has that monopoly. Other countries screeming that they have a problem with terrorism have the obligation to the US, to ask them whether their problem will be recognized.

DWord has a point, this conflict has no clear truths, it's just a matter of interpretation.

Congress "Authorized Military Force" (grin)

[rm3friskerFTN]

Public Law 107-40: Authorization for Use of Military Force

Re:Wrong

[KjetilK]

As for expecting poor, starving civilians to change the policies of armed governments or pseudo-militia that is as ridiculous as Bin Laden thinking that terrorist attacks against the US would turn the American populace against the US government and make them change their foreign policy instead of uniting them in hatred against a common enemy

Well, yeah, the latter situation is ridiculous, but not the former.

Feed them!

The situation in Afghanistan is that while some parts are under some kind of centralized control, large parts of the country are not. They are ruled by the villagers themselves, and because they are so incredibly remote, nobody really cares what they do.

Yet, rumours spread. There was this expedition on Nanga Parbat in Pakistan, where one of the expeditionists was a doctor. Rumours spread, and the doctor never left basecamp, he got his hands ful with people that were very ill. People even walked, carrying their children for days from Afghanistan. After returning home after the expedition, he didn't stay at home for very long, but returned, as he felt that he was more needed there.

He could really save lives, and though he was a single man, he was reputed over a huge area for being a really good man. He changed a lot of peoples lives.

Where is this leading?

If you start with places like this, you feed them, and give them medical attention, your work will never be interfered by Taliban or Northern Alliance or any warrior. You will win the hearts and the minds of a large of a great part of the population by just being good.

When these people spread the word, that there is a better world that the warriors cannot provide, then, weapons can kill many of them yes, but there aren't few strongly armed regimes that have fallen relatively peacefully. Weapons are no good when there is no reason to fight.

While Afghanistan has a particulary favourable topography (and demographics) for such an approach, it is not that unlikely that such a plan may be implemented successfully in most places, with a bit of cleverness.

Just think about the money you spend, $40 billion! $40 billion is far more than the GDP of most of these countries. $40 billion is spend on destruction. A lot could be done if they were spend constructively instead.

Yeah, and BTW, the alternative is indeed a totalitarian police state.

Whatever is coming...

[jeti]

Whatever is coming, you cannot compare it to the McCarthy aera.
Never. No way.

The internet is not used by terrorists

[Rares Marian]

Go ahead cut MILITARY INFORMATION LINES.

Not civilian information lines.

Re:The internet is not used by terrorists

[smarner]

The internet is not used by terrorists.

Are you going to share your crack with the rest of us?

Re:The internet is not used by terrorists

[Rares Marian]

I gave it to GW.

Saying the internet is used by terrorists is about as enlightening as saying oxygen is used by terrorists.

Re:The internet is not used by terrorists

[smarner]

And yet just as true.

Duplicious Religion/State quagmires

[totierne]

Just let the Irish talk to everybody and visa versa - things can hardly get worse.

In Yes Prime Minister the civil service was saying how to arrange the states, the prime minister suggested alphabeticaly, to which the civil service replied but that would put Ireland beside Iran and Iraq, and Ireland never solved anything.

But seriously folks the Irish peace process has been playing it pretty close to the wire for years it's about time it was forked elsewhere, Cuba, Afganistan, Korea, Germany (oops done already), Iraq (maybe), someone might "Break on through to the other side"-the doors.

Rights vs privileges

[totenkopf]

I think more than a few people here are having trouble distinguishing between "rights" and "privileges".

Somalia does NOT have a "right" to a damn thing outside what they are capable of generating for themselves (which, aside from kat and drive by shootings from "technicals", isn't much of anything).

The fact that they were given access to the international communications infrastructure by the United States is a privilege.

Remember what happened when the United States went in to feed the Somalis? It ended with 17 dead Rangers and Delta team members, after we went after Adid. And to short circuit the leftist Chomsky idiots, we went after Adid because his forces massacred 24 Pakistani peacekeepers.

The fact that Somalis were starving because of a 4% growth rate and systemic civil warfare does not give them the "right" to U.S. food aid, especially when they turn around and start shoot the people giving out the food.

In places like this and Afghanistan, a shallow grave is the place where leftist idealism meets the real world. For you American leftists, you need to get a grip and realize that your ideas are killing people every day. Your intentions may be pure, but your effects are disasterous.

Give me greedy ambition, evil intentions, and a good result any day over the gift you guys have given the world during the 20th century, and continuing on today.

Re:Rights vs privileges

[metis]

For you American leftists, you need to get a grip and realize that your ideas are killing people every day

Boolshit! What people are killed by American lefties? Do American lefties control the American army. And BTW, 17 American soldiers dead in one very ill conceived military operation is not the same as "killing people every day." Who was your logic teacher, Rush Limbaugh?

...Your effects are disasterous.

Yes, Oxfam, Doctors without Borders, Amnesty Int., Greenpeace, all terrible organizations that have only death and destruction to show for results. Instead, watch how a few oil companies have used greed to transform earstwhile areas of disaster such as Sudan and Nigeria into florishing democracies and bastions of freedom and prosperity. Yes! Greed is the engine of progress!!

..Guys have given the world during the 20th century

Oh I see. So when you say lefties, you mean Pol Pot and Stalin. What, in the name of the Lord and the complete angelic Parliament, does Chomsky or any other American lefty has in common with them, except of occupying adjacent memory addresses in your logicaly challenged mind?

Re:Rights vs privileges

[plugger]

Somalia does NOT have a "right" to a damn thing outside what they are capable of generating for themselves (which, aside from kat and drive by shootings from "technicals", isn't much of anything).

This statement is pretty shocking. Apart from the racist overtones in parentheses, you would condemn the people living in this country to even more hardship than they are enduring now. Describing a country as a single political unit is the same mindset which people use to justify attacks on each other, both terrorists and, throughout history, rulers, tribes and governments. It seems that you believe ones right to life lasts as long as the money in one's pocket.

The fact that they were given access to the international communications infrastructure by the United States is a privilege.

Lumping people together again, idiot.

This goes a little further than content control and even eavesdropping. I don't know, but it seems that a great many people could suffer because of this.

Give me greedy ambition, evil intentions, and a good result any day over the gift you guys have given the world during the 20th century, and continuing on today.

Are you a Nazi by any chance? One of the gifts of the 20th century was the defeat of these principles when they seemed ready to sweep the world. I wonder what the generation who fought in WW2 would think about your last statement.

Oh and who the hell moderated this to Insightful? Flamebait would have been nearer the mark.

Re:Rights vs privileges

[totenkopf]

What people are killed by American lefties

Why don't you do some research on the Weathermen and the Black Panther party?

Instead, watch how a few oil companies have used greed to transform earstwhile areas of disaster such as Sudan and Nigeria into florishing democracies and bastions of freedom and prosperity.

The Sudan and Nigeria weren't exactly bastions of democracy before the oil companies arrived. All things considered, conditions are better in Nigeria than they are in neighboring Chad...largely because of a few greedy oil companies.

So when you say lefties, you mean Pol Pot and Stalin...What...does Chomsky or any other American lefty has in common with them

Simple. Chomsky and other "American lefties" as you call them have made their careers as apologists for Pol Pot (Chomsky in particular) and Stalin and Lenin and Mao. They scream quite loudly whenever there is even so much the prospect of some innocent person dying somewhere because of the United States, but are quite mute or lie outright, whenever the crimes and atrocities of socialism or plain anti-Americanism come in to play.

Re:Rights vs privileges

[totenkopf]

In detail: Apart from the racist overtones in parentheses, you would condemn the people living in this country to even more hardship than they are enduring now.

I don't condemn them to anything outside of the fate that they choose. Which is to say, it is not the responsibility of me nor of my country, to save the Somalis or any other similar country, from themselves. They want to overbreed and fight incessantly, don't expect the U.S. to pay for it (thats what wankers in the U.K. like yourself are for).

It seems that you believe ones right to life lasts as long as the money in one's pock

Not at all. But it does seem as if you believe it is the right of the Somalis to surf the web and eat and breed on my dime.

Lumping people together again, idiot

You might want to brush up those reading comprehension skills old chap.

I don't know, but it seems that a great many people could suffer because of this.

Oh I get it. Because you think that a great many people could suffer (from losing internet access? who is the idiot again?), we must not do this. Our enemies might suffer if we bomb them, so we must not bomb them, right? Get a grip, and don't skip your medication tomorrow like you did today.

Are you a Nazi by any chance?

Nope. Actually I'm rather fond of Israel and Jews in general.

One of the gifts of the 20th century was the defeat of these principles when they seemed ready to sweep the world. I wonder what the generation who fought in WW2 would think about your last statement.

Wow, can you make a more generally meaningless statement? I take it you are criticizing the "end justifies the means" as a moral philosophy. Fine and good, I'm not too fond of it myself. Just realize (ponder it for a few days if that is what it takes) that "good intentions" coupled with a horrible result is not a better alternative. In fact, it is a worse alternative, but one frequently advocated by do-gooders without a sound comprehension of what the final outcome will be.

Case in point: We set out to feed the starving (and warring) masses of Somalia. As a consequence, we enrage a significant segment of their population (the ones that had been using food as a weapon and starving people in the first place), get 17 U.S. soldiers killed. Even if we were successful, at best, we would have subsidized an unsustainable population explosion (3.48% growth rate) which ultimately is not healthy for Somalia or the Horn of Africa as a whole.

If you believe so strongly plugger, there are avenues where you can contribute. Join a NGO aid organization and get your ass to Somalia. But I'm not interested in what you think me or my country should do.

Re:Rights vs privileges

[totenkopf]

Sigh. Standard racist horseshit. Move along, nothing to see here.

Um, truth != standard racist horeshit. You don't agree with what I said? Try refuting it with something other than an ad hominem attack.

Like, give an example of the fine products coming out of Somalia.

Don't worry, I won't hold my breath. I already know the answer.

Re:Rights vs privileges

[metis]

Simple. Chomsky and other "American lefties" as you call them have made their careers as apologists for Pol Pot (Chomsky in particular) and Stalin and Lenin and Mao.

Limbaughlogics again. Or rather the general rule of propaganda: truth is a lie repeated. Could you cite a single paragraph in which Chomski defends/justifies/excuses Pol Pot, or are you just parrotting the party line?

Re:Rights vs privileges

[totenkopf]

I'm sorry, I don't listen to Limbaugh, so, whatever party line I'm parotting, it isn't his.

I notice you so slighly chose not to comment of American leftists who have killed Americans, or have you guys finally decided to disown the Black Panthers and the Weathermen and Ayers?

Re:Rights vs privileges

[Ioldanach]

Remember what happened when the United States went in to feed the Somalis? It ended with 17 dead Rangers and Delta team members, after we went after Adid.

And don't forget the several hundred (at least) civilians that died when the rangers were backed against a wall. Oh, I'm sorry, that didn't fit your worldview or what CNN thought was important.

Re:Rights vs privileges

[Rakarra]

I notice you so slighly chose not to comment of American leftists who have killed Americans, or have you guys finally decided to disown the Black Panthers and the Weathermen and Ayers?

What, do you think anyone left of center is a blood brother in a big gang, all for one, one for all? Of course leftists have killed people. A number of ring-wingers have killed folks too. You can have violent extremists at either end of the spectrum, and neither colors either the left or right as a whole.

Re:A key phrase in the article explains justificat

[rm3friskerFTN]

danheskett wrote: The president can't declare war. Its unconstitutional. Congress declares war. They havent done so.

rm3friskerFTN replies: Congress did declare war (grin)... Authorization for Use of Military Force

danheskett wrote: Any action that the US Government takes - to any other nation or any civilian or any citizen must be preceeded and anteceded with due process.

rm3friskerFTN replies: UN Security Council Resolution 1373 authorized this and other measures.

danheskett wrote: Due process is deserved by all.

rm3friskerFTN replies: Funny ... Joe Terrorist is found with a suitcase nuke in his apartment. Ooops ... he can't be sent to jail because it was discovered by the authorities without a search warrant. Joe Terrorist must be set free. IANAL, but I understand that in legal circles there is a Latin expression for this meaning "in war the law is silent regarding liberties"

Re:Your the Confused one

[Joe Decker]

Your comments have nothing to do with mine. Take a deep breath, and reread what I actually wrote.

Just because I take issue with someones confusion over different meanings of the word harboring does not imply anything about my opinion about any particular individual cases. For all you know, I agree with you about them. Heck, for all *I* know, I agree with you, you haven't cited particular individual IRA terrorists that he US has failed to extradite, but if there's been such a request I'd be likely to suspect that that request should be upheld. So, off my case, dude.

Re:Direct action in IRA

[charon_on_acheron]

Haven't you heard? The last news I heard was the IRA was dis-arming. Not that they were going to be labelled as terrorists, but the attacks have given them a new perspective.

A history lesson for ya

[totenkopf]

We went in back in '91 to feed the bastards, and they responded by dragging our dead troops through the streets.

Let them starve. The world doesn't need another 14 year old Somali gunman strung out on kat riding in a technical.

If they can't grow enough food to support their 4% growth rate and exploding population, too damn bad. It's not my problem, and they lost all sympathy from me in '93.

Re:A history lesson for ya

[yomegaman]

Look, I can see how much fun you're having playing the realist in a sea of muddle-headed idealists, but this is a bit over the top. Are you really ready to condemn the entire populace over the actions of a small number of guys with guns? It's not like they were a popularly supported government or anything. Having a little compassion won't kill you, even W says so.

Re:Keep in mind, this is not a somalia company

[Tyrant Chang]

I think US does have a right to take away GPS anytime they want. Did other country's citizen pay for the multi million dollars GPS sattelites? Did they pay even a cent on development of the system? No. But US residents did as did I with the taxes from our hard earned money.

US *does* have the right to take away GPS or anything they own. Telecom and internet access was from US, so if US believes that the recipient is not acting in the interest of US, US can do whatever they want. It is up to the recipient to prove that they are acting in US interest. It's a hard fact but beggers can't be choosers.

Also your analogy is false. US did not harboured the terrorists because if US knew of them, US would have kicked them out. These countries know that they have terrorists in their country but did nothing about them.

As for do I agree with what US did? No, I do not think shutting off telecom access is in the best interest of US and there is a better solution but US is perfectly within their right to do so here.

Apparently CNN isn't the only one spinning this

[kaladorn]

The article the previous poster claimed that the US bombed those targets knowing that it wasn't a military target and that the US State Dept. admitted such.

Of course not. If they HAD targetted these on purpose, and I don't imagine that to be the case (even an idiot could see the potential PR implications and State isn't usually full of idiots), they would be very unlikely to say so. Instead, they'd obfuscate the truth, making it sound like an accident. So, in either case (intentional idiocy or accident), the public presentation would be the same.

Military vehicles had been seen in the vicinity of these warehouses.

And of course, those anxious to decry US action will fail to consider the potential that the Taliban either A) intentionally tried to provoke targetting errors or B) parked their vehicles in these areas as an attempt to sheild them from bombing by assuming the US knew about the Red Cross site.

Read the articles being referred to before accusing someone of newspeak.

Yeah, for the home of open source, free speech, etc., sometimes critical consideration is absent in favor of vitriolic polemic in support of some pre-decided world view.

But that's no excuse for misreading "mistakenly" as "intentional".

That's a generous way of putting it. Misreading indeed.

I see plenty of people decrying the civilian casualties in this conflict. It's terrible to kill 4 aid workers... but I guess perhaps it is okay to kill 4K innocent unsuspecting people? (Or course not!). Anyone getting killed when they are innocent of wrongdoing is a tragedy for all of us.

But so is sitting on your ass and letting murderers continue their foul plots. Osama and his buddies more or less declared open season on the civilized world and called upon every Muslim to take up arms. Them's fighting words, even where I come from North of the 49th.

Now, we don't have the evidence on hand that prompted the decisions to ax Somalia's access. What we hear reported as "suspected" may translate as "evidence available but not to be revealed".

Jumping to conclusions is a popular slashdot pastime. You'd think we'd all be in better shape....

Re:Apparently CNN isn't the only one spinning this

[Lars T.]

There is no mention that any military targets were hit in that attack. Not the supposed supplies, nor the vehicles.

Thank you for your honesty

[charon_on_acheron]

Good to hear another voice of intelligence in this babble. And to confess that you're a liberal who is supporting the government's current campaign takes guts, even if we don't know your true name.

I am wondering though, what 'branch' of liberalism you follow. And I don't mean this as a joke or insult, just curiuosity. If there was an election for president, and the following five candidates had equal chance of winning, who would you vote for?

A. Al Gore, Democrat
B. Ralph Nader, Green
C. George Bush, Republican
D. Harry Brown, Libertarian
E. Jesse Ventura, Reform

So you know where I am coming from, I would have voted for Jesse Ventura, and in '92 I did vote for Ross Perot. This time around it was for Bush, but in this state, it doesn't matter, Gore took it by a wide margin.

Re:A key phrase in the article explains justificat

[archen]

The president can't declare war. Its unconstitutional. Congress declares war. They haven't done so.

This isn't really a war in those terms. It's more like the "war on drugs". Congress declares war on other countries, any politician can declare war on a vague concept.

Re:Keep in mind, this is not a somalia company

[SubtleNuance]

The US harboured terrorists for 4 years before said terrorists blew up the WTC.

The US Government sponsers terrorism directly. The fact is that the CIA is widely accepted as a filthy group of killers... the world over. They topple governments, assassinate people and did some fucked up shit during the coldwar. The US Ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, is a terrorist.

You even have your own dirty little terrorist training ground, colourfully called theSchool of America.

Anyone else interested in the machinations of the US Government and its hypocrasy may also like to read this: A wonderfull plan, on how the Government could 'get away' with starting a war with Cuba - very interesting stuff...

Kettle this is pot, Pot, Kettle.

Wow...

[kypper]

I really hate people like you.

Maybe you should try checking articles regularly. I saw about 5 disappear after Sept 11th as the Gov put pressure to cover up certain issues.

Well duh

[kypper]

New famous oxymoron: Precision Bomb

Re Fuck you. We love america

[mickeyreznor]

Harry Browne loves america. Do you? you sound like you don't.

Re:Keep in mind, this is not a somalia company

[Anonymous DWord]

You're using two different meanings of the word harboring. The terrorists lived in the US for four years, without US knowledge.

Ahh, I get it now. It's all becoming clear.

NEWS FLASH

Osama bin Laden WAS TRAINED AND SUPPLIED BY THE U.S. Figure that one out, genius.

It's one thing to have a murderer hiding without your knowledge in your basement. It's quite another thing to hide the murderer in your basement with intent.

You're right. And it's quite another thing entirely to call him a 'useful ally' when he's your puppet, and a 'murderer' when you stop supporting him and he turns on you. He's doing THE SAME THING he did when he was an American ally.

I'm not confused about the meaning of the word 'harbouring.' The only confusion here is you trying to harmonize your image of the government with dissenting facts you hear on the news.

Re:What is Somalia?

[yomegaman]

It's long, round, and spicy. Hope this helps.

Jesus christ

[kypper]

I didn't misread it, I implied through 'newspeak' that it had been altered. As you said yourself, "If they HAD targetted these on purpose... they would be very unlikely to say so. Instead, they'd obfuscate the truth..." Cnn has reported legitimately, but it alters its articles. Course, how can I prove it? Screenshots? Those can be faked. No way, so they'er pretty safe, now arent' they.

Who's condemning who?

[totenkopf]

The lesson of the day is don't bite the hand that feeds you.

I'm not condemning the "entire populace" to anything except the fate which they have chosen.

The United States isn't obligated to go and feed and bring peace to every third world area that can't control its breeding and can't control its fighting.

Somalia '93 is a hard lesson on what happens when we try.

Misleading Reports

[Anonymous Coward]

The reports of this that I've seen, while technically accurate, are rather misleading. The truth is that the US did NOT shut down these companies. AT&T and British Telecom have shut them down. There is a big difference.

While British Telecom is largely tied to the government there, and thus the British government may have some questions to answer, AT&T is a private company, not part of the US government. They didn't have to shut the gateway down just because the company was on a list that the government put together, but they chose to do so, and AT&T (not the government) is also responsible for the ramifications of these actions.

Let's state this correctly, shall we?:

AT&T and BRITISH TELECOM Shut Down Somalia Internet Access

That's better.

Re:Misleading Reports

[mikera]

British Telecom has nothing to do with the UK government. It's called British Telecom because it's a Telecom company and it's, er, British?

It is certainly a monopoly that stinks however. They have been single-handedly responsible for holding back the introduction of Broadband to the UK for years to protect their exiting high-margin ISDN services. Bastards....

Anti-American vs. Anti-Freedom?

[melquiades]

I don't care if you have a flag decal on your car, if you believe that the United States stands for censorship, bullying, military tribunals, and people being dragged away secretly because of their religious beliefs, you are no patriot, you are a traitor.

Amen to that. I would like to think that, as W keeps saying, America stands for Freedom. I don't want to be "anti-American" or "anti-Freedom". But if they are at odds, and if I have to choose one ... then I will stand for Freedom, thank you very much.

Re:Keep in mind, this is not a somalia company

[Anonymous DWord]

As for do I agree with what US did? No, I do not think shutting off telecom access is in the best interest of US and there is a better solution but US is perfectly within their right to do so here.

The problem is, it doesn't matter what *you* think. You don't have a say in the matter anyway. What if you, like most people here it seems like, didn't think that this was the best idea? How is the government acting on your best interest then?

Re:What is Somalia?

[eAndroid]

I think my attempt at being funny was a success! Ahahahaha! What do you think of THAT?

Solamia is a stupid country! So there!

Anyways. Texas sure is big.

Nope

[totenkopf]

Osama bin Laden was trained and supplied by the Pakistani ISI and the Saudi government.

Over 60% of the financing for the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan came from the Saudis...not the United States.

The U.S. did funnel significant amounts of cash and hardware into the effort, mainly through the Pakistanis, who subsequently funneled the money and hardware into radical Islamist movements and groups.

Blameless? Hardly. But it is a far cry from pretending that Bin Laden was our golden boy. The CIA never had direct contact with him, and in fact he really did not start to gain any sort of prominence until after the Russians withdrew.

What side is that?

[totenkopf]

The one that says that Jews kidnap babies to murder and suck their blood?

The one that says America is the stooge for the Israeli Jews?

The one that says we are glad that America has been attacked, it makes us happy?

Re:So why not shut down USPS and airlines?

[rm3friskerFTN]

Maybe the USPS and airlines cooperate & support the UN Security Council Resolution 1373

If you support/obey the United Nations Security Council Resolution then you don't get shutdown/cutoff. Otherwise you do get shutdown/cutoff.

quid pro quo?

[Tom]

if al qaida shut down all US international internet connections, most telephone lines and destroyed the main money transfer institutes - how long would it take until bush is on the air talking about a terrorist attack?

Re:quid pro quo?

[Teutates]

why is this modded as a troll? It would be exactly like what he has done with them. Stop being so one sided in your thought process, it does NO ONE any good being that way.

Day after Thanksgiving = few posts

[smarner]

No, I think the relative dearth of posts is a result of the fact that it is the day after Thanksgiving here in the States, and many offices are closed today. /.ers are home eating turkey leftovers and playing video games rather than posting at work, I would guess....

Shot heard round the world

[HighTeckRedNeck]

The U.S. has become what its founding fathers fought against. Read the grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence and see how many the U.S. has promoted in foreign countries, particularly Palestine and other Muslim countries. Sept 11 may have been the latest "shot heard round the world". One wonders if Bush and company would have rounded up George Washington et. al. on secret evidence without writ of habious corpus like they are doing with Muslims in the U.S. How long till we have to call him King George W?

-1, Troll

[Kazmat]

Why bother trying to crash into both buildings? Just drop an engine on the first and crash into the second.

Hell, if you hijack a 747, you've got four engines and a plane to hit targets with. The white house, the pentagon, congress... what else? :)

Re:-1, Troll

[t_allardyce]

When the engine comes off the plane, most of the fuel is burned off before it hits the ground. Also, its designed to contain itself, basically its crap as a bomb. Also, it would be very difficult to drop it with any accuracy, it was never designed for this.

I really think you should find out the facts before you post such stupid ideas. Good thing you wern't incharge for sept 11

Re:Wrong

[cosyne]

We can't stop terrorists directly with threats or direct actions, but if the threat of suffering and death makes the people around them take action and prevent their actions, then so be it. Good for us for having the ability to do that.

Can i just clarify the absurdity of expecting the citizens to just rise up and overthrow a tyranical government while at the same time denying them the use of secure internet communications (which to my thinking would be rather useful in mounting an insurrection)?

(as a side note, this was quoted out of Re:Wrong because i couldn't find the original fucking post. Each post should have a little link at the bottom which links to a page containing the post being replied to, as well as all replys.)

If you quote Franklin, then stick to it.

[mindriot]

We all know Franklin's quote "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."... apparently, while this applies to the US, the Government seemingly cares less in other places.

USA vs TERRORISTS

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

If you can't make a moral distinction between the events of September 11th and our actions in Afghanistan, you are truly lost.

We are fighting to destroy al-Qaida and those (especially the Taliban) who harbor them. Calling our actions "terrorism" is disgusting.

This war is to ensure the security of our homeland. We didn't start the fighting, they did, right in the heart of New York City!

Wake up people!

As for the Afghan people, a LOT of them are enjoying freedoms that haven't had in FIVE YEARS!

P.S. If you hate the US so much, nobody is forcing you to stay.

P.P.S. I'm not a shill for the US gov't. I have been critical of many of their decisions (DMCA, etc). I do know when it is time to stand together against evil.

P.P.P.S. Oh yeah, when the raids of the ISPs happened right before September 11, I had a feeling that the USA gov't was in the right (a dn did say so right here on Slashdot), even though I am usually a strong civil libertarian. And then September 11 happened.

Re:USA vs TERRORISTS

[Nathaniel]

"We are fighting to destroy al-Qaida and those (especially the Taliban) who harbor them. Calling our actions "terrorism" is disgusting."

Killing innocent people is always disgusting. Your suggestions that it is acceptable when we do it is particularly disgusting.

"This war is to ensure the security of our homeland. We didn't start the fighting, they did, right in the heart of New York City!"

It is amazing niave to believe that this conflict started on 2001-09-11. The United States is responsible for far more deaths in the middle east over the last ten years, including the use of chemical and biological warfare.

"P.S. If you hate the US so much, nobody is forcing you to stay."

I'm not in the habit of running away from my problems. I'd rather stay here and try to correct the fact that our governemnt has been making some really lousy choices for a fairly long time. If I left, there would be one less person to tell you that your point of view is seriously messed up.

"I do know when it is time to stand together against evil."

Glad to hear it. Now if you could just learn to recognize evil when you see it you'd be all set.

Re:USA vs TERRORISTS

[glastonbur]

As for the Afghan people, a LOT of them are enjoying freedoms that haven't had in FIVE YEARS!

That sentence didn't make any sense. I think you meant:

As for the Afghan people, a LOT of them are now enjoying freedoms that they haven't had in FIVE YEARS!

Re: USA vs TERRORISTS

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

Well I assume you are dragging the US-Iraq war (Desert Storm).

Don't forget, Iraq INVADED Kuwait, i.e. they started it, and we finished it. We took military action to reverse an unlawful invasion of a soverign nation.

Think about how it would be if whatever country you are from (USA or otherwise) were to be invaded - and whether you'd think military force would be justified then.

Re:USA vs TERRORISTS

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

al-Qaida and the Taliban are NOT innocent. The people who orchestrated the September 11 attacks on our nation and those that supported them are NOT innocent.

As for innocent people being killed, that is a part of every WAR, which is what this is. We are trying our best to minimize this.

Innocent people got killed when we fought the Nazis in WWII. Should we have not fought, and just let them take over the world? And then they'd kill all the Jews, and everyone non-white, etc, etc, but at least we "wouldn't have been guilty of killing innocents".

As for the US using chemical and biological weapons, that is a vicious lie. If it were true, do you think we'd have the support from our allies that we do now?

The US gov't has made bad choices (e.g. providing support to wackos in Afghanistan to keep out Communism, which ended up collapsing).

I do however, believe we are for the most part a moral nation and we try to do what is right.

As for recognizing evil, if September 11 didn't make things crystal clear for you, I shudder to think what would? Maybe L.A. getting leveled by a nuke?

That is the future we are facing if we don't fight to stop terrorism now.

The US gov't should have shutdown al-Barakaat, and al-Taqwa a long time ago. Better late than never.

We (most of us) in the country have been woken up down - and we are responding.

Re:USA vs TERRORISTS

[Nathaniel]

"As for innocent people being killed, that is a part of every WAR, which is what this is."

You keep saying that, but it isn't technically true, and your repetition won't fix that. Every death the United States causes in the current attacks is a seperate crime. Of course, the deaths of the non-military personal are quite a bit more offensive to me than the fact that some alleged terrorist are being killed, but it is all a series of criminal actions, just as blowing up the world trade centers were.

"As for the US using chemical and biological weapons, that is a vicious lie. If it were true, do you think we'd have the support from our allies that we do now?"

I didn't say 'chemical and biological weapons'. I said 'chemical and biological warfare'.

The disinction is important because biological warfare includes activities that promote suffering and death as a result of biological agents, even if those biological agents are not delivered directly.

The example I'm thinking of is the fact that the United States arranged to insure that the citizens of Iraq have been unable to provide clean drinking water for the last ten years by imposing sanctions that make it imposible to aquire the supplies to fix the infrastructure that the United States destroyed. The resulting desease and death has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent citizens. Here's a sample site about US use of biological warfare.

An example of chemical warfare is the use of depleated uranium ammunition during battles. Here's a sample site about US use of chemical warfare.

If you care to look, there is a lot of detail available on both these issues.

"As for recognizing evil, if September 11 didn't make things crystal clear for you, I shudder to think what would? Maybe L.A. getting leveled by a nuke?"

It is my belief that the course of action the United States is undertaking makes such an attack more likely, not less likely.

"That is the future we are facing if we don't fight to stop terrorism now."

Terrorism will never be completely stoped. I'm not at all convinced that the United States will even reduce it anytime soon. The 'wars' on drugs and poverty weren't successful, why should we expect this 'war on terrorism' to be successful?

I haven't heard anyone worrying about Geneva or Amsterdam being leveled by a nuke, have you? Why do you suppose L.A. is a more likely target?

Unbelivable reactions

[pete-classic]

I really can't believe what is being said here.

The moderation is even worse.

First, we (the USA) are at war. When members of one nation attack another nation, that is an act of war. If you don't think that bin Laden is closely enough associated for us to be at war with the Taliban, then you haven't been reading the news.

Now, lawyers and judges don't run wars. Presidents and generals do. There is no "due process" or "burden of proof" involved. You get the best intell you can, and you make the best decisions you can based on that information. OTHERWISE YOU LOOSE WHILE WORRYING THAT YOU MIGHT MAKE A MISTAKE.

As for Somalia, if you think that the US is "taking away" their access because we don't like them, then perhaps you don't remember that WE SENT TROOPS THERE TO MAKE SURE THEY DIDN'T STARVE, and to try to get them to STOP KILLING EACH OTHER. People who hate Muslims don't sacrifice their own men to try to stop them from killing each other.

Finally, this was about MONEY not about internet access. Do you really think that the "common man" in Somalia has internet access?

To summarize: We are in a war. We are doing the things that must be done in a war. We only hate people who kill our people.

Oh, and on the red cross thing, you can't just paint a red cross (or star, or crescent moon and star) on all of your equipment/supplies/strongholds and then cry foul when someone bombs them. They were "rendering comfort to the enemy" which makes them the enemy by assosciation.

-Peter

Re:Unbelivable reactions

[Nathaniel]

"First, we (the USA) are at war. When members of one nation attack another nation, that is an act of war."

No.

When members of one nation attack another nation, that is a criminal act.

The United States military is currently engaged in a prolonged series of criminal acts. Most of the soldiers have probably been told they are at war, and are not knowingly engaged in criminal acts.

Those military personel who understand the meaning of 'war' and know that the United States has not formally declared war are ciminals fully responsible for the deaths they are causing. The fact that they are simply fallowing orders does not matter.

The fact that the United States is killing people in foreign countries without having declared war makes it more likely that United States citizens will be killed in retaliation. There will be no moral high ground for the United States to take, because the leaders of the United States have made it clear that killing foreign citizens 'acceptable'.

"Now, lawyers and judges don't run wars. Presidents and generals do. There is no "due process" or "burden of proof" involved."

My objection is due to the fact that Bush promised us that those involved would be brought to justice. My idea of justice involves a court system, not the slaughter of innocent civilians who happen to have been somewhere in the vacinity of the person accused of a crime.

I want justice just as much as anyone else, but what the United States military is doing is not just.

Re:Unbelivable reactions

[pete-classic]

First, use preview, then maybe you can be clear about when you are done quoting someone.

How can you say "When members of one nation attack another nation, that is a criminal act." with a straight face. I didn't say when members of one nation attack members of another nation. I said attack another nation. We, as a nation were attacked. We, as a nation are responding in a responsible way.

As to the fact that we haven't made a formal declaration of war. This is, in part, an artifact of our system, which is contentious by design. We didn't declare war in Somalia, we worked under the UN banner. We didn't declare war in Korea, but worked side by side with the English (who also didn't declare war, AFAIK) and others, to aid the Koreans in maintaining their freedom.

I'm not sure we need to make a declaration of war, since an act of war was committed against us. You don't owe someone who punched you in the face a warning before you defend yourself.

You seem to be saying that the courts are the only form of justice. Is that what you are saying? If so, I'm afraid I have to disagree with you. I don't think that President Bush gave any indication that he felt that a crime occurred (in fact, I believe that he used the term "act of war"), and he did not say anything about "the criminal justice system" (which, BTW, as a foreigner not on our soil Bin Ladin is not subject to). He said justice. That's what he is delivering.

Now, AFAIK, neither of us are in Afghanistan. Perhaps we are seeing different news reports, but my impression is that innocents are not only being treated as non-combatants, but are receiving more aid from the USA than FROM THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT. I'm not shedding any tears for the Afghanis who have allowed there country to be controlled by thugs, and who get better treatment from us than from their own "leaders."

When members of one nation attack another nation, that is a criminal act.

I can't let this go without a little more comment.

Let's do a little thought experiment on your thesis here. Let's say I own a boat. I live in a country where there are minimal arms laws, and I am able to purchase a rocket with a conventional warhead and, say, a couple dozen miles range. Pull up about 15 miles off of, say, Newquay, and take a pot-shot. What laws have I violated? Obviously if I haven't violated laws, I haven't committed a crime. Launching rockets is clearly allowed in international waters. I haven't stolen anything. I haven't violated any laws of my country, or any country I have stepped foot in. I don't know the answer to this.

BUT, if I did this at the behest of, permission of, or approval of a government (other than UK) it would be an act of war. So, clearly the people who committed the acts in question on September 11th committed crimes under US law. That isn't at issue, as they don't exist any more. The question at hand is if the people who ordered that act were engaging in warfare. There are about 6000 families of innocent people who, I'm sure, would answer in a resounding yes. We're at war. You saying that we aren't isn't really relevant.

-Peter

Missing an important point

[sheriff_p]

I think we're (you're) missing a really quite important point here. As the article said, 80% of people in Somalia need money that comes in to buy food. They will starve without it. Now, when they're sitting, starving to death, who're they going to blame? Osama Bin Laden? The Tal[ie]ban? The local warlords? I doubt it.

They're going to blame the good US of A. The same country that has previous posters saying "We gave them access, now we can take it away". People are going to starve to death. Lots of people. Due to American foreign policy.

If we throw our minds back a few years, what pissed a rich Saudi kid off about the states so much that he decided to wreak havoc on them? Oh yeah! Far-reaching American foreign policy. So, let's starve Somalia, and create one hundred more little bin Ladens. And let's be arrogant and frivilous about it, as we condemn millions to a lingering starving death.

Play with fire, get burned.

Re:Missing an important point

[sheriff_p]

Yeah, you're on crack. It's a really simple equation:

Piss off rich foreign muslims -> Americans die horribly

Oh look. That's what happened this time. So let's do it *AGAIN* to check it works. Thanks for chiming in sparky.

Re:Wrong

[swoopx]

"Yet people like you wonder why people are willing to die to give Americans a taste of what they live with daily due to the self righteous, do what we DAMN WELL like foreign policy decisions of the American government. "

Right... The American Government has their foot on the throats of every middle east country. They are the cause of all the middle east problems. (/sarcasm)

Re:Newspeak

[Lars T.]

No it doesn't. Read 1984.

Heh.

[Order]

This only shows that Internet is not a free for all, international, uniting network we tend to think it is.

It is often said that the Internet "doesn't have masters", and therefore that no one can shut it down, or do something people don't want to be done.

Heh.

Internet == Freedom?

[barzok]

uh...As is explained to every American teenager, driving is a priviledge, not a right. There was and still is freedom without Internet access (are people who don't use the Internet "less free" than those who do? Some may contend that they are "more free."), so how does that change for people who had access and no longer do?

Re:Newspeak

[Joe Decker]

...or at least an appropriate exerpt.

Re:How Original!

[zeno_2]

Well you have to think about it.. A lot of the CIA and NSA work there for a LONG LONG time. They see a few presidents come in and out during their time at the respective agencies. These are the people that know long term plans for spying and such, that probably the president doens't even know about. Or I could be reading too much Robert Ludlum, conspiracy theories at their finest =).

Zeno

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Utter Crap

[kaimiike1970]

American people tend to take the shit their government throws at them up the ass and then ask for more

This is off-topic...

WTF does this mean? Americans take shit up the ass? I thinked you mixed your epithets buddy.

Re:How Original!

[kfg]

Perhaps I should have used the word sceptic, rather than cynic. You, however, are the one labling me a "total" cynic. I never said anything of the kind.

By the way, no, I did not just come up with all this naive crap myself.

I got most of it from the Federalist Papers, the writings of T. Jefferson and the writing of H.D Thoreau.

As one who is old enough to actually remember Watergate I can also assure you that had there been a few more cynics around at the time Watergate might very well never have happened, and it was *certainly* the cynics who brought it to light.

Thank God for them.

KFG

Definition of terrorist?

[kbs]

I'm somewhat worried that I couldn't find a definition of "terrorist" in the motion... I mean, what's preventing China from declaring the Taiwanese government "terrorist?" (Remember, they group terrorist and separatists under the same grouping...) or Tibet? Or India and Kashmiri separatists?

-k

Re:Definition of terrorist?

[rm3friskerFTN]

I'm somewhat worried that I couldn't find a definition of "terrorist" in the motion

Very good point!!!

My definition of a terrorist is:

does not wear a uniform

does not have a chain of command that is publically known (e.g. can trace from recruit all the way to the head honcho)

does not have a publically known government

wilfully attacts non-military targets (e.g. pizza parlors, office buildings, etc)

does not have a code of conduct that enables them to punish themselves for violating natural law (e.g. United States' Uniform Code of Military Justice)

What would you rather do?

[Drake42]

We are at war.
Here is a company that for whatever reason we think is helping the enemy.
Do we:

A) Ignore the problem and hope it goes away, thereby supporting the communications infrastructure of a country who's people are actively against us?

B) Shut down the connection to that company until the crisis is over, playing it safe rather than sorry.

War's not pretty. If people don't like the USA then they shouldn't be doing business with the USA.

Let's make the example personal.
Pretend I work for a financial company and support five children. I start making loud threats against my boss any my company. At the same time imagine that credit card numbers which I work with are mysteriously appearing on the internet for public use. Do you as a client of the company want me fired, or tolerated?

Re:What would you rather do?

[Nathaniel]

"We are at war.
Here is a company that for whatever reason we think is helping the enemy." [...]
"B) Shut down the connection to that company until the crisis is over, playing it safe rather than sorry."

You've started with a flawed conclusion. We are not at war. War's have a definate beginning, a clearly set and obtainable goal, and an eventual end. This 'War on Terrorism' does not have an attanable goal, and it will not have a successful conclusion.

Doing anything 'until the crisis is over' is equivelent to doing it for ever (or until the United States decides it's time to chase some other phantom menace).

Why stop at the Internet?

[interstellar_donkey]

I read that the terrorsts sometime use cars to drive to their meetings. We should stop all oil shipments to the country.

One could presume that terrorists get sick. Stop any medical shipments, less we want to allow those terrorists to remain healthy.

And, when you think about it, those terrorists are crafty devils. They breathe oxygen, a gas created often by plants, just like us. Plants can't grow without sunlight, so lets block all the sunshine allowed into the country.

These may seem harsh to you, but think for a moment, who's side are you on?

Re:Keep in mind, this is not a somalia company

[metis]

The US Ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, is a terrorist.

No he isn't, he just "sponsored" terrorism

But wait, Bush said we don't distinguish betwwen terrorists and those who sponsor them. So I guess you are right.

Which leaves me with this conundrum. What about the people who appoint people who sponsered terrorism to prestigious governmental posts? Do we distinguish between such people and terrorists, or do we not? Ouff, my head is swirling.

Eeek!

[beefstu01]

Wow, what a change! Going from watching Junkyard wars all today, now I see this...

But, sadly to say, this is what we should have been doing years ago. It seems to me that the Bush administration is watching its steps carefully, and they really won't make a step w/o having something to back them up, but we need to look at this the other way. From what the article said (by a brief skimming), they stated that wired money goes through them. Now, I'm not a person who would know a whole lot about this kind of stuff, but I'm thinking that it wouldn't require too much effort to re-route a small "processing fee" to Bin-Laden. Of course I could be wrong, but these terrorists are fairly crafty- I mean, who would think that an Egyptian Doctor could (possibly, unconfirmed because we can't get spys into Al-Queda thanks to the McDade acts passed by our favorite Bill Clinton) be the head of the terror network that has tons of wackos who are willing to kill themselves for the benifit of thier cause?

Its very hard for me to say this, but I think this what we should have been doing long ago. The US is filled w/ too much politics and people that want to be politically correct and humanitarian. I'm sorry, but this stuff just doesn't work. In order to protect ourselves, WE MUST have an iron fist in dealing with matters that concern homeland security. What people need to realize that the world is not a pretty place, and rarely is there a solution that works out perfectly w/o the need to squash others. Thats life, and there is no way to change it...there is NO SUCH THING as utopia, and we have to live with what we have.

Now that we've set a precedent...

[sennomo]

Why don't we shut down every ISP in the U.S.? After all, by today's definition of "terrorist", which includes 12-year-olds who send malformed ping packets, every ISP has been used by terrorists.

And while we're at it, let's turn Boston into a penal colony. Where do you think the IRA gets their money from?

Re:A key phrase in the article explains justificat

[kaimiike1970]

There are a lot of reasons to bomb switzerland already. Think nazi gold.

Re:All of this pro-Americanism

[jsarek]

Take a sedative. Then ask what kind of trash the government of your country does. Then realize that you yourself do not do those things(hopefully) and get off your absurd stereotypes of America as a people.

Yes, our government/military is not the most beneficial and peaceful structure on this planet. But few governments can have either of those words applied to them.

Despite this, the American people are NOT the ones doing the damage you overgeneralize so readily.

Regardless of what our GOVERNMENT may have done, it does not make anyone right or justified in attacking American citizens, just as our government has no right in attacking citizens of any other nation.

Think before you start foaming at the mouth.

utterly wrong

[samantha]

If we are ever to spread democracy and more opportunity and well-being throughout the world modern communications is utterly essential. If we can't talk to them, they can't learn of anything from outside and they can't even talk to one another in any modern way, then there is no way their situation can ever improve. Cutting off money coming in is also especially damaging.

In the rush to "do something" about terrorism we are stomping on a lot of rights and a lot of peoples lives. It is not money that makes terror. It is oppression, hatred, hoplessness, and rage. If we really want to cut "funding" to terror we must clean up its true funds by doing what we can to end oppression and to give hope.

We are headed in precisely the wrong direction.

Bush "old and new" in Somalia

[Cooper's_Dad]

The problem from the beginning has been the US government and media's transformation of the "enemy" from the Bin Laden and the "Al Queda" network to the Taliban. The Taliban did not attack the US. The are (were) a horifically repressive regime that needed to be dealt with a more geopolitically responsible means. Now we read the internet service is being "shut down" by the US in Somalia. I have feared from the begining that this irrational patriotism and redistribution of foreign policy would lead to the wholesale dismantling of rights both here in the US and abroad. I can't help but note the ironic fact that it was the former Bush president who had such difficulties in Somalia and certainly hope there is no real cause and effect between his orginal actions in Somalia and the present Bush's.

we are terrorists!

[samantha]

The US has defined terrorism as taking illegal acts that may be life threatening for the purpose of coercing or forcing a government to change its policies. Here we are destroying international businesses, seizing assets, pressuring governments with no legal grounds, no trials, no proof. Will the world believe our actions are just? Much of it will not. I don't believe they are just.

You guys give this post he made a bad rating but

[HanzoSan]

Hes right, The US military doesnt do anything out of the kindness of their hearts, Theres always a motive.

Alot of people dont support this war in the USA, then you have people who only partially support it like myself. Giving food to afganstans gets the people who partially support it to not join the people who dont support it at all.

IF i were watching millions of afganastan people die, then i'd be pissed off at my government and at this war, we'd have another vietnam situation.

So what this man said makes sense.

dumb

[HanzoSan]

terrorists dont care about the internet
they will do what they have to do without it like they've been doing

Re:Keep in mind, this is not a somalia company

[aozilla]

Osama bin Laden WAS TRAINED AND SUPPLIED BY THE U.S. Figure that one out, genius.

Being trained and supplied by the U.S. means nothing. He wasn't trained to commit terrorism.

And it's quite another thing entirely to call him a 'useful ally' when he's your puppet, and a 'murderer' when you stop supporting him and he turns on you. He's doing THE SAME THING he did when he was an American ally.

How is helping defend a country (Afghanistan) against invasion from another country (the Soviet Union) THE SAME THING as intentionally killing thousands of innocent civilians? Show me evidence that the U.S. was aware of bin Laden intentionally killing innocent civilians and continuing to support him. Even if you do show that it only means the U.S. should admit that mistake and move on, it doesn't mean they should allow others to repeat those mistakes.

Re:Wrong

[nido]

What you suggest is a self perpetuating cycle of violence that will most likely turn the US into a totalitarian police state in efforts to prevent terrorism

In the short term (~10 years) I'll agree with you - we're going to see more and more of the police state meme spreading throughout the land between the Atlantic and Pacific, but long term the it'll most likely accelarate "the US's" present path towards future irrelevancy. Consider:

"The great historian and theorist, Arnold Toynbee, whose descriptions (A Study of History , Oxford U. Press) of the patterns of history were, I believe, pretty well on target, observed that declining and falling civilizations tend to attempt to solve their problems through central agencies and authorities.

"The fact that declining civilizations fail to solve their problems, which Toynbee attributed to other causes, might very well be attributed instead to that very tendency to try to work through central arrangements."

Fortunately, the decline of "the U.S." as a world power (akin to Rome's fall from glory) doesn't necessarily have to be the case:

" In rising civilizations, people on their own, at "grass roots" level, take on the problems and issues. People are enough in communication to imitate each other's successes and avoid each other's failures, but for the most part are working free of central direction, and usually aren't the people who had been expected to be the source of the answer.

It also seems intuitively correct that people who work with what they have, including themselves, on the problems, are more likely to find effective solutions than either the central authorities or all the masses of people standing around waiting for their direction or for resources which are controlled by someone else."


Read the rest of this statement here: http://www.winwenger.com/special.htm

Re:Wrong

[crawling_chaos]

Much like those Christian aid workers just fed them? The Taliban seemed real appreciative of their acts. They even gave them an all-expense paid vacation for a while to show how much they appreciated them.

The fact of the matter is that the extremists will interfere with the delivery of aid if they believe that doing so will accomplish their goals. (This applies to all sides in this mess, not just the Taliban.) The Taliban and the Northern Alliance have both interfered with Red Cross/Crescent and Doctors Without Borders on a regular basis.

Simple solutions don't work for complex problems. This applies just as much to "feed them" as it does to "bomb them into oblivion."

Domestic origin for Anthrax?

[Robber Baron]

...at a time when public feedback was hampered by the extraordinary anthrax infestations...

Before I didn't believe that the Anthrax might have domestic origins.

Now I'm not so sure.

How the hell is that insightful?

[Anonymous DWord]

You're a moron. Ships that dock in Cuba aren't allowed to dock in the States for six months afterwards. What country do you think companies are going to choose, especially if they're travelling across the Atlantic? The reason Canada can trade with Cuba is because they don't give a shit about America's stupid outdated policies of 'fighting communism.' Cuba's in a pretty difficult state right now; medicine and basic supplies are hard to get. Make no mistake though, the people know why, and they don't blame Castro. I can't think of another government in the world that gives you a cake on your birthday. When was the last time your government cared about your birthday, except when you come of age and can become a TAXPAYER.

Congress, War, and Justice for All

[Global-Lightning]

Congress has not declared war, and therefore it is not a war.

Nowhere in the US Constitution does it state that Congress must declare war.

The powers of Congress over the military and military actions are defined in Article I, Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power to [...]
To Declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

The Authority of the President as Commander in Chief are defined in Article II, Section 2:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States

To summarize the above articles, Congress establishes, maintains, and regulates the military. The President determines how, when, and where will military force be applied.

When the Consitution was written in the 1700's, armed conflicts were rigidly defined, where the the combatants consisted of formally recognized governments. In such an environment a Declaration of War made perfect sense. This system worked fairly well until the Second World War, which was the last time the United States formally declared war..
The tradition context of war was challenged with the rise of the Cold War and modern warfare techniques such as guerrillas, proxy wars, and non-state combatants. As armed conflict evolved, the US government had to address the issue. In 1973 the War Powers Act (WPA) was passed to address these issues. The primary reason for this act was to establish limits on the Commander in Chief's ability to use force without the formal consent of Congress, as exemplified by the Vietnam War. The WPA allows the President to commit military actions without a declaration of war, as long as certain reporting conditions to Congress are met. The heart of the WPA is Section 5 (b), which establishes concrete time limits, and Section 5 (c), which gives Congress the authority to terminate military action.

________________________

None of the words or meaning in the Constitution has changed, either. It still guarantees Justice to All. This includes a fair trial, just as much as it includes the lethal injection as punishment.

The fundamental question here is do we treat acts of terrorism as a crime or as an act of war? The various rights to trial enumerated in Section III and the Bill of Rights apply only to crimes. By history and precedent, acts of war are not treated the same as criminal acts. For example, the Nuremberg Trials were military tribunals with convictions determined by a panel of judges, not juries. Similar tribunals were called for the Japanese military and government, instead of trying them in US criminal courts for the attack on US territory (Pearl Harbor)
The US has been consistent in treating the attacks of September 11th as a military action, not criminal, to include the application of military courts to eventually try Al Qaeda members. This is no different than the application of justice at the end of WWII.

Re:Congress, War, and Justice for All

[imrdkl]

Sir, I appreciate you taking the time to make this argument. I believe that your understanding of our law and history is also very much the better of mine.

Neither do I dispute the right of the commander in chief to seek justice in this particular matter. I am even ok with the security mechanisms of our country to, uh, take the I out of teamwork, shall we say?

But I still say... a war it is not, and must never be.

Ayn Rand Comes to Somalia

[Baldrson]

Looks like the new globalist Ayn Randism has taken a right at spooksville.

The late Peter "Maas" (died Aug. 24) wrote a scathing review of "Official and Confidential: The Secret Life of J. Edgar Hoover" -- a book in which journalist Anthony Summers blows the lid off of Meyer Lansky's blackmail hold over the longest-running head of federal law enforcement in history. "Peter Maas" also wrote a cover article for "Parade" magazine on "The New CIA" featuring a cover photo of his blonde concubine smiling like a zombie while John Deutsch looked on with great unction -- the article basically being about how the old WASP establishment in the intelligence community had created a disaster which was being cleaned up by the "new blood".

Now Peter "Maass" (www.petermass.com) is telling those of us with money to move to Somalia -- apprently a hotbed of CIA and Al-Qaeda activity:

Ayn Rand Comes to Somalia [by Peter Maass, from The Atlantic Monthly]

May 2001, from MOGADISHU

Ayn Rand Comes to Somalia

In the absence of government bureaucracy and foreign aid, business is starting to boom

by Peter Maass

.....

The headquarters of Telecom Somalia is filled with the sights and sounds of Mogadishu-style success. Customers pour through the entrance, funneling past machine-gun positions that flank the front doors. After a pat-down by security guards, who take temporary possession of any guns and knives, they enter the lobby and line up at the appropriate counters to pay their bills or order new service. Clocks on a wall display the time in New York, Paris, London, Sydney, and Karachi--reminders of an outside world that has pretty much left Somalia for dead. Computer keyboards clatter as workers punch in information. Customers chat and argue with one another in a gregarious manner that makes the lobby feel like a town square--all the more so if a goat that's being herded down the street happens to stray inside.

Telecom Somalia is the largest company in Mogadishu. It has 700 employees, and it offers some of the best and cheapest phone service in Africa. It also provides a clue to the possible resuscitation of the world's most famous failed state. In 1995, when the international community decided to wash its hands of Somalia and the last United Nations peacekeepers left the country, Mogadishu was a Hobbesian horror show. It remains a miserable and unstable place, a city where taxi drivers ruin their own vehicles, denting the body work and smashing the windows, so that thieves will not bother to steal them. But it is less dismal than it used to be, and better times may be on the way, owing to a new generation of businessmen who are determined to bring the lawless capital back to life.

Prime among the city's entrepreneurial leaders is Abdulaziz Sheikh, t he chief executive of Telecom Somalia. When I visited him last summer, in a small office on the fourth floor of the company's headquarters, he was being blasted by a hurricane-force air- conditioner that nearly drowned out the constantly ringing phones on his desk. "You need to be here twenty-four hours a day," he said, explaining that he lives as well as works on the premises. Sheikh had the running-on-fumes look of a campaign chairman in a never-ending race, but at least he appeared to be winning. Anyone can walk into the lobby of his building, plunk down a $100 deposit, and leave with a late-model Nokia that works throughout the city, in valleys as well as on hilltops, at all hours. Caller ID, call waiting, conference calling, and call forwarding are available. There are two other cellular-phone firms in town, and the three recently entered into a joint venture and created the first local Internet-service provider. Not all battles here are resolved by murder.

Mogadishu also has new radio and television stations (one night I watched the Somali equivalent of Larry King Live, in which the moderator and his guest, one of the city's leading Islamic clerics, fielded questions from callers), along with computer schools and an airport that serves several airlines (although these fly the sorts of airplanes that Americans see only in museums). The city's Bekara market offers everything from toilet paper, Maalox, and Colgate toothpaste to Viagra, sarongs, blank passports (stolen from the Foreign Ministry a decade ago), and assault rifles. The international delivery company DHL has an office in Mogadishu, where its methods can be unorthodox: if a client has an urgent package that cannot wait for a scheduled flight out of the country, the company will dispatch it on one of the many planes that arrive illegally from Kenya every day bearing khat, a narcotic leaf that is chewed like tobacco but has the effect of cocaine.

Mogadishu has the closest thing to an Ayn Rand-style economy that the world has ever seen--no bureaucracy or regulation at all. The city has had no government since 1991, when the much despised President Mohammed Siad Barre was overthrown; his regime was replaced not by another one but by civil war. The northern regions of Somaliland and Puntland have stabilized under autonomous governments, but southern Somalia, with Mogadishu at its core, has remained a Mad Max zone carved up by warlords for whom fighting seems as necessary as oxygen. The prospect of stability is a curious miracle, not simply because the kind of business development that is happening tends to require the presence of a government, but because the very absence of a government may have helped to nurture an African oddity--a lean and efficient business sector that does not feed at a public trough controlled by corrupt officials. ...Many of the larger companies in Mogadishu, including the bottling plant, have issued shares, although there is of course no stock exchange or financial authority of any sort in the city. Everything is based on trust, and so far it has worked, owing to Somalia's tightly woven clan networks: everyone knows everyone else, so it's less likely that an unknown con man will pull off a scam. In view of Somalia's history, this ad hoc stock market is not as implausible as it may sound. Until a century ago, when Italy and Britain divided what is present-day Somalia into colonial fiefdoms, Somalis got along quite well without a state, relying on systems that still exist: informal codes of honor and a means of resolving disputes, even violent ones, through mediation by clan elders.

Of course, the lack of a government poses problems, especially with respect to the warlords. Sheikh and his fellow businessmen have kept them at bay by paying them protection money and by forming their own militias. Those manning the machine guns outside Telecom Somalia are employees of the company, and when the firm's linemen go out to lay new cables (they used to string overhead lines, but those got shot up by stray gunfire), they, too, are protected by company gunmen.

All of this is costly, so the business leaders have taken steps to bring about a new government--one that will keep its hands out of their pockets and focus on providing security and public services. The process began two years ago, when Sheikh and other entrepreneurs got fed up with the blight of checkpoints, at which everyone was required to pay small tributes to armed teenagers affiliated with various warlords. The businessmen decided collectively to fund a militia to get rid of the checkpoints, resulting in an armed force that is overseen by the city's Islamic clerics. Having succeeded in its main mission, the militia now serves as an informal sort of police force, patrolling the streets in an effort to stop petty crime.

...If the business community succeeds in returning Mogadishu to something resembling normalcy, it will have shown that a failed state, or at least its capital city, can get back on its feet without much help from the outside world. This would constitute not an argument against outside intervention but, rather, a lesson that intervention doesn't have to be of the UN-led, billion-dollar variety.

...Sipping an ice-cold Coke in his office, Abdullahi offered to share a secret that, he promised, could make me rich. A chubby man with a beatific smile, he leaned forward conspiratorially. "Everything is possible in Mogadishu now, everything," he said. "If you have the money and the knowledge, you can do whatever you want. It is virgin here."

...

Alternate routing

[Animats]

They can probably get an alternative link through somebody who doesn't get along with the U.S. Cuba had a long history of connectivity problems during the years when the U.S. embargo was taken seriously. But phone connectivity stayed up most of the time.

I can't replay the live broadcast for you. . .

[kfg]

But I can point you to this statement at the Red Cross of Australia web site.

http://www.redcross.org.au/newsRoom/afghanistan/ IC RCStatement3.html

Note that the plane was at low altitude, low speed, dropped bombs on buildings clearly marked on their roofs as Red Cross buildings and that * The Red Cross previously contacted the US to inform them that these were legitimate Red Cross buildings and what their actual contents were.*

Looks pretty damned deliberate to me.

KFG

Re:Munch me

[unitron]

"- I throw rocks at retarded kids"

Jealous of your superiors, I take it?

Re:Newspeak

[unitron]

Newspeak refers to an alteration of the language itself, the idea being that you can make it impossible for the people to have ideas which the government doesn't want them to have by eliminating the words and phrases with which those ideas are expressed. If you define slavery as freedom, then it becomes impossible to say that the reason why slavery is evil is because it deprives the slave of his or her freedom. If you define war as peace, you make it impossible to wish for the war to end and peace to be restored. If you eliminate the word "evil" the government can't be suspected of evil. The concept simply ceases to exist.

Alteration of the news is just done by falsifying the records, although the records *are* increasingly re-written in Newspeak to speed the demise of the very concepts behind the kind of thinking which the government wishes to eliminate.

You are my neighbor too..

[bartwol]

I live in downtown New York. A few thousand of my neighbors were killed a couple of months ago. By my definition, they were innocent people.

You are my neighbors too.

The people who killed my neighbors, and their supporters, share a common belief that we are an insult to God, an insult to the earth, and an insult to the "good" people of this earth. There appear to be a few thousand people around the world today who are willing to violently remove us from this earth, and a few hundred million who think that wouldn't be such a terrible thing.

For those of you neighbors who seek greater mutual understanding, please take more time to realize that your non-Muslim, Western thinking is offensive, and when people speak of "American arrogance," they are referring to your inability to realize the inferiority of your way of life.

We, our government, your government, are engaged now in a war; a struggle to eradicate the people who would eradicate us: me and you, my neighbors. Our motive for war is preservation of our lives, our hopes, our optimistic future. It is not hatred. It is not money. Your beliefs to the contrary reflect your own cynicism and lack of appreciation for the degree of humanity that we share: me, our government, and you, my neighbors.

Your concern for the innocent people of Somalia is reasonable. Your doubts about how genuine is our reasoning for cutting off their internet access is not.

Come on down to New York and visit us for a day, neighbor. Come join me in savoring the pain of the tens of thousands of relatives and friends of our dead neighbors. And please, don't pretend you're not one of the people who should be dead, because that's just your American arrogance rearing its ugly head.

There will be victims in this war, neighbors. I don't want it to be an innocent Somali. But I don't want it to be me either. And so, I choose to fight those who would kill me, who would kill you, my neighbors. And I seek solace in personal prayer, that I may be forgiven for choosing life, regretting that innocents will die as a result, but rejoicing in celebration of life with my neighbors.

To the Somali people, I apologize. But to you, neighbor, I make no apologies. I, we, the greater America, will defend you with no limit to our efforts, and you, my neighbor, must suffer this.

<bart

Can't live without it either...

[CousinChimpy]

Of course we should retain a healthy degree of skepticism with respect to the intelligence community, as with any branch of government. But neither let us forget that, as an unfortunate fact of life, we need an intelligence community, imperfect as it may be.

One good lead before 9/11 ... even an inkling of what might have been planned ... and we'd probably have 19 terrorists behind bars right now, instead of thousands dead and billions in damage... *sigh*

Re:Can't live without it either...

[kfg]

It is also important to realize that intelligence cannot bestow either omniscience or precognition.

Some things are just unpredictable and unavoidable.

The intelligence community is not only imperfect, it is inherently limited, no matter how much power it has. I don't think that the WTC attack was so much evidence of the flaws as it was of the limitations.

KFG

Re:Can't live without it either...

[Malcontent]

What makes you think we didn't know? Is the CIA that stupid? Is the NSA that inept? I don't think so.

I bet we knew but did nothing because now GW rules america with an iron fist and is tightening his control more and more every day. Do you think he could have passed all his corporate welfare bills without this event? Do you think he could have outlawed dissent without that event? Do you think he could have gotten away half this shit without that event?

Re:Can't live without it either...

[CousinChimpy]

If you believe that, you probably also believe that Israel, the Mossad, and the Easter Bunny were involved.

Perhaps someone's watched a few too many X-Files episodes?

Re:Can't live without it either...

[Ioldanach]

Is the CIA that stupid? Is the NSA that inept? I don't think so.

You think better of them than I do, then. I tend to have a problem with government conspiracy theories because it implies, usually, that a large enough portion of our government is able to be that coordinated, accurate, and quiet about something. That's not the government I know.

Re:Can't live without it either...

[Malcontent]

I don't belive that the easter bunny was involved. I do find it hard to believe however that the mossad did not run across this information when they were torturing palestenians.

Given that any given time there are hundreds if not thousands of arabs in israeli jails being tortured in one way another they would have known for sure.

Re:Can't live without it either...

[Malcontent]

Amazing. And yet this same incompetent govt is to be trusted with rooting out and destroying a worldwide terrorist network. Not only that but it will also eliminate evil from the earth as well.

Thanks for backing me up

[kypper]

Sept 11th showed CNN's true colours quite well. CBC did a little better, but still, some change. BBC was the best by far.

I feel this is wrong

[johnnnyboy]

If the US really wants to win this "war" they better start working with the people that hate them rather then pushing them around.

Nobody likes a bully.

Have you ever wondered how many poeple died as a direct cause of US foreign policies? were talking thousands too.

Let these poor people have their internet. If you want terrorists go in there and get them!

Re: I feel this is wrong

[Inthewire]

If the US really wants to win this "war" they better start working with the people that hate them rather then pushing them around.

"If a show of teeth is not enough, bite ... but bite hard!"

Have you ever actually read your sig? Consider it in light of the post to which I am replying.

Here ya go.

[totenkopf]

Read it slow so it sinks in:

There is a difference between purposely targeting civilians for the purpose of terrorizing a population, and accidentally inflicting civilian casualties when attacking military targets.

The WTC bombings are also a scale of magnitude greater than the civilian deaths caused by U.S. bombs in Afghanistan.

There is also the consideration that generally we in the U.S. feel bad about the civilian deaths, while the Islamists have been gleefully ecstatic.

A difference? Maybe not to you, but to me there is a huge difference.

Plus, there is the incy bitty point of that we were attacked, and we have the right to defend ourselves.

Re:Here ya go.

[Nathaniel]

"The WTC bombings are also a scale of magnitude greater than the civilian deaths caused by U.S. bombs in Afghanistan."

Yeah, let's talk about scale of magnitude.

Perhaps you've missed the headlines like UN sanctions on Iraq lead to deaths of 500,000 children. That was five years ago.

The United States has been working to impose continued sanctions on Iraq which prevent them from fixing the infrastructure that allows them to supply potable water to their citizens. As a result hundreds of thousands of innocent citizens have been dying of proventable deseases such as cholera.

"Plus, there is the incy bitty point of that we were attacked, and we have the right to defend ourselves."

From their perspective, the United States has been engaged in biological warfare against the middle east for the last ten years.

rar

[LazyDawg]

While the two-faced US Government, first bombing the Red Cross for *suspected* pilfering of food to Taliban members is funny, that's only because they then threw food around at random throughout the country at the same time, in far smaller quantities, which could more easily be accidentally stumbled upon by Taliban forces. Some aid packages were, of course, also dropped in well-known minefields. What a knee-slapper, imagining all those starving people waving back to the relief jets with their stumps!

What *isn't* funny, however, is how we in the West and other Allied Countries(tm)(r) are on the side of the bad guys in this conflict. The US has cut out an entire country's Internet access because of *suspected* terrorist conntections. A country which they have bombed over and over again during the recent civil war. Now they have taken care of any free exchange of ideas and news from one private citizen to another, if not locally than internationally, where it counts.

The acts of terrorism by the United States will have just as much a positive effect on their victims as Bin Laden's attacks and threatened attacks have had on our own.

Someday soon I hope at least a few Allied Countries (hopefully even Canada, cuz I live here) take a step back and realize that the United States has only as much Big Swinging Dick power as we allow them to have, and take a more neutral, peacemaking stance in this conflict.

Wait a minute, isn't there already an organization dedicated to providing such a Global perspective? The United Notions or something... eh, I must be mistaken.

Re:rar

[johnnnyboy]

Did you know the US killed the Taliban leader's 10 year old son too? They also destroyed a UN office building with UN workers inside.

Moreoever, did you know a cruise missile intentionally hit a gov't office building in Serbia during the day full of regular people? This wasn't on CNN nor the other major channels. A lot of people burned alive in that building!

May I also mention how many cubans are starving right now? Why? R they really dangerous?

They wonder why so many hate them. Plus don't forget they also hate us Canadians as well. We support their every move. Shame on us.

I don't believe violence will solve anything because the attack was a violent response to the US's poor policies in the middle east. It will never end until somebody finally listens.

Richard Gere even tried to plea for peace at a benefit concert a while back and he was bood of the stage. (shame)

Both sides believe they are the good guys. They don't realize that they are both the bad guys.

On Chomsky

[totenkopf]

Sophal's Place (no longer available)

Sophal Ear is a remarkable young Cambodian scholar who lived to tell the world about the horrors of Pol Pot's regime. His webpage is full of information on the "Cambodian Auto-Genocide," along with studies of the Cambodian economy, some of his favorite quotations, and links to his favorite sites. But perhaps the most interesting feature on this page is Sophal's exhaustive study of Western intellectuals' response to Pol Pot's regime. Is there really a leftist double-standard that overlooks any crime committed with socialist intentions? After reading Sophal's paper, there can be little doubt. Particularly valuable is Sophal's analysis of Noam Chomsky's writings on Cambodia and the Western media. Chomsky's critics have accused him of apologizing for mass murder; his defenders have replied that Chomsky did nothing of the kind. The truth, Sophal argues, is that Chomsky was a kind of apologist-by-stealth -- who doggedly attacked any errors in Western coverage of Cambodia while refraining from commenting on the basic fact that over a million Cambodians had been murdered. Chomsky's charges of (right-wing) media bias simply don't withstand examination, Sophal notes, for numerically small human rights abuses in U.S.-allied South Korea and Chile got far more media attention than Cambodia. Careful study of this site will make you wonder not only at the capacity of the State for senseless brutality, but of the recurring capacity of Western intellectuals to defend senseless brutality as a high virtue.

Re:On Chomsky

[metis]

In other words, you have never read one word of Chomsky before forming a very strong opinion about him.

No further questions.

Re:On Chomsky

[totenkopf]

LOL. You play about as fast and loose with assumptions as Chomsky does. Matter of fact, I have read Chomsky...enough to know that his only real goal is the prostration of the U.S. using any means, fair or foul. The guy is a linguistics genius, no doubt, but his politics suck.

anyone else confused?

[Anonymous Coward]

Reading this thread I find myself confused. I find it hard to believe some of you live in the same country as myself...

Who is the wise scholar that defined terrorism? Hmmm, you can keep your definition, because if you think about it from a little more objective position, you will realise you missed a key concept - provocation. Our attacks on Afghanistan are wholly justified because we were provoked by a cowardly enemy that intentionally targeted innocents. When our bombs kill innocents it is very sad, but we typically pay the families reparation, and rebuild the nation we've defeated.

You are granted freedoms in this country, but walk softly. Please think before you abuse the freedoms that others are so valiantly protecting in your place. What I'm really saying is shut your cake hole. Part of wisdom is having something to say, and knowing when not to say it.

regards...

Re:Wrong

[Anthony Boyd]

We can't stop terrorists directly with threats or direct actions, but if the threat of suffering and death makes the people around them take action and prevent their actions, then so be it.

All this does is make more people mad enough at America that they are willing to die for revenge.

No, it also stops bad people. The poster you responded too is certainly spouting off at the mouth a bit too much, and you were correct to rebuff him or her. But to oversimplify a war like this isn't going to make your case. Actions such as these may galvanize some to resist. But as we've seen with the fall of the Taliban, even their own citizens are celebrating the downfall. People have to take action to stop evil people. Sometimes non-evil people get hurt. But there is a greater good, and a 90% solution is better than the hand-wringing you suggest.

Proper Logic

[Snover]

Hmm..okay, yes, there are terrorists in Somalia. There are terrorists everywhere. If that's the only ISP they have, then gee, wonder how there could be terrorist links to it...

Re:Wrong

[Anthony Boyd]

As for expecting poor, starving civilians to change the policies of armed governments or pseudo-militia that is as ridiculous as Bin Laden thinking that terrorist attacks against the US would turn the American populace against the US government

If true, that only lends weight to the "imperialist" policy of going in and killing off the bad guys ourselves. But I think your comment only applies to Iraq. In Afghanistan, the Northern Alliance did overthrow the government, just this week. There is always an opposition group that can overthrow the government. But in Iraq that group is weak, small, and unsupported. In Afghanistan, that group is weak, but large, and supported. The problem is not with the concept of insurrection, only that it must be applied to the right situations at the right time.

Forked tongues and double standards

[Mudge Pinkerton-Bott]

I find it a bit sad that the general tone of the postings on this thread seems to represent a level of jingoistic hysteria which we only seem to hear from the US and other third-world countries :-), and general approval of any action taken against other nations on the most circumstantial evidence. At the same time, we hear loud squeals of protest when governments or industry bodies encroach on our personal liberties (privacy online, copy-protected CDs, etc etc...).

what next?

[sydneyfong]

With so much of these terrorism-laws bashing here, some lamer will come and accuse Slashdot of HARBOURING TERRORISTS by allowing Anonymous Cowards!!!

What if that "-1 Offtopic" post with unreadable meaningless junk was ACTUALLY Mr. Osma Bin Laden and friends posting an encrypted document???

Yes, they were using Slashdot to communicate with the hijackers, you knew that didn't you?

*We*

[Godwin O'Hitler]

*We* created the massively booming global economy, *we* created the technology that these companies have been using, *we* provided their internet access, *we* provided the financial support to the entire country that allowed these businesses to exist...
Could you please define *we* and state what your role was in those actions. Or is *we* your way of saying you have American genes and therefore are a superior being?

We're all going to live in a democracy...

[SupremeSpod]

whether we like it or not!

Re:Keep in mind, this is not a somalia company

[musicmaster]

Really. I just remember that the US government gave some american companies a part of the spectrum and when they wanted to take it away they couldn't.

We live in a civilization full of laws that protect the weak against arbitrary decisions from the strong. So you can not take it away unless you place them outside the law.

Re:Wrong-teach by example.

[KjetilK]

Thank you! Exactly the point. I wasn't suggesting a simple solution, I was fully aware of the problems with warriors interfering with aid workers. It's always been that way. However, AFAIK, these workers were captured in or close to Kabul. That you can't start there was exactly my point, you have to take be more careful, plan better and understand more of the country you're getting into.

Somebody mod this AC up! :-)

Re:A little bit of history [was Re:Suspects??]

[Performer Guy]

Flying hijacked airliners into buildings has nothing to do with passive resistance. America wanted nothing from Al Qaida or the Taliban. You are reasoning by analogy, a sure sign of a bankrupt position, but it's much worse when the analogy doesn't fit even approximately.

America isn't crushing a nation, we all know the USA won't even occupy Afghanistan or demand any tariff. When the murderers are removed from power and brought to justice the USA won't remain in Afghanistan. I'm at a loss to see what your point even is, this business of accusing America of being a conquering expansionist nation is clearly nonsense. Look at Europe after WWII, compare and contrast Soviet held territory to the rest, look at Japan. Infact America invading these countries turned out to be the most benign invasions in history. Even after World War One, the US opposed the draconian conditions in the treaty of Versailles but was overruled by others.

Defensive agression is justified, this is not the same as preemptive defensive aggression, that is where your spurious analogy fails.

Bush wants to intimidate the Arab world

[musicmaster]

This isn't about punishment. It is about intimidating the rest of the Arab world. Somalia is just the perfect scapegoat: uncle Sam had some scores to settle there anyway.

If you read the US Government info you will see:
"-- Al Barakaat's founder, Shaykh Ahme Nur Jimale, is closely linked to Usama bin Laden. He has used Al Barakaat's 60 offices in Somalia and 127 offices abroad to transmit funds, intelligence and instructions to terrorist cells.".
Sounds to be me like ATT and the Western Union are guilty too: they did the same thing.

There is a lot of support for Bin Laden in the Islamic world so I would be surprised if there weren't some homepages that supported Bin Laden. Similarly there is a lot of money collection by radical groups: so the biggest money transfer company will handle some of that money.

The real message from Bush is to all the other Arabic countries: if you allow any supporter of Bin Laden to speak out or to collect money we will get at your throat.

BTW: you are wrong with "the terrorists taking a cut of all transfers". The government report doesn't say anything like that.

What War?

[Baldrson]

Folks, get over yourself. America is at war, really at war, not just scratching an itch. For the first time since 1945.

Where is the Constitutionally-required declaration of war? If your response is that "this is different" -- then please specify how the Constitution should be amended. Then explain why, given that Congress can amass virtually unanimous support for various pieces of legislation of highly-questionable Constitutionality, they cannot amend the Constitution so as to act lawfully?

Until you do so, I suggest that you, and those like you, should get over yourselves and recognize that the so-called "government" of the United States of America is not legitimate and, indeed, has not been legitimate for some time.

Usage of high precission weapons?

[charon.de]

From what I've seen so far, it looks more to me, that it was the usage of those old B-52 bomber, which finally made the Taliban collapse, not those high precision weapons. Just the enormous payload of these old machines....

Michael

Re:"Why do they hate us?"--yoo're close

[msouth]

"Why do they hate us?" Because we're a bunch of self-righteous bastards who think we can do whatever we want to the rest of the world.

You're off by just a smidgen--it's not because we're self-righteous, it's because we are self-absorbed. (Ok, well, to be accurate, what you are describing may be how we are perceived by the recipients of these injustices, but I don't think it's the real root cause).

It's not because we think we can do whatever we want, it's because we unthinkingly let a few special interest groups do whatever they want.

The problem is not the actions of a few--their actions are a symptom of the real problem. The real problem is the apathy and inattention of the many.

The average American actually will get up in arms about injustice and unjust policies once they are actually confronted wtih them. The thing that is sick and wrong about America is that we do not know what is going on "out there" in the rest of the world, what our elected officials/military/whoever are doing and how it affects people.

Don't blame the politicians or the media or whoever else, because every one of those groups is at the mercy of the voters and consumers. If America does wrong abroad, there is exactly one group of people to blame for it, and that is the American people. If they cared, they could stop it. Heck, if they cared enough to find out what is going on, what they found out would make them care enough to stop it! But they don't even care that much. And they don't even notice that they don't care--just as, for example, I almost never notice that I don't care about professional sports. Every once in a while it gets thrown in my face and I remember that, oh, yeah, a lot of people actually care who wins those games, etc. But the injustices we perpetuate almost nver get thrown in anyone's face. So most people don't even realize that they aren't paying attention.

Don't just write your congressman, poke your neighbor a little and see if you can get them to wake up from their dream of sitcoms and ball games.

PS The same goes for the RIAA and Microsoft, the evil empires built from--you guessed it--consumer dollars, spent by masses of people that just don't bother to find out if they should care.

You're straddling the fence

[epepke]

Bluntly, what you're offended by isn't the definition, but by the unpleasant truth that an objective reading of what terrorism is sometimes condemns the good guys, too.

You're getting a lot of flak for this, but it's essentially true. By the given definition of terrorism, many of the acts of the U.S. have been and continue to be terrorism. By that same definition, many of the acts of the police in every country in the world are terrorism. It is true that people are uncomfortable with that.

We're saying that two wrongs don't make a right.

Here is where you start to lose it. Once you start talking about "wrong" and "right," you immediately lose any credibility that you care at all about objective definitions. Objective definitions say nothing about these concepts. Ideas of right and wrong are connotations of these words. They may be in some definitions, but not in any remotely objective ones.

Consider the pair of words "aggressive" and "assertive." Objectively, they mean exactly the same thing. However, people use "aggressive" when they disapprove and "assertive" when they approve.

The question of whether something is right or wrong is inherently and necessarily a result of evaluating it in context. If I shoot someone who is trying to kill me, is that homicide? By any objective definition of "homicide," of course it is. Is it something I would feel bad about? Not at all. Is it something I would get in trouble with the law over? Well, I'm sure there would be an investigation, but in most states of the U.S. I would not be charged with a crime.

I don't think that "War on Terrorism" is a particularly good or accurate term. However, at least it's close. Your practice of jumping back and forth between supposedly objective definitions and moralism in an ad hoc fashion, on the other hand, is not even approximately appropriate for rational discourse.

And we're saying that if we're going to set a moral example for the rest of the world--and it's not American arrogance to say that given our position as the only superpower, we damn well better be willing to set that example--we've got to be moral.

This leads to the question of whether "we" want to set a moral standard. Right now, I don't think "we" do. I think "we've" just had it up to here.

Specifically, I think the prevailing attitude is that we have tried to set a moral standard since the end of World War II. We rebuilt Germany and Japan to economically powerful states. When Israel got its birth certificate from the U.N., Truman kept Israel at arms' length. The French were the biggest ally. After the French encouraged Israel to invade Egypt, Eisenhower got them out. Still, the French were their biggest allies until 1967, when Israel had some more imperial fun. We took over that role and have been trying to keep them on a leash ever since. When there was a revolution in Iran, we dropped support for the Shah. When Iran kept many Americans hostage, we did little but crash a couple of our own helicopters. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, we repulsed Iraq at Kuwait's request with Saudi Arabia's help. When that was done, we got out, even though it would have been to our advantage to overwhelm Iraq when we could. We statined troops in Saudi Arabia because they asked us to. We put up with one bomb in the World Trade Center, the killing of 18 soldiers in Somalia, and attacks on a number of embassies and ships, for all of which bin Laden explicitly claimed credit. We've gone to Herculean efforts to establish a Palestinian state in the Middle East, only to see Arafat and the various people who have been in charge of Israel stomp off in a fit of pique.

Any reasonable "objective" view of U.S. actions is that we have, usually reluctantly, tried to straighten out intractable messes caused by others (in my view, usually the French).

However, for all that time, leftists have gone through U.S. actions with a magnifying glass to find nuggets that they can throw out and say, "Ha-ha! The U.S. does Bad Things!" They always find them, of course. Some of these were really bad, like the bombing of a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant. Most of them, however, are due to the fact that you can't go into a place where people have been hating and killing each other for thousands of years and make it into a land of happy bunny rabbits.

All these "criticisms" missed the point that if the U.S. had not been a factor, things would unquestionably been worse than they are today. If the French had been left a dominant force, most of the ancestors of those people who danced when they heard of the WTC bombings would probably have been radioactive cinders by about 1980.

I think the prevailing view is that the meliorist, moderate, moral approach that the U.S. had taken (with some deviations from perfection in an impossible situation) did not work. September 11 sent us a message about peacemaking, just like World War I sent us a message about isolationism. Some sickos drove some planes into the WTC, and we've just simply had enough. September 11 was the moment in the Warner Brothers' cartoons where Bugs says, "Of course, you know, this means war."

One question is whether this view or response is justifiable (whether or not it is moral). For a few weeks after September 11, I didn't think it was. The leftist gadflies have gone a long way toward persuading me that it is, with their empty, revisionist, and opportunistic rhetoric. Before September 11, I could listen to Noam Chomsky with a straight face and some sympathy. Immediately after, I was only concerned with rebuilding, which is why I went to New York City and helped with the efforts. I agreed with the posters that said "Our grief is not a cry for war."

However, what has been coming out of the left in the weeks since then has been so obviously vapid that it is prima facie evidence that they do not know what they are talking about, at all. As much as I have traditionally disliked the right, it is only the right that acknowledges any of the basic history of the current situation in the Middle East, some of which I know personally because I grew up during it and did my own research. The left may come across as more appealing and idealistic and compassionate (when it isn't just winning debate points for being nasty), but any evidence of actual thought on the left is asymptotically approaching zero.

Nor is there any evidence that they care, at all. There are even Derrida and the postmodernists to tell them that facts don't exist, and opinions are all. This homo fecit used to be merely irritating and amusing; now it is deadly.

You can talk all you want about bad things America has done. I believe in free speech. When people aren't scared witless any more of going to New York, you might get a sympathetic audience that doesn't entirely consist of doped-up morons who are pissed off that their daddies don't give them enough money. Until then, sorry.

USA to terrorists: information is evil!

[fugue]

Ick. I thought that a nice condition of Afghanistan's surrender might be that they'd have to provide unfiltered internet access in public schools and libraries everywhere (yeah, that means we'd have to help them build such institutions. Which wouldn't suck). That'd do more to reduce terrorism than anything else I can think of. Seems that my views are not the views of my duly elected officials. As usual.

Eat cedar

[Pseudonymus Bosch]

A single mature cedar tree can support a man for a year.

How? The wood?