Uncloaking Terrorist Networks

atlantageek writes "First Monday has an article called 'Uncloaking Terrorist Networks'. The author Valdis E. Krebs discusses his attemps to unravel the terrorist network using social and organisational network theory."

Comments

Ah yes, its nearly Spetember 11th

[Anonymous Coward]

I almost forgot. I guess we have a good three or four weeks of hysterical media coverage and "news" to look forward too, just to remind us all about these evil terrorists who are lurking around every corner.

I just can't wait for the incesent replays of the WTC collapsing, thats for sure!

Re:Ah yes, its nearly Spetember 11th

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the relatives are trying to get that stopped, actually (well, you don't often see pictures of the 'jumpers' do you, despite the large number of them.
Still, why do you want to see it all again? Maybe in 5 years time when there`ll be a new batch of people who weren't old enough to see it the first time around.

Re:Ah yes, its nearly Spetember 11th

[Anonymous Coward]

Still, why do you want to see it all again?

Uh, it's called sarcasm. Tricky thing, isn't it?

Re:Ah yes, its nearly Spetember 11th

[Anonymous Coward]

Still, why do you want to see it all again?

Maybe american people should think about *why* the rest of the world hate you. Else, you can spent the rest of your life to track terorrists.

Re:Ah yes, its nearly Spetember 11th

[FatherOfONe]

"Why the rest of the world hate Amercia?"

I will assume you ment hates America...

Could it be

1. All the money we give out every year to keep most 3rd world countries from colapsing?

2. The constant military help we give countries who need it?

3. A government run by the people for the people? Granted it could be better.

4. Having our women on equal ground with our men in every aspect of our lives?

5. Having most of our diverse religous and ethnic backgrounds get along together?

6. Having a country where a "common" class person can become the richest person in the world? Granted I don't like Bill Gates.

7. A country where EVERY child has the ability to get an education?

8. A country that thoughsands of people are fleeing to every year?

9. A country that produces enough food to not only feed themselves but a large part of the world?

10. A country where people could protest against the government and ANY political official and NOT get shot or have family members killed?

Or could it possibly be Bill Clinton? Ok, we are sorry for that one!

Nice to be able to type something like that and not have to worry about the government killing me.

I am not saying that the U.S.A. doesn't have it's problems, God knows we do, but to say the the rest of the world hates us is wrong. It would probably be better to say that a large part of the world envies the U.S.A.
Some extreemist will try and turn that envy into hate. Understand though, that those people that try to turn those differences into hate, are generally just using people to make themselves more powerfull and rich. They may or may not believe in what they are preaching.

Re:Ah yes, its nearly Spetember 11th

[Anonymous Coward]

A government run by the people for the people? Granted it could be better.

Isn't it A government run by rich corporations for rich corporations?

Re:Ah yes, its nearly Spetember 11th

[Anonymous Coward]

The success of our nation is a thumb in the eye of so many failed ideolgies. The world is just full of sore losers.

Re:Ah yes, its nearly Spetember 11th

[Anonymous Coward]

All the money we give out every year to keep most 3rd world countries from colapsing?

or perhaps because usa collect ridiculous amounts in foreign debt. usa is one of the richest countries in the world; for somone to be rich someone else has to be poor. western countries keep 3rd world countries in poverty through foriegn debt.

The constant military help we give countries who need it?

usa has never entered a war for anyones interest but its own. any war the usa has been in was about either land resources or communism/anti trust. its ironic that the mess the us military left behind(showing the interest was in the balance of power, never with the well-being of foriegn nations regarding stable gobernments and what not) comes around like wretched karma.

i dont care that the us military acts for selfish reasons; after all, it is the governments job to act on behalf of the peoples best interests, its just when people get arrogant and start to act holier than thou about their nation that gets infuriating. usa arent so much the world police as they are a bully and like bullies, think themselves above all others and sook when something gets back to them.

finding pride in lines drawn in the sand seems stupid to me, but thats another topic all together i spose.

Re:Ah yes, its nearly Spetember 11th

[Anonymous Coward]

1. All the money we give out every year to keep most 3rd world countries from colapsing?

Drop the trade barriers, stop the internal subsidies and cancel the third world debt. Would help a lot more. You're not on your own there - most of the West could do better in that.

2. The constant military help we give countries who need it?

Err...don't even know where to start on this one. You only give help to those countries you consider to be friendly or who are strategic to you. The whole thing under question is how you go about deciding which side to help.

3. A government run by the people for the people? Granted it could be better.

A good ideal. Doesn't happen though, does it. Seems to be mostly money-based from an external point of view. The current incumbent is comically ludicrous, as is the method of him getting there. Son of a former leader, whose election depended on the opinion of a political appointee in a state run by his brother? True banana republic territory there.

4. Having our women on equal ground with our men in every aspect of our lives?

100% with you on that. A good achievement.

5. Having most of our diverse religous and ethnic backgrounds get along together?

Hmm...not sure on that. 80% with you, but the Christians seem to be able to ban books and affect the teaching of evolution. And the automatic support for Israel no matter what they do is deeply suspect.

6. Having a country where a "common" class person can become the richest person in the world? Granted I don't like Bill Gates.

You're joking, right? Check his social background.

7. A country where EVERY child has the ability to get an education?

Again, 100% with you.

8. A country that thoughsands of people are fleeing to every year?

Well, yes. I mean - if you're fleeing from attack and poverty, you go to the place that is launching the attack and keeping the money, don't you? No point in fleeing to another potential target.

9. A country that produces enough food to not only feed themselves but a large part of the world?

See the part about subsidies.

10. A country where people could protest against the government and ANY political official and NOT get shot or have family members killed?

See the anti-globalisation movement's opinion of that statement.

Or could it possibly be Bill Clinton? Ok, we are sorry for that one!

A towering intellectual compared to the current 2D cartoon.

I am not saying that the U.S.A. doesn't have it's problems, God knows we do, but to say the the rest of the world hates us is wrong. It would probably be better to say that a large part of the world envies the U.S.A.

Some truth in that, but there's also genuine antipathy. Much of this is manifest in other western democracies who could claim everything you've just claimed as American for their own values. You should look at why, rather than trying to dismiss it all as envy.

Some extreemist will try and turn that envy into hate...They may or may not believe in what they are preaching.

Again, complete agreement.

Re:Ah yes, its nearly Spetember 11th

[xyzzy-ladder]

1. All the money we give out every year to keep most 3rd world countries from colapsing?

That's true - the US does prop up dictatorships like Saudi Arabia, Eygpt, Jordan, etc.

2. The constant military help we give countries who need it?

See above. Not to mention the "military help" we're about to give Iraq!

3. A government run by the people for the people? Granted it could be better.

Which people are those? Hell, in the last presidential election, they didn't even bother to count all the votes.

4. Having our women on equal ground with our men in every aspect of our lives?

One of the best things about America, and Europe, and our culture. I think we're way ahead of everyone on this one. Good call.

5. Having most of our diverse religous and ethnic backgrounds get along together?

Well, "get along" might be pushing it. But America is one of the most tolerant and liberal cultures in the world. Now if we can just keep the "conservatives" from destroying it.

6. Having a country where a "common" class person can become the richest person in the world? Granted I don't like Bill Gates.

Bill Gates was a "common" class person? Wasn't he a rich kid that went to Harvard? A few working class folks do win the lottery every year.

7. A country where EVERY child has the ability to get an education?

The schools for poor kids in America are horrible, Europe has us well beat on this one. We need to work harder. Let's show those snotty Europeans - let's triple school funding until we catch up.

8. A country that thoughsands of people are fleeing to every year?

Like Europe? Thousands of people flee to China every year too. Most people flee poor countries to rich countries, wouldn't you?

9. A country that produces enough food to not only feed themselves but a large part of the world?

Our socialist farming system has worked very well. Didn't ADM, supermarket to the world, just get a huge subsidy in the "Farm Bill" this year? Of course, America does not feed the world. Hell, most poor countries are sending us food! (See Haiti, Zimbabwe, (sp?), etc.)

10. A country where people could protest against the government and ANY political official and NOT get shot or have family members killed?

Freedom of speech is one of the things that makes America great. We are well ahead of Europe on this one. Now, let's just keep the "conservatives" from censoring political speech, and we'll be fine.

IMHO, Bill Clinton was a scumbag, but he was loved and cheered all over the world. IMHO, Bush is a scumbag, but he is booed and protested all over the world. I guess that's why he stays at his ranch and plays golf all the time.

The main reason that people around the world hate the US is not envy, its the BOMBS. Remember?

Re:Ah yes, its nearly Spetember 11th

[BgJonson79]

7. The schools for poor kids in America are horrible, Europe has us well beat on this one. We need to work harder. Let's show those snotty Europeans - let's triple school funding until we catch up.

I disagree about funding. I know some schools are falling apart, and have horrible teachers, so fix those. But for the general populace... I live in NH and we're really, really cheap and we don't spend all that much on education. (We have no sales or income tax, so we have rather high property taxes and cheap, state-run liquor stores on highways to take money from MA and ME "tourists.") Anyway, most people here to fairly well against most of the other states in standardized tests (and I'll be the first one to admit that this isn't a good way to compare people, but it's the only one I can really think of). I think we need to get back to teaching the basics and concepts and not teach to pass a test or just to "learn facts."

Re:Ah yes, its nearly Spetember 11th

[FatherOfONe]

Wow.. I don't want to repeat everything yet again, so I will answer your responses in order.

1. A LOT of trade barriors have been broken down, but it would be foolish to trade with 3rd world countries who use slave labor. Cancel 3rd world debt? The U.S.A. has canceled a lot, but WE loaned the money to these countries. We did NOT give it to them.

2. Yes the U.S.A. only helps it's friends in regard to military. Do you suggest otherwise? A lot of people dies in Vietnam.

3. Not sure what your point is. Does it take money to get elected to office. Yes. Does it help to have a common name? Yes. But there are a BUNCH of senators that came from meager beginnings. Another point would be Jimmy Carter (not that I was a fan), came from a poor family. Even Bill Clinton would have been considered "lower class" in some countries.

6. Look at where Gates started and where he is now. There are numerous other examples I could use. I don't think you disagreed with my point though...

8. Most people flee here for an opportunity to make something of their life, and it is a better country. Mexico doesn't seem to guard it's boarders from the U.S.A does it?

Anyway, got to go to lunch...

Later.

Re:Ah yes, its nearly Spetember 11th

[Anonymous Coward]

1. A LOT of trade barriers have been broken down, but it would be foolish to trade with 3rd world countries who use slave labor.

GAP, Nike et. al. already do. Yet they enjoy US protectionism since they're registered as US producers.

Cancel 3rd world debt? The U.S.A. has canceled a lot, but WE loaned the money to these countries. We did NOT give it to them.

Again, some sympathy for this. However, many of the loans were simply bad loans from the start and should never have been given. Time to write them off. As I say, this is not purely a US problem though.

2. Yes the U.S.A. only helps it's friends in regard to military. Do you suggest otherwise? A lot of people dies in Vietnam.

The question is about how it picks its 'friends'. Saudi Arabia, for example, which has none of the ideals you've expressed so far but, purely by co-incidence, seems to have a quite a bit of oil lying around

3. Not sure what your point is. Does it take money to get elected to office. Yes. Does it help to have a common name? Yes. But there are a BUNCH of senators that came from meager beginnings. Another point would be Jimmy Carter (not that I was a fan), came from a poor family. Even Bill Clinton would have been considered "lower class" in some countries.

Accept the Jimmy Carter point, but that was quite some time ago now. Things have got worse - demonstrably so in the case of the current Bush. Funded by companies later declared criminal, son of an ex-leader, put in power by a political appointee of his brother. Come on - it's a long way from the ideal, isn't it? Also, you should be aware that this is possible in many countries, and is not a purely US ideal.

6. Look at where Gates started and where he is now.

He started as the rich son of lawyer with connections to IBM, as far as I recall. Those connections were then exploited to give him the OS job. After that, IBM shot themselves in the foot by allowing him to license it to other manufacturers - helpful to the industry, unhelpful to IBM who really should have known better.

There are numerous other examples I could use. I don't think you disagreed with my point though...

In fact, I'm not disagreeing with very much as I hope you've noticed from my replies. However, I'm concerned that you think these are purely American values - they're simply democratic values, and any one of a large number of nations could claim them. Many of these countries also have significant problems with America's current conduct, so the problem here isn't with the ideals but the execution of those ideals.

8. Most people flee here for an opportunity to make something of their life, and it is a better country. Mexico doesn't seem to guard it's boarders from the U.S.A does it?

No - because the US has the cash. The reasons it has the cash are discussed above - obviously, you do not flee from a poor place to another poor place. You go where the money is. Take me - I work in London. Hate the place - dirty, overcrowded, arrogant...but I go there anyway, because I need the money.

Anyway, got to go to lunch...

Have a good lunch. Not a flame war, just a genuine (if somewhat offtopic) discussion.

Later.

I believe the correct answer is ... 'dude.'.

:-)

Re:Ah yes, its nearly Spetember 11th

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you so much, for articulating what has been going through my head for years now.

Re:Ah yes, its nearly Spetember 11th

[dozer]

"Why the rest of the world hate Amercia?" I will assume you ment hates America...
1. All the money we give out every year to keep most 3rd world countries from colapsing?

You mean the money spent to prop up corrupt and failing puppet democracies?

Also, you snidely corrected a previous poster's silly grammatical error, then went on to make one yourself in the very next sentence. FYI.

2. The constant military help we give countries who need it?

You mean like Cambodia? Nicaragua? WWII was a long time ago. Since then, with one possible exception, our military interventions have almost certainly done more harm than good.

6. Having a country where a "common" class person can become the richest person in the world? Granted I don't like Bill Gates.

You're proud of this?! Professional ball players whine about only making a few million dollars a year, CEOs rake in tens of millions as they steer their companies into the ground, directors vote themselves loans that they have no intention of repaying, etc. America has many strengths but let me assure you that gross equity imbalance is not one of them!

7. A country where EVERY child has the ability to get an education?

What suburb do you live in? We're making progress towards this every year, and one day this will be true. Today, though, most parents need to start financial planning for their child's college education before the child is even born. It's sickening.

9. A country that produces enough food to not only feed themselves but a large part of the world?

I'm pretty sure that terrorists aren't plotting against us because of our agricultural output...

3. A government run by the people for the people? Granted it could be better.
4. Having our women on equal ground with our men in every aspect of our lives?
5. Having most of our diverse religous and ethnic backgrounds get along together?
8. A country that thoughsands of people are fleeing to every year?

These are different manifestations of the single greatest thing about our country. Let us never forget it.

10. A country where people could protest against the government and ANY political official and NOT get shot or have family members killed?
... Nice to be able to type something like that and not have to worry about the government killing me.

Amen, brother.

Re:Ah yes, its nearly Spetember 11th

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes it might be all of the above or...

1. The fact that you prop up dictatorships that tow your line (Saudi Arabia, Egypt - they put a 70 year old guy away for ten years because he monitored a rigged election)

2. The fact that you killed/maimed millions in South America in the name of ideology. Stopping people voting for governments that would help them. Putting puppets in their place (Pinochet, Nicaragua).

3. The fact that you DENY medicines to children in Iraq. Millions of children are dying from illnesses that are not fatal in other countries, even countries like Somalia.

4. For your unrelenting support of a country like Israel. You arm it to the teeth, provide it intelligence and let it violate every human right a Palestinian was entitled to. You support the invasion of Lebanon by Israel. The West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan heights do not belong to Israel. Yet thanks to your corrupt (soft money, special interest groups) polital system you do not even say a word against this injustice.

5. Your environmental policies (Kyoto), the fact that you won't suffer a drop in living standards so that the world can be allowed to heal.

6. Your wanting to attack a country, Iraq, without mandate from the UN, or provocation (25 000 kids dying a month in Iraq is not provocation).

7. The fact that you exploit poor people in developing coutries so you can walk around in Nikes and Addidas.

People don't envy you, they hate you. They see through your marketing, your false sense of justice. The majority of America does not represent what is good with the world, it represents the failure of mankind. The day America falls, that will be the day humanity arises from its misery. Oh, and believe me you will fall but just like Rome, you will crumble from within. I can already see your walls are crumbling even if you are oblivious to it.

Re:Ah yes, its nearly Spetember 11th

[Anonymous Coward]

You're fourteen years old, aren't you.

Re:Ah yes, its nearly Spetember 11th

[Fig, formerly A.C.]

I will assume you ment hates America...

I will assume you meant "meant".

Re:Ah yes, its nearly Spetember 11th

[bucephalis]

" Accept the Jimmy Carter point, but that was quite some time ago now. Things have got worse - demonstrably so in the case of the current Bush. Funded by companies later declared criminal, son of an ex-leader, put in power by a political appointee of his brother. Come on - it's a long way from the ideal, isn't it? "

- A (not so minor) point. The current Bush was NOT put in office by a "political appointee of his brother". Ms. Harris, the FL Secretary of State (I assumed that you didn't mean SCOTUS..)occupied a statewide ELECTED office. She did NOT serve at the pleasure of the FL Gov.
I could go off on a tangent, and point out that he was elected under the then-current Florida law, but I digress....
- Also, those "criminal companies" (not arguing, though I think the term may be vauge) gave to BOTH of the major political parties...

Re:Ah yes, its nearly Spetember 11th

[davesag]

-- 1. All the money we give out every year to keep most 3rd world countries from colapsing?

-That's true - the US does prop up dictatorships like Saudi Arabia, Eygpt, Jordan, etc.

also most us aid goes on marketing of cigarettes, fronts for humint staff, scouting of territory for mcdonalds and extorting slave labour for the gap.

--2. The constant military help we give countries who need it?

-See above. Not to mention the "military help" we're about to give Iraq!

or the help you gave kosovo, or the people who need it like suharto, pinoche, etc

--3. A government run by the people for the people? Granted it could be better.

-Which people are those? Hell, in the last presidential election, they didn't even bother to count all the votes.

the us is not a democracy, it is an oligarchy.

--4. Having our women on equal ground with our men in every aspect of our lives?

-One of the best things about America, and Europe, and our culture. I think we're way ahead of everyone on this one. Good call.

but is there truly equal pay and equal opportunity for advancement for both men and women?

--5. Having most of our diverse religous and ethnic backgrounds get along together?

-Well, "get along" might be pushing it. But America is one of the most tolerant and liberal cultures in the world. Now if we can just keep the "conservatives" from destroying it.

most americans are great in person no matter theirt politics. but your leaders are a corrupt gang of thugs and killers who are lining their own pockets with the blood of millions.

--6. Having a country where a "common" class person can become the richest person in the world? Granted I don't like Bill Gates.

-Bill Gates was a "common" class person? Wasn't he a rich kid that went to Harvard? A few working class folks do win the lottery every year.

people who wil lotteries almost always regret it and end up in a worse position than when they started. steve jobs is a uni dropout who runs one of the coolest companies on earth. who would you rather be?

--7. A country where EVERY child has the ability to get an education?

-The schools for poor kids in America are horrible, Europe has us well beat on this one. We need to work harder. Let's show those snotty Europeans - let's triple school funding until we catch up.

europe is excellent. so much more depth and feeling of community here than in the us. i am sad for countries like australia that have been wavign the us flag so hard it must hurt, and iraq turned around and cancelled half a billion in wheat orders, pointing out that they can hardly go buing food from a country so beligerantly towing the us line.

--8. A country that thoughsands of people are fleeing to every year?

-Like Europe? Thousands of people flee to China every year too. Most people flee poor countries to rich countries, wouldn't you?

and australia, south america, anywhere but the middle east. the us puts their prisoners in cuba, australia puts them in nauru. britian used to put theirs in australia.

--9. A country that produces enough food to not only feed themselves but a large part of the world?

-Our socialist farming system has worked very well. Didn't ADM, supermarket to the world, just get a huge subsidy in the "Farm Bill" this year? Of course, America does not feed the world. Hell, most poor countries are sending us food! (See Haiti, Zimbabwe, (sp?), etc.)

exactly. the us didproduce terminator crops though and some poor farmer got sued for patent infringement because some seeds of some other bastard plant had fallen into his own pastures and contaminated his crops. but the us want fair trade and to give food aid. never mind the food aid given is always non-renewable. a bit like army rations,a nd probably made in manilla along with marks & spencers sandwiches and imac superdrives.

--10. A country where people could protest against the government and ANY political official and NOT get shot or have family members killed?

-Freedom of speech is one of the things that makes America great. We are well ahead of Europe on this one. Now, let's just keep the "conservatives" from censoring political speech, and we'll be fine.

oh come on. the press has been full of people in the us being lynched for their religion or creed. especially post 11/9

-IMHO, Bill Clinton was a scumbag, but he was loved and cheered all over the world.

-IMHO, Bush is a scumbag, but he is booed and protested all over the world. I guess that's why he stays at his ranch and plays golf all the time.

-The main reason that people around the world hate the US is not envy, its the BOMBS.

-Remember?

there are many reasons why people hate america.

don't get me wrong i think americans are great and their country is beautiful. but your leaders are crazy and in charge of weapons of mass destruction and that scares people. they think about what you did to cambodia - and the fact that rummy was sec of defence then too, and kissinger is still there behind the scenes.

Re:Ah yes, its nearly Spetember 11th

[neocon]

So what's your suggestion? That we should be making policy decisions based on what we think will make a madman like Osama bin Laden like us? Really?

I mean, what? He thinks women should be flogged if they step out of doors unescorted, and we believe in equal rights for women, so we compromise and only flog our women on tuesdays and thursdays?

Appeasement doesn't work. It never has, and it never will. It's also morally despicable.

Re:Ah yes, its nearly Spetember 11th

[neocon]

Um, no, no it isn't. Thanks for playing.

Re:Ah yes, its nearly Spetember 11th

[neocon]

for somone to be rich someone else has to be poor. western countries keep 3rd world countries in poverty through foriegn debt.

While this is a common claim by the left, any serious economist would point out that economics is not, in fact, a zero sum game. A free economy tends to grow on its own, as new technologies and processes emerge -- it does not grow by taking resources from elsewhere. If this were not true, how do you explain that the world economy taken as a whole is constantly growing. Are we taking resources from other planets, too?

No, third world nations are poor because they pursue backwards and oppressive economic policies which prevent growth. It's that simple. (And if you don't believe that, note that third world countries such as India or Korea which adopted free-market economies are doing quite well, thank you).

The rest of your post simply descends into incoherence. Perhaps if you rephrase it more clearly, it will become obvious to you how silly it is...

Re:Ah yes, its nearly Spetember 11th

[xyzzy-ladder]

A common mistake made by "conservatives" who never got past Econ 101. An economy is not a zero sum game - but finance is. For there to be a credit, there must be a debt. Ever heard of banking? Also, there are certain resources that are finite or near finite (like real estate for instance), as well as certain resources that have an inelastic demand curve (like health care).

India and Korea do not have "free market economies" - both of them are typical of western style centralized capitalism - where the state subsidizes industry.

The main thing I don't get about the "third world debt issues" is this - Western banks lent money to dictators, who used the money for themselves, but these Western banks expect the people of the country to pay them back? Sounds like they made bad loans.

And isn't the person making the loan supposed to take the RISK?

Re:Ah yes, its nearly Spetember 11th

[neocon]

You speak of risk, but I certainly don't see the US or any other nation going around demanding repayment for these loans. We have, for all intents in purposes, eaten the loss on these, and the only time they become an issue is in our obvious reluctance to throw good money after bad by extending more loans to these nations, based only on their having switched dictators.

The fact is, giving up on these loans and saying that we would consider these nations to have a blank slate would be an act of charity, no more, and no less. And as such, as with any act of charity, we should consider it, and we should consider its costs.

It is certainly not something that we `owe' to anyone.

As for economics in general, your understanding is incorrect both in general (there is, in fact, much more real monetary value flowing around today than in the past, for the simple reason that due to economic growth there is more real value backing these transactions), and in the particulars (even healthcare is remarkably elastic -- as people live longer and come to expect a higher standard of living, their healthcare needs expand).

Re:Ah yes, its nearly Spetember 11th

[Anonymous Coward]

Hah, yeah, we envy you. Mmmmm hmmm.

In the sense that the opressed would prefer to be the opressors then, yes, many people envy the US.

Re:Ah yes, its nearly Spetember 11th

[xyzzy-ladder]

If you don't see the US demanding repayment (usually, "maintenance or refinancing") then you are not looking. Most third world debtor government transfer a significant amount of wealth from their people to US lenders.

A most important point - most of the creditors are US and Europe based corporations, not the US government. The debtors are not the people of a nation, but the government, often illegitimate.

Nice dodge on the economics, but the point is that finance is a zero sum game, which is what "liberals" are talking about. I believe it was Rush Limbaugh who started the "liberals believe in a zero sum economy" meme, and it has been parroted by the "conservatives" for years now.

Health care is remarkably elastic - tell that to someone waiting at the emergency room.

Re:Ah yes, its nearly Spetember 11th

[Ataru]

You said it better than I could.
Thankyou.

Re:Ah yes, its nearly Spetember 11th

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, well I too live in NH, in Nashua, and I hear from anti-Shaheen commercials and newspapers and hell even highschool students that an problematic amount of dropouts here in NH. What I find funny is the idea that they try to take away the pretense of freedom that is available to students. That only increases spite, rather they should place more liberal guidelines and remove some dramatic rules and win back the students. THE REAL QUESTION IS WHY DOES EVERYONE CONSIDER NASHUA TO HAVE A GHETTO?!?!?!? EVERYONE LIVES IN SUBURBIA AND THEY NO IT!

Re:Ah yes, its nearly Spetember 11th

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill Gates was a Harvard dropout.

Re:Ah yes, its nearly Spetember 11th

[mr100percent]

The US shouldn't do this to appease anybody like Bin Laden, besides the fact that he's too extreme.

Instead, the US should try doing more of "the right thing." Stick up for world peace and democracy, less for money. Stop bullying other countries, and giving bad ones guns. Let dictators be replaced by their people, instead of using military to hold them there.

Pull the US troops out of places where they're not wanted, like Saudi Arabia, and Al Quaeda will crumble under its lack of issues.

Re:Ah yes, its nearly Spetember 11th

[neocon]

First off, al Qaeda has never been about `issues' -- their worldview is diametrically opposed to ours, and they have always picked and chosen issues as needed to justify their terroristic goals. Put differently, do you really think that someone who still lists the loss of Spain in 1492 as a central grievance (the `tragedy of Andalusia', he calls it) is going to stop attacking us based on a few troop movements?

Furthermore, I would argue that the US has an incredibly strong track record of doing the right thing, and not of fighting for `money' at all (what money? We have the world's strongest economy right here at home!). If you'd like us to believe otherwise, you'll need to provide evidence, not assertions...

Re:Ah yes, its nearly Spetember 11th

[mr100percent]

I don't know if the US government has always been about doing "the right thing."

I'm tempted to bring up Vietnam, but that was another time and administration. Instead, look at the Gulf War. I don't think the US really cared much about the Kurds, it was more about creating stability in the area, so we could continue our Oil purchases. Leaving the US military in Saudi Arabia is what makes Bin Laden personally mad, they're holding him back from reforming the government there. I haven't heard much about the poor Kurds, even though Hussein wants to kill them off. Did we forget them?

Sure, our economy is strong, but look how much it ground to a halt during the Oil Crisis a while back.

Re:Ah yes, its nearly Spetember 11th

[neocon]

First off, before you bring up Vietnam, you are aware that more Vietnamese were killed by Ho Chi Minh's thugs in the first three years of `peace' after the war than had died in the entire previous twenty-five years of warfare, aren't you?

No, the only thing tragic about the Vietnam war is that three presidents in a row were too arrogant to make the case to the American people that what we were doing there was right and necessary, and too timid to use the force necessary to win the war.

As for the gulf war, we certainly didn't go to war for `the Kurds', as it was Kuwait which Mr. Hussein had invaded, but this doesn't change the fact that we answered a request for help from a nation which had been invaded and from its neighbors which were about to be. If, while saving them from tyranny and declawing (though clearly not sufficiently) a tyrant who was armed with biological and chemical weapons we also protected our own oil supply, well hey, `bonus!'.

As for the Kurds, you are aware that US troops and airmen are even now the only guarantors of the level of autonomy enjoyed by the Kurdish areas in northern Iraq, right? Just because you haven't read the newspaper enough to have `heard much' doesn't mean that our men out there putting themselves in harm's way to prevent Mr. Hussein from committing genocide haven't...

Don't fool yourself into believing that Osama Bin Laden is attacking us because of the gulf war either -- as I said, someone who lists events from the fifteenth century AD as grounds to attack our civilians isn't going to stop just because of a few troop movements.

And by the way, the world economy has changed a lot since the seventies. Russia is already producing more Oil than any of the OPEC nations, and is bringing more capacity on by the year, and with Russia gone as a customer, the Saudis can't afford not to sell to us -- it's not like they have any other source of income.

Re:Ah yes, its nearly Spetember 11th

[Howzer]

Hello again neocon, I've been a bit long time no post. Sorry about that - real life has been fun for a change.

As for the post above, let me say that today it isn't the facts. Today I agree with all your calls to fact. It's just your conclusions today.

And even the conclusions are leading in the right direction. Follow the money my friend, follow the money. You're almost there!

And with that cryptic and entirely too "deep throat" sounding post, my time in this crappy internet cafe is up. Apologies. I have more and will post it another time. I have enjoyed our discussions! Being on "holiday" in a part of the world that demonstrates simply by walking out the door much of what you and I have discussed (no secret which side of the argument the real world illustrates here) makes me magnanimous! *grin*

Connect the Dots

[cioxx]

It's like a Beowulf Cluster of Terrorism.

(In theory) one can replace a single cluster with an equivalent of Windows ME and you'll achieve a trainwreck of a network which will spiral out of control.

Evildoers will be defeated with 9x.

Re:Connect the Dots

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows ME ...
...spiral out of control.

Or grind to a halt.

yaaawn...

[archeopterix]

So this guy has read some news, created a graph of terrorists connections and ran some statistics on it. Result: the graph is sparse but has shortcuts. Pretty pictures, though.

Re:yaaawn...

[Rudy Rodarte]

I remember when I had the time read the news and waste a few hours doing things like this... Ah, college, fun $17,000 a year at a time.

Re:yaaawn...

[Anonymous Coward]

Result: the graph is sparse but has shortcuts

Ahhh! Now i know why my attempts at creating a terrorist network have failed!!! I thought that a fully connected graph will work best!!! I never thought of making the network sparse, thanks for the advice!!!!

prediction

[joss]

Since the terrorists accomplished so much with so little, they are obviously not stupid [insane - sure, but not stupid]. The next atrocity will be carried out by a bunch of people with good old whitebread names. Anybody called Mohammed Al'whatever is under too much suspicion these days to fart in public. The next big thing will be carried out by a bunch of people with names [possibly changed by deedpole] like Joe White, Billy Bob Bobbit etc.

Re:prediction

[Jacer]

I don't like the automatic assumption that they're insane based on the fact they've commited an act of terrorism. It's just a bit of culture shock. I'm sure if you grew up in the same enviroment you'd detest the U.S.A. as well, for anyone living outside of the country, we're a bunch of arrogant pricks. I don't advocate violence, however, I think we could learn a lesson of values from Sept. 11th. We could give two shits about anyone else dying, our bombings kill innocent people all the time, with no remorse on our part, hell, we're so happy to kill anyone in our bombings we don't care who we hit. We're at war with a country because of a band of terrorists, sick isn't it. We want to kill one man, but our bloodlust is so HUGE we can't stop there, we need to continue to kill, to exact our vengence, we won't be satisfied until we kill a number of people ten fold of our own, regardless of they're just as innocent as the business people in the WTC. The sad part is that a majority of Americans don't care, I've seen so many bumper stickers reminiscent of "damn towel heads, kill'em all and let god sort them out!" As if having a god exempts you from any sort of punishment. I'm not saying we should turn the other cheek, but we should take a more reasonable approach to solving this, a reasonable approach does not involve nearly a years worth of violence, and military spending in the hundreds of billions, possibly trillions. Anywho, I must be going.

Re:prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

you are well hung up on this terrorist thing guys!

in the uk we've had the ira, funded by?, for years, after each blast you'd just shrug, hey what can you do?

but you americans, wow

i mean despite that you knew bin laden was in afghanistan, despite you thought him public enemy number one for up to 7 years, the cia did not have one guy who could speak afghan in 2001, who is stupid, come on, its you lot

and while we're at it, why are you all so keen on fighting countries, you're not good at it, you normally lose

and why post this rubbish story when the fbi admitted they couldn't open your chief captives hotmail account from his home computer!

give up

try and be the best, not the biggest!

Re:prediction

[Brento]

The next atrocity will be carried out by a bunch of people with good old whitebread names. Anybody called Mohammed Al'whatever is under too much suspicion these days to fart in public. The next big thing will be carried out by a bunch of people with names [possibly changed by deedpole] like Joe White, Billy Bob Bobbit etc.

You mean like the Oklahoma City bombing?

Wait a second, I think you're on to something. The 9/11 attacks were actually carried out by rednecks with names like Billy Bob, but they were wearing disguises to fool us! Aha!

Re:prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

we're a bunch of arrogant pricks

And people who claim to know the will of God aren't? They even claim to know exactly what rewards wait for them after death, that's not arrogant as well?

We could give two shits about anyone else dying

And i suppose outside the US everyone loves and cares for everyone else? People in japan don't lose sleep over the plight of street children in Brazil, People in Norway don't risk their fortunes and lives to end the genocidal civil wars in east africa. Basicly everyone might pay lip service to the plight of the other peoples of the world but no one anywhere really does anything about it.

our bombings kill innocent people all the time

Can you name any war in all of human history where innocent people haven't died? Its war, War is an attrocity we humans inflict on each other, don't ever expect it to be clean or precise.

We want to kill one man

If anyone thinks we kill one guy and we're automatically done is deluded, He is mearly shown on TV so much because he is most visable member of his organization which is the true target of our efforts. Its the same as how people in the middle east burn effigies of American Presidents, People who hate the USA know that just killing the president won't lead to automatic victory.

I've seen so many bumper stickers reminiscent of "damn towel heads, kill'em all and let god sort them out!"

Do you think that you won't find something roughly saying the same thing in any part of the middle east with only yankee transposed in the place of towel heads?

I'm not saying we should turn the other cheek, but we should take a more reasonable approach to solving this

Such as what? Sanctions maybe? So innocent people will die slowly of starvation or common illnesses to force the guily leaders of group to give themseles up? Or how about we send a NYPD squad car over to pick them up? What are they going to say to Bin Ladin? Please come quietly or as least don't kill us with your AK-47s? Or How about we just do nothing? Just wait them out because we are their only target of aggression right? Its not like they would Murder a bunch of Pakastani UN Peacekeepers in Somalia, or wage a gurilla war in Indian Kasmir, or fight to overthrow the lawful governments of More than a few Middle eastern, Former Soviet State, and Asian Nations. No they just hate america right?the fact is they feel their culture is supperior to everyone else's and believe cultures like that of America prevent it from enveloping the world.

Re:prediction

[fizbin]

in the uk we've had the ira, funded by?, for years, after each blast you'd just shrug, hey what can you do?

While I really hate some of the exaggeration that gets played up in the US media (comparing the WTC disaster to Hiroshima, for example), what's the largest loss of life that an IRA attack has ever caused? 29, right? ("Real IRA" car bomb in 1998)

Have one hundred incidents that bad and then tell me that the UK has had comparable experience.

Re:prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

you're missing the point. we're talking 200 years of terrorism here.

Re:prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you name any war in all of human history where innocent people haven't died? Its war, War is an attrocity we humans inflict on each other, don't ever expect it to be clean or precise.

Yes, you're right. Terorrists kill about 7000 civilian in WTC - oups, only 3000 now - and you kill 5000 civilian and 5000 soldiers in afganistan.

That's a good way to solve problems. Ouups, problem is not solved.... Anyway, bombing this fucking Allah-believer cannot be so bad, no ?

Re:prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

You stupid, ignorant, fuck. See, this is partly why people from outside the US dislike the US. Why do you think that just because the "largest" terrorist attack by the various IRA factions is "only" 29, that the Troubles are in some way less important than the WTC attacks?

Have one hundred incidents that bad and then tell me that the UK has had comparable experience.

You dumb fuck. I hope you feel very clever right about now. The IRA has been active since the 1940's, and undertook a course or paramilitary action against targets in both Northern Ireland and the Mainland UK for a period of about 35 years. There have been literally hundreds of bombings, and thousands of shootings, througout that period. We have our "hundreds of incidents", you little shit stain.

Re:prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

And we're supposed to care? I have great feelings for a culture where you are murdered for helping women. Where women are mutilated by their families because they were raped. Where the religious police beat people they see laughing in public. Where the only culture is one of hatred to Americans, or who ever is the current enemy of the religious leaders. Where the only real religion is hate.

You are right about one thing though - the US should pull out of the business of other countries...but then we'll be hated because we stopped helping them. I love dealing with asses like you.

Re:prediction

[xyzzy-ladder]

If you believed everything you heard on television after 9/11, you would think that the CIA had no Afghan speakers, had no people on the ground in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and had no idea that radical Muslims were planning on hijacking planes and running them into buildings.

Of course, that's all nonsense. The CIA has been involved in Afghanistan and Pakistan since at least the early 1980's, Bush had the Taliban at his ranch that summer, gave them $50 million, and US companies and the government had been planning pipelines and other projects for years.

But it's helpful to give those impressions, to secure more money, and especially, to allow the covert agencies (CIA, NSA, FBI, NRO, NI, AI, etc, etc) a free hand and no oversight.

You just have to really WANT to believe it. You need to HAVE FAITH.

Within 15 minutes of the first attack, we were told that Osama bin whatever was the new subject of the two minute hate. A week later the Wall Street Journal had an article about how former President/Vice President/CIA director George H. W. Bush was working for the Binladen family through the Carlyle Group.

It's fun to believe this is a simple war of good vs. evil, but of course it's much more complicated. The best part is that there is a lot of information in the mainstream press, you just have to pay attention.

Sorry for the rant. Go USA! Kill USAMA BL! USA! USA! USA!

Re:prediction

[pizzaman100]

I get real tired of the "Blame America 1st" attitude. We wern't the ones who hijacked airplanes with women and children and slammed them into buildings. We have the legal and moral right to protect ourselves and bring the perpetraters to justice.

Re:prediction

[DNS-and-BIND]

Just remember that America Is Always Wrong, and you and your fellow Chomskyites will have a unchallenging and intellectually safe journey through life.

Re:prediction

[glopuk]

Ok, I'll bite - here's some (probably out of date) death / injury tolls caused by terrorism in the UK to date:

"Over 3,280 people have been killed and over 36,000 injured since 1969 as a result of terrorist campaigns. Over 900 members of the police and Army have been murdered."

Source - UK Government web site. That number is not too far off the WTC toll, and probably accounts for a lot of incidents...

Re:prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't like the automatic assumption that they're insane based on the fact they've commited an act of terrorism.

If flying yourself into a building to commit mass murder isn't insane, than what exactly IS insane in your degenerate mind?

It's just a bit of culture shock.

No, it's shock at the concept that suicide bombings of civilians can even be considered "culture" by seemingly educated individuals.

I'm sure if you grew up in the same enviroment you'd detest the U.S.A. as well,

If I were bombarded by the same "Americans are devils who eat babies" my whole life, yeah. That doesn;t excuse it, though, but merely moves the blame to the so called "cultural leaders" of those countries that use us as a scapegoat for everything from their own theofascist plicies to bad weather.

for anyone living outside of the country, we're a bunch of arrogant pricks.

Everyone in the world is a bunch of arrogant pricks. Visit the EU some day. You'll come back thinking we didn't bomb them enough in WW2.

I don't advocate violence, however, I think we could learn a lesson of values from Sept. 11th.

Wow. We can learn things from 9/11. Wow. You're so deep and cutting edge.

We could give two shits about anyone else dying, our bombings kill innocent people all the time, with no remorse on our part,

Fucking bullshit and you know it. We bend over backwards to avoid things like that, to the extent we put our own troops in increased danger.

hell, we're so happy to kill anyone in our bombings we don't care who we hit.

More fucking propaganda bullshit. Are you really thise stupid and ideological that you believe this crap?

We're at war with a country because of a band of terrorists, sick isn't it.

No, we are at war with a GOVERNMENT that actively harbored and protected the terrorists. That government is smashed and we are now trying to drag that country into the 21st century. ARE YOU REALLY THIS IGNORANT AND STUPID?!?!?!?!

We want to kill one man, but our bloodlust is so HUGE we can't stop there, we need to continue to kill,

From the start this was a fight against the global terror netowrks. ARE YOU REALLY THIS GODDAMNED IGNORANT AND REALLY THIS VACUUMHEADED????

to exact our vengence, we won't be satisfied until we kill a number of people ten fold of our own, regardless of they're just as innocent as the business people in the WTC.

Now you're just in a wastelend of brain damage and so disconnected from reality your only hope left in life is to kill yourself.

The sad part is that a majority of Americans don't care, I've seen so many bumper stickers reminiscent of "damn towel heads, kill'em all and let god sort them out!"

More lies. I commute every day in a major metropolitan area, and have yet to see on sticker like that. You are full of shit and you know it.

[rest of garbage snipped because this ignorant loser simply isn;t worth it anymore].

Remeber: violence is the last refuge of the incompetent... because the competent don't leave it until last.

Re:prediction

[Cyberdyne]

While I really hate some of the exaggeration that gets played up in the US media (comparing the WTC disaster to Hiroshima, for example), what's the largest loss of life that an IRA attack has ever caused? 29, right? ("Real IRA" car bomb in 1998)

Have one hundred incidents that bad and then tell me that the UK has had comparable experience.

2,711 deaths in Northern Ireland up to 1988, versus recent figures of under 3,000 for the WTC. Close enough, I think?

Re:prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope.

You're totally, 100% in the wrong and the Arabs/Muslims are absolutely in the right.

Until you and the Jews stop your crimes against humnaity and the illegal occupation of Palestine, you deserve everything you get.

Re:prediction

[bblgoose]

I have great feelings for a culture where you are murdered for helping women. Where women are mutilated by their families because they were raped

maybe veering a little off topic here, but that reminded me of a story in our paper this morning...extract:
A jealous butcher cut off his wifes leg for "exposing herself" to a gynaecologist just after giving birth to twins. Crazed Adamu Hussaini, 52, became convinced exhausted wife Amina, 27, was flirting with the doctor who examined her.
When they got home he tied her to their bed and cut off her leg with his butchers knives. Neighbours called police when they heard screams. Hussaini told police "I wanted to teach her a lesson" Any you want to be nice to these people?

Re:prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's shock at the concept that suicide bombings of civilians can even be considered "culture" by seemingly educated individuals.

What about non-suicide bombings of civilians, from say, an airplane? Can that be considered "culture"?

Re:prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

And the greater part of Palestine that is in Syrian hands now..?

Re:prediction

[neocon]

Care to provide any backing for the numbers you claim? At all?

All serious estimates of civilan deaths in Afghanistan suggest a number around 1,100 -- see the section on civilian casualties at the end of this article for details.

The fact is, we've put a tremendous amount of effort into making sure that we hit only the terrorist network which did this to us, and did not hit civilians, including putting our own men on the ground in harm's way to designate targets, and providing so much food aid that more food was getting into Afghanistan during the air campaign than had gotten in at any time in the previous ten years.

Can you point me to any nation in the world's history that has fought a war so humanely?

Re:prediction

[neocon]

Thank you. You've just demonstrated the bankrupcy of your position better than anyone else here could have.

Re:prediction

[neocon]

So let me get this straight -- we go out of our way to avoid hitting civilians, while fighting a war we didn't ask for, including putting our own men on the ground in harm's way to more accurately designate targets. Meanwhile, our enemies go out of their way to kill as many civilians as possible, because they believe that killing civilians is the morally right thing to do. And you don't see any difference?

Really?

Re:prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who really believes that the US tries to avoid civilian deaths while bombing cities is just ignorant. The US purposefully targets civilians, they admit as much in their planning documents, and the record is crystal clear.

However, they don't admit it on tv, and make a great show out of how we tried so hard to minimize the collateral damage. Why otherwise intelligent people believe it, I have no idea.

Re:prediction

[neocon]

The US purposefully targets civilians,

Care to provide any reference supporting this claim? For that matter, can you explain why, if we are in fact targeting civilians, we're doing such a poor job of hitting them (about 1,100 civilians dead in Afghanistan, for example -- see the section on civilian casualties at then end of this article for details)?

they admit as much in their planning documents

Again, care to provide any reference backing this claim up? Otherwise, you're just blowing hot air.

Re:prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

Three - Serbia, under Clinton, "civilian infrastructure" - i.e., building with civilians in them, were purposefully targeted. You might agree with this one, since you can just blame Clinton.

Japan - you're not really going to say that we only meant to hit military targets in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are you? Come one, not even a "neocon" could say that with a straight face.

Nicaragua - why don't you check out http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/

Anything else?

Re:prediction

[neocon]

On the contrary, very few targets in Serbia which were not dual-use were targeted, and great care was taken to hit buildings at their point of zero or least occupancy. Where this was not considered sufficient to avoid civilian casualties, explicit warnings were given to the Serbs to make sure that the buildings would be evacuated.

Sure, there are at least two known cases where the Serbian leadership under Milosevic intentionally concealed these warnings, to cause civilian deaths for propaganda purposes, but if we had wanted to cause civilian deaths, I assure you, a lot more Serbs would be dead. As is, very few died.

As for Japan, I find it rather telling that you feel the need to go back almost sixty years to find an example of what you claim is commonplace, but at any rate, it is clear that the number of civilians killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a small fraction of the number of Japanese civilians who would have died in the island-by-island attack on the Japanese home islands which would have been necessary without these bombings. In other words, these bombings saved millions of civilian lives, plus hundreds of thousands of American and Japanese soldiers.

Which brings us to Nicaragua, where faced with a totalitarian dictatorship which was not only terrorizing its own population, but was staging guerilla attacks on neighboring countries in which hundreds died, we backed a local rebellion which fought for and won the right to free elections. The people overwhelmingly voted the rebels into power in an election which even Jimmy Carter and the UN had to admit was free and fair, and the dictator Ortega retired to an apartment Managua, where he now writes romance novels for a living. Sure sounds like a win to all concerned for me -- what's your complaint here?

Re:prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

Dual Use? - I see, a tv station full of civilians is "dual use". So, if you define a civilian as "dual use" then it counts as a non-civilian? The rhetoric becomes clear.

Japan is brought up all the time, because Americans still haven't admitted to themselves that they are guilty of one of the biggest mass murders of civilians in history.

All non-government sources throughout the world state clearly that the majority of civilian casualties in Nicaragua (and Honduras) were the result of the US and the US proxies. Them's the facts, ignore them at will.

Re:prediction

[Ataru]

"And people who claim to know the will of God aren't?"

You are making one hell of a straw man argument here. All of the muslims I know are perfectly reasonable, in fact thoroughly decent people. They don't go around inciting religious violence.
They complain about their leaders a lot. In a similar way, I don't have a problem with US people in general, but I do have a problem with the leadership.
Please, if you are interested in the truth, in humanity, go and find yourself a muslim friend. You will be a better person for it.
Peace,
Andrew.

Re:prediction

[Ataru]

1,100 innocent people. Innocent. Do two wrongs make a right? I got married recently, and frankly, the idea of you lot bombing a fucking wedding reception makes me incandescent.
Not one of the 9/11 perps was from Afghanistan. Not a single one.
You dropped food aid onto minefields. Fucking nice of you, that was.
You idiots wouldn't know humane if someone bayonetted it into your "ass"es.
I fear for your souls,
Peace,
Andrew.

Re:prediction

[neocon]

Dual Use? - I see, a tv station full of civilians is "dual use". So, if you define a civilian as "dual use" then it counts as a non-civilian? The rhetoric becomes clear.

Or empty of civilians, as the case may be -- hey, why let something as simple as facts get in the way of your argument -- but yes, a transmitter used for both military and civilian communications is a dual-use target.

What I find interesting is that neither Milosevic's government nor the post-Milosevic Yugoslav government have claimed any great number of civilian casualties occurred. You clearly want us to believe that you know something that they do not. Perhaps you can tell us why we should believe this?

Japan is brought up all the time, because Americans still haven't admitted to themselves that they are guilty of one of the biggest mass murders of civilians in history.

Again, as any serious historian would tell you, the number of civilians who would have died in the attack on the Japanese home islands would have numbered in the millions. A little over one hundred thousand died in the two A-Bomb attacks. If you want us to believe that the former number would have been preferable, you will have to say why...

All non-government sources throughout the world state clearly that the majority of civilian casualties in Nicaragua (and Honduras) were the result of the US and the US proxies. Them's the facts, ignore them at will.

The people of Nicaragua don't say so, at all -- they've re-elected those `proxies' (actually local freedom-fighters who sought and received US aid) again and again, in elections that even the UN and Jimmy Carter have certified as fair and open. But here, once again, you would have us believe that you know something about the matter which they do not. Again, you'll have to provide sources if you want us to believe that...

Re:prediction

[Ataru]

So if I kill 29 innocent Americans every few months, you won't mind?
Yee-haw!
OK, so obviously I would take GWB and 28 of his cronies.
Awww, shit, that lot wouldn't be "innocent"...
Damn...

Re:prediction

[neocon]

Again, if you see no difference between a civilian killed because he was the target of attackers who killed 3,000 civilians while aiming for 50,000, and a civilian killed despite the best efforts of soldiers on the ground to avoid hitting him, you are a half-wit.

But if you insist on doing everything by comparing numbers without context, you need to consider how many fewer Afghans have died of hunger or of disease due to US food-aid and vaccination programs there over the last year -- by anyone's numbers, its a lot more than 1,100.

Re:prediction

[neocon]

By the way, the `dropping food aid onto minefields' claim is a lie, which started with the Chomskyites. If you have any credible evidence of this, fire away, but even the Taliban never claimed this.

And, by the way, most of the 9/11 terrorists passed through Afghanistan for training -- but if your point is that we should also be going after `Saudi' Arabia, where 15 of the 19 originated, or Iraq, whose intelligence services met with Mohammad Atta in Prague not long before the attacks, we're in complete agreement...

Re:prediction

[Ataru]

>"aiming for 50,000"

What? Evidence?

>"a civilian killed"

Nice that you compare your 3,000 to their one.

>"if you insist on doing everything by comparing numbers without context"

Perhaps I did not make myself clear. Comparing numbers doesn't help anyone. Two wrongs do not make a right. Did you not learn that in kindergarten?

"you need to consider how many fewer Afghans have died of hunger or of disease due to US food-aid and vaccination programs there over the last year"

Respect is due, of course. Of course, many other nations have done their part.

"by anyone's numbers, its a lot more than 1,100."

But your nation has to subtract 1,100 (or whatever the true figure is) from that, really, don't you?
Peace,
Andrew.

Re:prediction

[Ataru]

How about you providing evidence about your "Chomskyites" accusation?

No, my point is not that the US should go after Saudi Arabia, but if there are some individuals in S/A that are responsible, then they clearly have a case to answer. Inflicting destruction on whole countries is not the way forward.
BTW, perhaps you would like to inflict pain on the whole of the Czech Republic for allowing the (alleged) Atta meeting to occur?
Peace,
Andrew.

Re:prediction

[Spleener12]

We could give two shits about anyone else dying, our bombings kill innocent people all the time, with no remorse on our part, hell, we're so happy to kill anyone in our bombings we don't care who we hit. We're at war with a country because of a band of terrorists, sick isn't it. We want to kill one man, but our bloodlust is so HUGE we can't stop there, we need to continue to kill, to exact our vengence, we won't be satisfied until we kill a number of people ten fold of our own, regardless of they're just as innocent as the business people in the WTC.

Do not BEGIN to compare the US to the people we are fighting now. Yes, innocent people die in our bombings. But when that happens, it is an accident. Unlike the terrorists, we are not intentionally targeting innocent civilians. The reason why we are at war with an entire country is (officially) because they are(or were, anyway) harboring these terrorists. Of course, even if they weren't, I think that the Taliban should have gotten their asses kicked anyways, just because of the oppresive fundamentalist regime that was causing the deaths of many innocent women (I'm sure you remember the chain letters that circulated around a while before 9/11 about that situation). In my opinion, any regime that oppresses and kills its people should be destroyed, and replaced with a just government. This includes a lot of fundamentalist countries in the middle east (Pakistan, Iraq, etc.) and pretty much all the communist countries (China, Cuba, etc.) And the US is in the best position to do this.

And... yeah, there's my two cents.

Re:prediction

[Tassach]

Bankrupt? Hardly. As a wiser man than I once said,

By nature's law, man is at peace with man till some aggression is committed, which, by the same law, authorizes one to destroy another as his enemy." ( Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Edmond C. Genet, 1793.)

Note that this goes both ways. However, waging war is the province of governments, not individuals. If the people of a country decide that they have just cause to wage war on another country, then they need to force their government to take action. Likewise, if they feel that war is not justified, they should insure that the lunatic fringe that insists on waging an unwanted and unauthorized war is delt with properly.

The criminal attempts of private individuals to decide for their country the question of peace or war, by commencing active and unauthorized hostilities, should be promptly and efficaciously suppressed." (Thomas Jefferson, Sixth annual message, 1806)

However, in our zeal to defend our homes, our families, and our Nation against those who seek to destroy us, we must not lose sight of what it is we are trying to defend and the ideals that make us great.

If we are forced into war, we must give up political differences of opinion and unite as one man to defend our country. But whether at the close of such a war, we should be as free as we are now, God knows. In fine, if war takes place, republicanism has everything to fear. (Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1799)

America is not perfect. We can and do screw up, often in a spectacular fashion. Our government doesn't always live up to the ideals on which it was founded, nor does it always follow it's own laws. It is our duty, as American citizens, to hold our government accountable when it suffers a lapse in judgement. That being said, it is my considered opinion that the US does the Right Thing more often than not; that overall we do more good than harm. I would maintain that our overall track record is better than that of any other major world power, past or present.

Re:prediction

[xyzzy-ladder]

You are ignorant of the fact of Nicaragua, as well as Japan.

Please explain why the US had to bomb two cities full of civilians to stop the war between Japan and the US. Oh I suppose that the historians who don't like the idea of bombing cities full of women and children are not "serious" while those who do like the idea of women and children being slaughtered are "serious".

You morality is on the level of suicide bombers in Palestine. How do you sleep at night?

Let me ask you a question - have you ever been to Nicaragua? Have you ever spoken to anyone from Nicaragua? I doubt it.

As I said before, every single non-government source in the world has said that the US and the US proxies did most of the killings, but obviously facts don't matter too much to your kind.

You are a disgrace to America, and I am ashamed of you. I hope the non-US people on this board realize that you don't speak for the majority.

Re:prediction

[commodoresloat]

But when that happens, it is an accident. Unlike the terrorists, we are not intentionally targeting innocent civilians.

Or, better: unlike the terrorists, we are not ever going to admit to intentionally targeting innocent civilians. It's only an accident if you don't know it's going to happen, and it only happens when you make a mistake. How many times do we have to bomb the crap out of a country before we start to realize that innocent civilians are going to get killed every time we do it? If you're on the receiving end of an immensely one-sided bombing campaign, from a country your country never attacked, are you going to forgive the bombers because your family died and your neighborhood was destroyed in an accident?

The reason why we are at war with an entire country is (officially) because they are(or were, anyway) harboring these terrorists.

OK, so they're not anymore? So why are we at war with the entire country now? And where the hell are the terrorists who blew up our buildings? Why haven't we killed them yet, and instead killed thousands of others whose only crime appears to have been that they are easier to kill than the terrorists?

In my opinion, any regime that oppresses and kills its people should be destroyed, and replaced with a just government. This includes a lot of fundamentalist countries in the middle east (Pakistan, Iraq, etc.) and pretty much all the communist countries (China, Cuba, etc.) And the US is in the best position to do this.

Sure we are, until we squander our national wealth keeping the world under the barrel of our gun, and our empire simply disintegrates from within. If we went after all the regimes that "oppresses and kills its people" you'd have to include a lot of our "friends" in the world - Saudi Arabia, you mention Pakistan yourself, India, Colombia, Russia, and on and on. Replace it with a just government? Who decides what is just? John Ashcroft? No thanks; if you want to go on a crusade to convert the rest of the world to your ideology, go for it, but keep your filthy hands off my tax dollars.

Re:prediction

[neocon]

"aiming for 50,000"
What? Evidence?

50,000 was the normal occupancy of the two towers of the world trade center (minus tourists), and was cited by Osama Bin Laden in one of the tapes as the highest number of casualties they could hope for.

"a civilian killed"
Nice that you compare your 3,000 to their one.

I'm not sure what your beef is here -- the comparison is not in who, but in how. Go read the post again, if you're finding it confusing.

"if you insist on doing everything by comparing numbers without context"
Perhaps I did not make myself clear. Comparing numbers doesn't help anyone. Two wrongs do not make a right. Did you not learn that in kindergarten?

If we do nothing, their will be another attack, an attack which, with the aid of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons could kill many times more people than died on September 11. Given a choice between this, and our action in Afghanistan which has not only served to dismantle a large part of the terrorist network which made these attacks possible, but also as a side effect saved thousands of Afghan lives and freed the Afghan people from one of the harshest dictatorships the world has recently seen, I'd say it's pretty clear that what we did was, in fact, quite right, thank you very much...

Re:prediction

[neocon]

The difference, of course, is that we are not talking about punishing the Saudis for the fact that 15 of the 19 September 11 terrorists were from `Saudi' Arabia, but rather for the huge amounts of financial support which they have provided Al-Qaeda as protection money (``here's a buck, kid, go mess with the US instead of with us'').

Independently of whether we need to take action to prevent further such payments, what we should certainly be doing is cutting our ties to the oppressiuve regime there.

Re:prediction

[neocon]

Please explain why the US had to bomb two cities full of civilians to stop the war between Japan and the US. Oh I suppose that the historians who don't like the idea of bombing cities full of women and children are not "serious" while those who do like the idea of women and children being slaughtered are "serious".

The fact remains, for all your whining, that in the absence of these bombings, the Japanese government was not willing to surrender, and an island-by-island invasion would have been necessary. The death toll of such an invasion would have dwarfed that of the two atomic bomb attacks. If you are convinced that there are serious historians who believe otherwise, I welcome you to cite their work -- Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky are not people who I would consider serious, however.

Let me ask you a question - have you ever been to Nicaragua? Have you ever spoken to anyone from Nicaragua? I doubt it.

In fact, I have spoken with Nicaraguans, but this is beside the point -- the fact remains that the Nicaraguan people, far from believing as you claim (without citations, mind you) that the Contras were their enemies, have voted them into office again and again.

As I said before, every single non-government source in the world has said that the US and the US proxies did most of the killings, but obviously facts don't matter too much to your kind.

He said, again without citing any of these allegedly plentiful sources...

I hope the non-US people on this board realize that you don't speak for the majority.

Actually, I do -- in poll after poll, the majority of Americans name Reagan as the best president of the post-war era. Kinda burns you up inside, doesn't it?

Re:prediction

[mr100percent]

Oh really? Which country does such atrocities? What country has religious leaders (besides the Vatican)? What religion preaches hate?

I can tell you right now, those people you refer to don't follow Islam. I get the feeling you're implying Saudi Arabia, but I'm not sure, you're really generalizing. They are run by a dictatorship of royalty, not religion. Religion would be an improvement, there wouldn't be human rights violations like there are now.

Oh, and Islam doesn't preach hate. Sure, many people do hate others, but so do Christians. Just because some Muslims are more fanatical than others doesn't mean condemn the entire religion. Baptists aren't a good example of the diverse Christianity in the world, the same as Saudi's aren't a good example of a Muslim country.

Re:prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Stop generalizing.
2. That is so completely against Islam. Who could claim that was a good thing?
3. In other news, a Christian killed a gay man. Any of you want to be nice to Christians?

Re:prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

couldn't have said it better myself.

Thank you, friend.

Re:prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm, so thousands of Afghani civillians died, but how many US troops? If it was more than 50 I'd be very suprised, I didn't hear about it.

If I recall, the US just sent plane after plane to bomb caves and Taliban, not a huge amount of ground troops at risk for that, compared to Vietnam.

What if...

[Renderer of Evil]

...They got it all wrong and actually helped them by Overcloaking the Terrorist Networks?

Re:What if...

[Anonymous Coward]

Shurely you mean "Overclocking the Terrorist Networks"? Imagine a B... oh ok, don't.

Re:What if...

[user32.ExitWindowsEx]

Worse yet....Overclocking the Terrorist Networks

Re:What if...

[Anonymous Coward]

That might actually help if they use the latest generation terroist Networks from Intel(Islamic Nation Terrorist Elite Legion) or AMD(Allah's Militant Detachment) which are know to opperate at very high tempreatures at default settings. By Causing them to overclock without proper cooling precations we might defeat them by causing them to spontainiously melt or catch fire.

Or "Richard Reid"

[BECoole]

They can't change what they are, but they can change their names. For years they have been doing a lot of work with prison inmates. Look for trouble from ex-cons under the direction of Islamic groups.

To Uncloak a Terrorist Network...

[SEWilco]

...just teleport the cloaking device out of the Terrorist Network Operations Center.

Systems like this exist...

[Anonymous Coward]

BOM do software for this investigators which employ this kind of technique.

Color coding of charts

[Tyrone Slothrop]

I know this sounds silly but it really isn't if you are amongst the afflicted, and one in six males has the condition.

I have fairly significant red/green colorblindness. In regards to the present charts, this made some of the "subtler" colors extremely difficult to discern and therefore some of the relationships amongst terrorists were impossible for me to understand and evaluate.

I hope that, when people make these kinds of organizational charts, they choose colors not for prettiness but for maximum contrast. It is a problem I've encountered many times and, considering how prevalent male color-blindness is, I find it very puzzling that color coding is as poorly thought out as it often seems to be.

Aside from that, an interesting article and a good first step towards a public understanding of the details of the 9/11 network.

Re:Color coding of charts

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, what colors do you suggest? Can you list the HEX for 7 colors you can easily discern? Thanks!

Re:Color coding of charts

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Can't give you the hex but here's seven colors:

Black

White

Bright Blue

Bright Yellow

Bright Orange

Bright Red

Light Blue

But even better would be colors and various styles of cross hatchings.

Again, it sounds silly until one is in dark light and you're trying to hook up red and green wires, or if you're an FBI guy (I'm not but you get the idea) trying to discern patterns of relationships between terrorists.

Whos missing?

[oliverthered]

A quick search throught the page for the name osama returned no results with the last name bin-laden.

Re:Whos missing?

[astar]

I looked in the same way and did not find bin-laden. This made me think the author was an honest man, since there is no reliable public information connecting bin-laden except his possibly self-serving own bragging. When you parse the bragging, it is not quite a consistent claim, but an expression of pleasure.

US allies have complained that we have not made a case to them that it was bin-laden. And all our extradition cases are failing because we do not have the evidence to convince an *independent* court of law. Note that domestically our government avoids such forums.

That said, the flaw in the author's analysis is that it is the wrong technique. The first thing you should ask in case of a Riechstag fire is who benefits. In this case, it is the clash of civilizations/arc of crisis crowd. More generally, when the economy goes, you *always* get stuff like this.

In the end, nothing the feds have done would have prevented 9/11 and nothing they have done will prevent a repeat of some sort.

Re: "Richard Reid"

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason this one wasn't spotted was due to the stupidity of law enforcement. I mean, come on. An islamic-looking man with the name of Reid? That sure looks suspicious to me.
Reid is a Scottish name, folks!! And he sure as hell didn't look like a Scottsman.

Re: "Richard Reid"

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, well, I knew a guy named O'Halloran who looked (and sounded) just like Apu, straight out of the Kwik-e-mart. Evidently he had some ancestor who brought the name to India, and a few generations later, that was about all that was left.

Don't read too much into names.

Re: "Richard Reid"

[Anonymous Coward]

And he sure as hell didn't look like a Scottsman.

Was he on a horse?

Re: "Richard Reid"

[Shant3030]

One thing that should not be overlooked... For the terrorists to get new recruits, they have to make sure they are not spies. So any old fanatic wont due because the US has stepped up its human infiltration.

wow

[Adolatra]

It's amazing how far some people will go to convince themselves the bullshit they studied in college was actually useful for something. *weg*

Re:Wow

[TheFlPookies]

Not as cool as "Darius" Jedburg"!

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if he's related to Maynard G?

Hey, you're right

[0xdeadbeef]

And it wasn't posted in Braille either. Assholes.

Re:Hey, you're right

[Tyrone Slothrop]

If 1/6 of all men were blind, it would be very foolish indeed to make it difficult for them to access important.

Terrorist == Modewort

[kris]

Mapping social networks has been done before 9/11, of course. Same with biometry, retinal scans ("Retinal scan, Xander!") and similar things.

But since 9/11, the T word is placated over anything to further interest into particular subjects, independent of the practicality of the idea or its actual field of use.

The german term for this is "modewort" ("in word"?).

Uncloak?

[bgarcia]

"Uncloaking Terrorist Networks"

Damn! The terrorists must have obtained the Cloak of Invisibility first!

Re:Need to uncover the ISRAELI terrorist network..

[E-Rock-23]

I agree as far as needing to get rid of Israel. The only reason the US is involved is because our Judeo-Christian beliefs obligate us to protect "the holy land." For pete's sake, people, it's a fucking hunk of dirt! There's nothing "holy" about it. It's fucking DIRT! Let the Arabs have it, it was theirs to begin with.

If Israel is destined to not have any homeland, so be it. And if getting rid of Israel means peace in the Middle East, I'm all for it. Being a firefighter, you learn that the best way to put a fire out is to attack it at the bottom, the root of the problem, the source of fuel for the fire. It's not rocket science. There's no room for debate. Knock out the source, and the problem goes with it.

Pick up any history book and you'll find that the leading cause of war and death throughout recorded history is RELIGION. Abolish religion, and you eliminate the biggest cause of war. Once people's minds are no longer clouded by the 3000 year old ramblings of an opium smoking camel jockey, they'll start to think for themselves. That just might lead to the realization that killing each other is stupid, and we can move a step closer to humanity coming together as a whole.

I know I'm going to get flamed to hell for this. But since I don't believe in heaven and hell, it kinda works out...

Re:Krebs Cycle?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that Krebs is long dead.

Re:Need to uncover the ISRAELI terrorist network..

[Anonymous Coward]

AMEN!....or whatever you should say to something like that with no religion. Anyway, you're right - it's all about religion. Go figure - god says help your fellow man, and that gets translated to "kill as many people who don't believe the same as you as possible". Religion is great.

Wow

[poot_rootbeer]

I think "Valdis E. Krebs" is the coolest name I have ever heard.

prevented 9/11

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like it's comming around again in a week or so. All eyes on the skys?

Terrorism

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only that is tired of hearing about this stuff?? Its done, its over, we move on.

Chain Letter Spam

[atomhund]

Can anyone think of a farther reaching Social or Orginizational Network?

> Forward this e-mail to all your non-terrorist friends and coworkers (bcc notaterrorist@fbi.gov), and within two days you'll find the love of your life or win the lottery!

Cunning plan to destroy US economy

[SysKoll]

Yeah, them terrorists are really clever. They started littering every US airport with clueless people dressed in an intimidating uniform, who boldly search you, frisk you and detain you at the drop of a hat. They forced a honest woman to drink her own breast milk, they pulled a women from a plane coming back from Vegas because of a sex toy...

Their cluelessness and hardnosedness turns even the shortest travel into a horrendous wasted-day experience, from which exhausted, humiliated passengers emerge swearing they'll drive next time.

And it's working too. Look, three US airline companies are currently under Chapter 11. The damage to the US economy is staggering. Airline losses are piling up, already amounting to tens of billions of dollars.

Oh, wait. The people who turned fast-food joint rejects into unfireable Federal agents are actually the gummint, not Muslim mujahidins. Ahem. Never mind.

-- SysKoll

Re:Cunning plan to destroy US economy

[Anonymous Coward]

But its all for security! *bleh*

I couldn't agree more

[Anonymous Coward]

"two minute hate" are the exact words that came to my mind during the days after 09/11...
It's funny to notice how seeing bin Laden's face on tv is similar to seeing Emmanuel Goldstein's one in 1984 (G. Orwell)

Not Insane

[sjanich]

It is wrong to characterize a completely different world view (Islam, crossed with a proactive/appocolyptic/destiny-seaking streak) from that of Western Liberal Democracy as "Insane".

To belittle ones enemies like that lead to misjudgements of what they can do and why they do.

Now if you want to charaterize them as "evil", I am okay with that.

Re:Not Insane

[susano_otter]

Isn't wilful "evil" a form of insanity? Anyway, the parent comment did not reference Islam at all, but the terrorists themselves. I think we can safely call them madmen with no fear of belittling them.

Re:Not Insane

[callmechowdaz]

I find it refreshing to hear someone respond to a subkect related to terrorism in a manner other than the Ashcroft approved formulaic way, thank you. Although, at the risk of being ridiculed how can any US citizen call this evil? Now think of this relatively, does any one remember what happened 57 years ago? On August 6th 1945 Little Boy was detonated in Hiroshima Japan. It is estimated that 200,000 (inocent) people have died due to that. Now lets compare that to 9-11. Less then 3000 people are assumed dead or missing from that incident. When we consider the monsters let's consider ourselves as one of the worst.

Re:Not Insane

[sjanich]

Morally equivalizing US actions at the end off WWII with Teerorist Actions of Islamic Civilization is absurd.

The US war in the Pacific was a war in reaction against an expansive aggressor nation that killed non combatants across the Asia /Pacific realm. The Japanese Pacific War did not start in 1941, only the US participation did. The war was was fought by and was fully supported by the Japanese public. US use of Atomic weapons helped negate the need for an invasion of the Japanese home islands and for a massive land campeigns in China against the large Japanese Army there. This saved hundreds of thousands of US and Allied lives (I am not concerned with how many of the then-enemy's lives were saved). Thus ended a horrific war started by the Japanese.

Re:Not Insane

[xyzzy-ladder]

The United States had been aggressively expanding in the Pacific for over 50 years before World War II. Did you forget Hawaii, the Phillipines? The US murdered tens of thousands of non-combatants.

Just a few days ago, there was an article posted on this board that explained the US fired the first shots of WWII, against the Japanese. A hot, but low intensity, war between the US and Japan had been going on for over a year before Pearl Harbor.

The US military was outraged that they were blamed for Pearl Harbor, since FDR knew full well about a coming attack (which he himself admitted he wanted).

The US did not need to bomb two cities full of civilians to end hostilities with Japan. That was just pure muderous evil from the psychos who ran our Department of War, and the need to scare the USSR and other countries.

I mean really, does anyone even read history anymore? With the internet and all, there's no excuse to be so ignorant.

Re:Not Insane

[sjanich]

Some "evil" is, but not all "evil is".

Some "evil" acts are due to insanity (maybe not in clinical terms, but in generally accepted people terms).

Other times it is just a matter of World View.

In the case of Muslims who are engaged in an Asymmetric war against US (and Israel, and to a lesser extent the rest of the Western World), The world view of their civilization is 180 degrees from our. So, when they act strongly according to belief system they are not acting crazy. They are acting according to precipts of their belief system. The values of our Civilaztion (Western Liberal Demoracy) are encapulated in documents like like the US Declaration of Independence, Roosevelt's Four Freedoms speech, the US Bill of RIghts, the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These ideas of free choice and free thoughts, equality of oppratunity etc, to mix will with a religous fundementalism that is characterizing Islamic Society.

Notice I say we are fighting an Asymmetric (Fourth Generation) war against Islamic Society. We are not fighting "terrorist". Terrorism is just a tactic.

I don't mind if we belittle them; I am just afraid that we will end up belittling them instead of understanding them. A lot us US Citizens may die until we undertsand what we are fighting.

Re:Not Insane

[sjanich]

Yep, Hawaii was not one of our better moments. Howver, it was certainly not threatening toward Japan.

I don't have a problem with the US taking the Philpeans from the spanish as party of the Spanish American war of 1898. The US mangled things badly afterwards and ended up in a nasty counter-inssurgency war. Not a great moment eigther. Yes innocents were killed. Alot of Civilian fighters were killed. Anyways, the situation was handled poorly by the us. They were mostly thinking about imperial possessions unfortunetly.

Japanese agression in Pacific really starts with the Russian/Japanese war around 1902. Japan had been building up and modernizing it forces for 30+ years by then. They beat the Russian Navy (a surprise attack, without a declaration of war). The land battles didn't go quite as well. The US negotiated the Armistice. In WWI Japan declared war on Germany and grabbed all of its possessions in the Pacific area. The Japanese continued and sucked up large part of CHinese territory (there really wasn't a chinease government then).

You are wrong to suggest that FDR new about the attack on Perl Harbour. That has been well documented elsewhere as untrue. It is true that the US expected that there may be an attack by the Japanese somewhere, but it was assumed it would Singapore or perhaps Manila - there was not any time. We had broke the Jap diplomatic code, but the military didn't use that code. There is plenty a blame to go around though on poor US defensive preparations. Anyways, FDR really saw Germany as the real enemy. He really wasn't focused on the east. Nor where most US policy makers.

As far as the article you mention, that is refewring to a Japanse Midget Submarine that was sunk the morning of the attack as it tried to slip into the harbour. It was not in the open seas minding its own business (like that Japanese ship rammed by a US sub a while back).

I do believe that US forces occasionaly tangled with Japanese sponsered forces in China. The USA had A Marine Regiment in Shanghai. Occasionaly I think there were Army troops also with them. I believe they were pulled out 11/41 because the Japanse aggression was too much (the US didn't want to risk open war) and were sent to the Philepeens.

The Japanese home defense plans have been well documented in recent years. It clearly shows that they had much capability remainigthen we thought.
Furthermore, even after 2 atomic bombs,large parts of the Japanese Leadership wanted to keepfighting.

Re:Not Insane

[xyzzy-ladder]

If you don't have a problem with the US invading and subjugating the Phillipines, then there's no use arguing. Many people consider invading a country and enslaving it's population to be evil, but many people don't. I guess you're the latter.

FDR wanted a war, and did what he could to start one. The story for years has been the US was peacefully minding it's own business, and the evil Japanese attacked us for no reason. Of couse, that's nonsense. The US was an imperial, expansionist power in the Pacific, just like the Japanese.

People will use the BS about Japan to justify the mass murder of civilians in Nagasaki and Hiroshima - the same kind of people who strap bombs on themselves and blow up kids at ice cream parlors.

In one case, it's to "stop an aggressive imperialist Japan" and in the other it's to stop the "evil Zionist occupiers" - in both cases it's people supporting and justifing mass murder of men, women, and children.

Honestly, I don't know how you people can look at yourself in the mirror.

Re:Not Insane

[Anonymous Coward]

With the internet and all, there's no excuse to be so ignorant.

Would it be too cynical if I said this was the funniest thing I've read in ages?

Re:Not Insane

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, FDR wanted that war so bad he made the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor.

And the Phillipines

And Singapore.

And China.

Just like he made Hitler invade Poland.

And Denmark.

And Norway.

And Greece.

And Yugoslavia.

And the Netherlands.

And Belgium.

And Luxembourg.

Yeah, that FDR was something.

Are you really so arrogant as to believe that you know the real truth and everyone else must have been "duped"?

Or are you so insulated from the real world?

Because if you're not that arrogant or that insulated you're the dumbest fucking quivering mass of flesh ever to draw breath - and even that probably taxes your nervous system to the breaking point.

Re:Not Insane

[Tassach]

Seems to me that the unquestioning belief in an imaginary being is a form of insanity, or at the very least self-delusional. Rationalizing your actions on the basis that they are somehow the "will" of this delusional entity is insane.

Re:Not Insane

[Anonymous Coward]

no, not the rest of the Western world. What do Muslims have agains the UK or Germany or Canada? They don't have a bad foreign policy, and they don't bully their power around.

Re:Need to uncover the ISRAELI terrorist network..

[sjanich]

The US does not support the Israel because it is in the "holy land". The US supports Israel becuase it is a Western Liberal Democracy smacj in the middle of a geographic area surrounded by totalitarian nations. It is in the US national interest to promote Democracy (especially the Western Liberal style) throughout the world.

In fact, the only reason that US isn't stronger, is that the US gets much of its oil from those same middle eastern totalitarian nations.

If the US Government is thinking correctly they should be doing this

SHORT-TERM
balancing oil needs with support with israel being low-key (keep the oil flowing, don't let israel be overrun

LONG-TERM
Promote democratic movements in totalitarian middle east countries

21st Century Containmenet policy against Arab/Islamic Civilization.

Reduce Energy dependency on middle east: 1) fund oil exploration and production from Russia/Indonesia/Alaska; 2) reduce home petrol consumption (greater auto fuel efficiency, liability limits for cars using synthtuic, lower weight material); 3) Double Federal Gas Tax (force people to make economic choice against petrol consumption); 4) Tax credits for home and business use of Solar Energy; 5) Tax Credits for high energy effieciency equipment (LED for stoplights and exits signs, etc) 6) Explore Sci-fi dream of Orbital Solar Power satelites setr national goal for deployment of first operational satelite by 2015.

Stalin and Pol Pot must have been religious. . .

[PerlPunk]

... because they seem to be on top of the leading causes of war and death, and genocide.

No, more likely...

[FreeUser]

Anybody called Mohammed Al'whatever is under too much suspicion these days to fart in public. The next big thing will be carried out by a bunch of people with names [possibly changed by deedpole] like Joe White, Billy Bob Bobbit etc.

Nah, their names are much more likely to be more like "John Aschcroft," "Dick Cheney", and "George Bush." Or are jackbooted thugs breaking down your door in the middle of the night and 'detaining' you indefinitely without charges, right to counsel, or the ability to contact your family not something you would consider "terrorizing?"

They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions, but a more accurate metaphore would be something on the order of:

The tools by which a flurishing democracy is turned into a living, authoritarian hell are built from good intentions.

Re:No, more likely...

[neocon]

FUD, and nothing but.

No one is being hauled away in the middle of the night, no one has been held without contact to council (even al-Muhajir has had a lawyer at every step of the way, including now), and no one is being held incommunicado.

In fact, I welcome you to point to a single example of a right you've lost since September 11.

If you can't, you're just blowing hot air.

Interesting!

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been wanting to do an analysis like this for some time. One of the difficulties in doing this is compiling the data. Since all the news sites seem to be going to a subscription or paid login business model it makes it much more difficult to search the archives for this data. It would be nice to find a source of legal and court documents that is freely available.

Mr Krebs' article is a great resource for people wanting to perform our own analysis. However, I think this is a bottom-up approach to the problem. You could also look at it from the top down. Look at who stands to benefit from the event and look for connections between the benefactors and the perpetrators. This is why the financial data is so important. So far, I have not found any good information on who was shorting American Airlines or the insurance company stocks.

In a top-down approach some questions start to come up like what role did James Bath or the Carlyle group play? What natural resources are in Afganistan? Oil and Drugs. Who would stand to benefit from these resources? We know that the CIA likes to fund their covert operations with drugs (Air America, Iran-Contra, etc). Who has connections to the CIA?

I would like to see the other half of the analysis. Also, what software was the analysis performed with? Another interesting analysis would be the relationships between drug smuggling, weapons smuggling, and politicians (world-wide politician, not just American pols). For instance, the networks could be mapped for the Iran-Contra affair. It is interesting that the Iran hostages were released on the day Reagan was sworn in to office! It is also interesting that William Casey died the day before he was supposed to testify before congress on the Iran-Contra affair. Are these coincidences or where the connections that have yet to be uncovered?

Social network analysis has the potential to become a light that reveals corruption. It also has the potential to be the 'magic bullet' of the 21st century.

Re:Interesting!

[Anonymous Coward]

So far, I have not found any good information on who was shorting American Airlines or the insurance company stocks.

No kidding. This is a major smoking gun, and one of the most suspicious dangling threads from 9/11. I've been keeping half an eye on this issue since the start, expecting it to be quietly dropped, and AFAIK it has been.

Nobody wants to find out who really owned those short positions. The American government is probably justifiably worried that it will be someone with connections high up the the Saudi government, and the spread of that information could unbalance the precarious "the Saudi's are our allies" spin.

Of course they're insane

[Anonymous Coward]

You fucking moron.

Even the god damned Nazis didn't publicize and revel in the mass murder of innocents. They at least tried to hide the cold-blooded murder of innocents from public view.

But NO! not these Islamic fucking whackos who dance in the streets of Gaza and Karachi when one of their ilk slams a plane full of innocents into a building just to murder a few thousand more!

There has never in human history been an entire people who publicly revel in mass murder like the current Islamic Arab/Palestinian fuck-head idiots.

When a group of SS guards gassed a bus full of Jews or gypsies or homosexuals, the Nazis didn't publicize it and the German people certainly didn't dance in the streets. But the Arabs and Palestinians do dance when a bomb goes off in a civilian market and kills a baby or two or when planes are hijacked to murder a few thousand in one fell swoop, now don't they?

Sure atrocities happen in war, but until now the human race has never seen an entire population that publicly revels in atrocities directed at noncombatants.

Please name any other populace in the entire history of mankind that would dance in the street when one of their 16-year-olds commits the murder of a two-year-old among others by blowing himself up with a bomb.

If that's not the sign of an evil culture that needs to be extirpated from the face of the earth, nothing is.

Re:Of course they're insane

[xyzzy-ladder]

The Arab/Muslim cultures can be brutal - cutting of people's hands, grisly death sentences, sanctioned rapel. It's disgusting.

But what's really disgusting is my fellow Americans who point the finger at other cultures, and refuse to look at our own culture.

Ever heard of "lynching"? It's been 50 years since lyching was common in the country, but most people don't realize what it was. It wasn't just hanging black men and women - it was cutting of their hands, genitals, skin, setting them on fire, and selling pieces of their body as mementos. Children! were brought to watch the festivities. Search sometimes for pictures of lynching and see white Americans smile for the camera in front of charred, mutilated corpses - and then tell me how bad the Muslims are.

Of course, there was the white Americans who dragged a black man behind their truck to death just a few years ago.

I remember the first Gulf War - my friends and I sat CHEERING as bombs were dropping on Iraqis. The Muslims have NOTHING on the US.

Re:Of course they're insane

[Ataru]

Wooo---hooo! We kicked them Iraqi towel-heads! we ripped 'em new assholes! I got myself a choice piece of Iraqi pussy too! When will these people learn that the it's the US's way or the highway?
What's that? That's not a bomb... [pulls out Fat Boy] This is a bomb! Die, you slitty-eyed Nippy scum! ...
Axis of evil... MY ARSE!

Re:Of course they're insane

[Anonymous Coward]

You "sat CHEERING" as military action was taken to evict an agressor state from an invaded and subjugated nation.

You did not dance in the streets in front of TV cameras and hand out candy to children when 19 evil bastards hijacked 4 civilian airliners and used them to murder several thousand more civilians. But the Palestinians did. The Pakistanis did.

Then you mention lynchings. It's a sad but true fact that the US has no monopoly on mob justice - because that's what lynchings are: a mob applying their twisted form of justice to someone different who's "guilty" of something. Those mobs are gruesomely celebrating the punishment of someone they perceive to be deserving of such treatment. It ain't nice, but that's what they're "thinking": the victim is "guilty" and "deserves punishment". What did the street dancers in the West Bank and in Islamabad think the inhabitants of the WTC were "guilty" of? Being Americans? If that's so, then the dancers were publicly celebrating genocide, and if it's not true and the dancers weren't thinking the murdered were guilty of anything at all, then they were publicly celebrating the murder of innocents.

Take your pick - either is evil and there has never been a culture in history that acted in such a giddy fashion in celebration of such an atrocity.

NEVER!

Not the Nazis, not the Khmer Rouge, not Stalin's NKVD. None of these celebrated their atrocities. I doubt that the women and children of Mongolia danced when riders came back from Ghengis Khan's armies with the news "We found a village of several thousand unarmed men, women, and children. We killed them all." But Islam rejoiced.

I'm sure if there has ever been a culture that publicly revels in mass murder like the Arabs, one of the reflexive anti-American whackos who inhabit this realm would have pulled it out of their ass in the time the original post has been around.

Re:Of course they're insane

[Anonymous Coward]

Strained your two brain cells spewing that reflexive anti-American invective, did you?

And I bet you're proud of it, too. Just like a two-year-old who shits in a toilet the first time.

But you still haven't come up with another culture besides Islamic whackiness that actually celebrates mass murder and/or genocide, now have you?

Re:Of course they're insane

[Ataru]

>"Islamlic whackiness"

Hint to you: Being ignorant does not make you appear insightful.

Peace,
Andrew.

Re:Of course they're insane

[xyzzy-ladder]

And I suppose that the black victims of lynching, mutilations, etc, were "guilty" of something?

To all of you non-Americans, I would like to point out that the majority of Americans do NOT feel the way that these people do. We are decent, humane people, regardless of what these types do and say. Honestly.

Re:Of course they're insane

[commodoresloat]

these Islamic fucking whackos who dance in the streets of Gaza and Karachi when one of their ilk slams a plane full of innocents into a building

You forgot Riyadh. People danced in the streets of Saudi Arabia, as well as the streets of other Arab allies. Why did we only bomb Afghanistan, and perhaps Iraq, the latter having fuck-all to do with 9/11, and the former bombed to smithereens with no indication that we've found bin Laden or anybody worth a shit in al Qaeda except a fucking white boy from Marin County?!

Yeah there were people celebrating 911 all over the Arab world, and in parts of the non-Arab world; at least give the dancing Arabs credit for showing their feelings publicly, while the Russians and Chinese snicker behind (mostly) closed doors.

Look, the mass indoctrination of Arab Muslims with hardcore ideology that teaches them that God smiles on suicide bombers as martyrs is beyond sick -- I'm not going to argue with that. But I think it's a cynical and calculated strategy on the part of the Arab leaders this benefits -- especially the Saudis -- rather than a sign of an "evil culture" (which is a construct that has no validity from any perspective).

What have we learned from extreme Islamic fundamentalism? That greedy and tyrannical assholes in positions of power in corrupt incestuous dictatorships can use a perverse bastardization of a widespread religion in order to manipulate a large group of people (whom they openly conspire to keep poor and uneducated) to cheer on a few suicide-murderers? Are we really that surprised?

There has never in human history been an entire people who publicly revel in mass murder like the current Islamic Arab/Palestinian fuck-head idiots.

Bullshit. It happens frequently after military actions, and we have to understand that they interpret 911 as a military action. Americans danced and celebrated during the inordinately one-sided Gulf War; which in spite of our precision bombing, was probably indistinguishable from mass murder from the ground. Hell, Americans celebrated the nuclear attack on Japan, when we incinerated 100,000 people in seconds. Everyone celebrates their team's military victory. Even more so if they see their (civilian) family members die every day under Israeli gunfire. So I'm not surprised Palestinians in particular celebrated, even in New York.

Re:Of course they're insane

[Anonymous Coward]

The arrogance of your post is amazing.

We are decent, humane people, regardless of what these types do and say. Honestly.

You probably really do feel morally superior because you think your beliefs make you better than every body else.

And read my posts, you arrogant little twit. I said that to the mobs the victims of mob justice (which is hardly confined to lynchings of blacks in the US, BTW) were perceived "guilty" of something. That doesn't mean the act wasn't evil, nor does it mean that the victims were in fact guilty. It's all about mindset. The victims of Islamic terror atrocities are perceived by the whackos to merely be guilty of being.

And then the non-participating Islamic nuts dance in the street when informed of the action. I seriously doubt the white residents of Augusta would dance in the streets and pass out free candy to children when they heard of a lynching in Atlanta a few miles down the road.

But the Palestinians and other Islamic nations do . They're unique in human history in the regard.

You've glossed over that fact, you've blatantly ignored it, and then you've engaged in a veiled ad hominem attack disguised as an apology. Face the facts, dipshit.

Re:Of course they're insane

[Anonymous Coward]

of course the Nazis celebrated. They wer quite happy with their progress in "purifying the Aryan race." The public was too busy working in their war to declare a holiday, but if it ended their way, there would be a national celebration. The "Day of Purification" or something.

Re:Of course they're insane

[mr100percent]

well, you could argue that the Catholic IRA was quite pleased that they wiped out scores of Protestants.

Or how about the Communists in China massacring the Tibetan monks?

Or the Hindus in Gudjarat raping and killing innocent Muslim women and children?

Re:Of course they're insane

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you have a more descriptive name for dancing in the streets when thousands are murdered.

I thought "whackiness" fit the bill rather nicely, but maybe you'd like to see "evil" or "depraved"?

You certainly wouldn't call such behavior "acceptable", now would you?

Re:Of course they're insane

[Anonymous Coward]

Did Catholic IRA members, Chinese Communists, or Hindus half a world away from the acts go so far as to dance in the streets by the thousands at the news of such atrocities?

So while you could argue that, you'd be wrong. Just like if you argued the Earth was actually flat.

Re:Of course they're insane

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, and I don't think it's insightful to label someone "ignorant" just because they would dare to call celebrating mass murder "whackiness".

Are you denying that Palestinians and other Islamic peoples danced in the streets when informed of the atrocities of 9/11? Or are you just trying to defend those celebrations? Which is it?

Re:Of course they're insane

[xyzzy-ladder]

"And then the non-participating Islamic nuts dance in the street when informed of the action. I seriously doubt the white residents of Augusta would dance in the streets and pass out free candy to children when they heard of a lynching in Atlanta a few miles down the road."

And of course, that is exactly what they did, and there is photographic evidence of it in every bookstore in America.

Re:Of course they're insane

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at Americans. When the US bombed Baghdad, there were people having parties, inviting people over to have a few beers and watch the green flashes on TV.

And no, there wasn't dancing in the streets by the THOUSANDS. That would be sick, but it still didn't happen. Show me a link.

Or "Jose Padilla"

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, couldn't be.

He's just an innocent little ex-con with nothing better to do with his life than to travel to Afghanistan and come home with thousands of dollars stuffed in his pockets and plans to build a dirty bomb. He never intended to do anything with that money or those plans.

No, a sheep

[Anonymous Coward]

You did notice that the first animal cloned was a sheep in Scotland?

American Hype[tm]

[kapella]

Most of those points (with the possible exception of 2) apply to western democracies in general. Look at countries like Canada, Sweden, Germany, Britain, or even Japan. They're all liberal democracies with essentially the same freedoms and advantages that you listed for the United States. However, nobody's flying planes into the CN Tower or blowing up German embassies abroad. Must be something other than envy.

I'd select as a likely candidate an overwhelming American attitude problem: "Does not play well with others." It's their way or the highway, and the good ol' US of A is in the military and economic position to back up their attitude and agenda with whatever force required.

They need oil? They'll threaten or coerce (odd or even days) $GOVERNMENT to get it. Domestic farmers and steel producers need help? They'll violate the spirit of NAFTA and the WTO to prop them up. Worried that good ol' American GIs might be called to account for their actions? Boycott the International Criminal Court! These issues, however untoward, are not what terrorists are concerned over. They're more pissed off about the US throwing its weight around in the Middle East.

Oh, and FWIW...

1. ... but the US still owes the UN $INORDINATE_AMOUNT in back payments.
   
2. ... and 'help' provided to countries that don't need it, but the US feels needs to get back in line.
   
3. ... right, because the people voted for Bush two years ago. ... wait, no...
   
4. ... not if religious fundamentalists like Ashcroft get their way. The woman's place is in the home and all that rot.
   
5. ... take a walk through the choicer parts of LA or Birmingham sometime and we'll see about that racial co-operation.
   
6. ... this is a function more of the sheer bulk of the American economy and less any special characteristic of the USA.
   
7. ... oh, please. Have you *seen* the state of the American public education system, or compared it to some of the other liberal democracies I listed above?
   
8. ... newsflash: America Not Only Refugee Destination In The World. Toronto happens to be the second-most-popular destination for immigrants in North America.
   
9. ... and happens to consume most of that food on its own soil, being the largest per-capita consumer of food and other resources in the world as well.
   
10. ... perhaps not shot, but if you're being anti-American or committing the grievous sin of having dark skin, you could look forward to months of prison without trial or appeal. Land of the free (white anglo-saxon protestant).

... Making Clinton jokes does not qualify as political dissent, did you know?

Ahh yes, "moral equivalence" has raised it's head

[Anonymous Coward]

As if hijacking an airliner and deliberately using it as a weapon to murder thousands is the same as hitting an incorrect target in a war.

If you really believe that those are morally equivalent acts you are one retarded waste of protoplasm who needs to warm up to even approach a room-temperature IQ. CELSIUS!!!

Confusion between cause and effect

[Anonymous Coward]

Example: the STASI weren't the evil behind the GDR, they were the symptom of that evil.

Or maybe you could ask Elian Gonzalez about jack-booted thugs breaking down doors in the middle of the night.

As for your "rights", they only apply to criminal proceedings, not the prosecution of war and international relations (Don't think so? Did you know you have no rights whatsoever in a customs search?).

The prosecution of war is to do things like "provide for the common defense" and prevent acts like detonating a dirty bomb in the middle of a city, not to wait until the whackjobs have already killed thousands or millions and then charge the killers with "attempting to traffic in radioactive substances on a Thursday when the moon was waxing."

THIS IS NOT A TROLL

[Anonymous Coward]

moderators are on crack

Re:THIS IS NOT A TROLL

[Anonymous Coward]

and you're riding the horse, or is it riding you?

Yeah, what happened to "John Doe #2"

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, the one on the wanted poster from the OKC bombing that looked "Middle Eastern"?

Re:Yeah, what happened to "John Doe #2"

[mr100percent]

Excellent question.

Well, in the hours that followed the bombing, the FBI speculated in the media that they were actively searching for "Muslim terrorists." Quickly after that, several mosques were burned down by arsonists.

True, Timothy McVeigh was caught in pretty short order, but the FBI never retracted their claims. McVeigh just corrected what they believed, and people forgot about the accusation (except the Muslim-American community, who wanted an apology).

We may never know if there was a second person, or maybe McVeigh denied it and I didn't hear it. Or it could be the FBI tossed around the "possible middle-eastern" description as a way to show they weren't totally off base with the Muslim terrorist idea.

Re:Need to uncover the ISRAELI terrorist network..

[Ashurbanipal]

The conventional view of historians is that the US has historically supported Israel because there is a huge Zionist block vote in this country. Truman made some remarks to that effect - he said there were lots of Jewish votes and damn few Arab ones. (Falling into the classic trap of equating Judaism with Zionism, when the two are actually quite distinct - Judaism is not intrinsically tied to killing people for their land, after all).

However, this guy is claiming that the earlier poster is right, that Truman initiated his policies based on his Judeo-Christian beliefs.

Anyway, I find it interesting that the post that initiated this debate is missing. Anti-Zionist posts, and posts that criticise Israel's continuing campaign of international terrorism, seem to get edited out of Slashdot rather frequently.

Re:Software

[Anonymous Coward]

From Figure 1 in the article, it looks like his own software

Another good social network project

[Anonymous Coward]

Bank of Credit and Commerce International

Finding the info in the first place

[MagikSlinger]

This reminds me of the days in University when me and my friends tried to map the University's internal computer network to figure out how to get Internet e-mail and outside connections. :-)

(Please forgive me referring to people as nodes; it makes it easier for me to explain it)

So, how do you detect the networks?

First believe they are out there. You have an approximate idea of the kind of roles needed and the places people have to be in (like near an airport or in flight schools), so you can profile people to come up with a likely set of nodes. Once you've got the nodes surveiled, rattle the network. Bring in a few of the more skittish members of the potential network in for a polite round of questioning (and I do mean POLITE -- no violence, threats or intimidation). Then watch what he does. He will activate the secret links and you will see the network sparkle into life to deal with this close call.

As you find more nodes and connections, you can begin to de-prioritize the nodes who show no signs of activity or direct connection. In your emerging network graph, you can make hypotheses about node functions which can be tested. See what happens when you try sending in an deep cover agent to talk to suspected resource network. Try offering resources which would make people interested, and see if they bite or refer you to someone else. If you can get trackable resources into the network, you can follow them to find more connections.

Another thing is to find a node (a suspect) who can be leveraged, like an invalid student visa. Bring them in and pressure them to either turn (unlikely) or expose the network and goals he knows about. Using the previous Slashdot articles on p2p networks being compromised, you can probably bring the the terrorist network to its own tipping point where they will either reorganize or disband it.

Problems with this method:

1. Identifying the initial nodes requires assumptions of goals and network organization. Since most of these networks will organize similarly to avoid the trouble of creating and learning a new organization, this is not unreasonable. But assuming the goals will have problems.
2. Profiling to find the initial nodes. Do I have to explain to a hot-bed of civil rights activists and libertines like Slashdot the evils and problems of this?
3. Professionalism. If the network is staffed with experience professionals (like the infamous Red Army Cell and Baider-Meinhoff were), attempts to rattle the network will fail. Your best bet is amatures recruited into the edges at critical positions, like the pilots.

Of course the best way to prevent terrorism is to remove the social conditions that encourage it. Encourage better economic opportunities for everyone and freedom from persecution and oppression. Support democracy, instead of shoring up corrupt dictatorships like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and China. Wherever there are the disaffected and miserable, the terrorists will find a home.

Re:Finding the info in the first place

[Master of Transhuman]

>If the network is staffed with experience professionals (like the infamous Red Army Cell and Baider- Meinhoff were), attempts to rattle the network will fail.

Have you ever read any of the details of the Baader-Meinhoff group? These people were FAR from being professionals. They were mostly screwed-up college kids with VERY little competence in covert operations. Certainly nothing like you get today with most of the current crop of terrorists being sponsored by Iran, Irag, Syria and other reasonably well-funded government intelligence agencies.

Re:Finding the info in the first place

[MagikSlinger]

I did read about Baader-Meinhoff. The German cops used to consider them borderline special ops. If they weren't that competent, then the German cops may have bigger problems with Al Queda than we thought. :-)

If it's just DIRT ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... then you won't have any problem letting the ISRAELIS keep all of it, right?

You have a stupid argument:

(1) X is not important.
(2) Therefore, we should resolve X *my* way.

If (1) is really true, then you won't care. If you do care at all, then (1) is not true.

Meanwhile, in the real world, national leaders start wars, and millions of soldiers and civilians die, for lebensraum.

Re:Need to uncover the ISRAELI terrorist network..

[grumpygrodyguy]

I agree as far as needing to get rid of Israel. The only reason the US is involved is because our Judeo-Christian beliefs obligate us to protect "the holy land." For pete's sake, people, it's a fucking hunk of dirt! There's nothing "holy" about it. It's fucking DIRT! Let the Arabs have it, it was theirs to begin with.

Ya, but where will the israelis go? Here in the US? Do you really want a population that willingly voted a mass murderer into office immigrating to the US? You can be damn sure noone else in Europe wants them.

Re:Color coding of charts (you can't blame them)

[Anonymous Coward]

My dad has that deficiency. For most of us, red and green are as contrasting as black and white.

My dad still rants about how they turned all the stop signs red. For the rest of us, it really makes them stand out against trees, shrubs, etc. But for the color deficient, it makes them "stealth stop signs".

He got a ticket for running a red light while travelling. To him, when the light on top is lit, it means "stop". One town had installed the lights up side down.

But you can't blame the average person for not knowing about this condition any more than you can blame them for not knowing that the weird lady isn't drunk, she's about to die from lack of insulin.

We all have various disabilities. Just be glad you're not stupid, that's the worst handicap to overcome.

Re:Need to uncover the ISRAELI terrorist network..

[neocon]

Um, no, the reason we support Israel is that it's one of only two nations in it's section of the world which are free, democratic, and open.

Other than Israel and Turkey, you could walk from the west coast of Africa to the Indian border and not pass through a single democracy, a single free-market economy, or a single open society.

But its all those guys you think we should be appeasing, by turning our back on a nation with values similar to ours? No thanks...

Re:Need to uncover the ISRAELI terrorist network..

[neocon]

The charges against Sharon are at worst that he failed to prevent a lebanese militia which had allied itself with Israel from committing a massacre he had no way of knowing was going to happen. That militia, by the way, has since allied itself with Syria against Israel, and is still going strong, but no one has a problem with that, apparently, go figure.

But you're right. Being totalitarian dictatorships, none of the Arab nations ever voted anyone into office (though plenty of them are ruled by actual mass murderers), so I guess they dodge the issue neatly, eh?

Isn't calling it worng a value judgement also?

[glrotate]

Maybe my world view says its ok to call a spade a spade, if your world view insists on ignoring reality then that's your problem.

Re:Isn't calling it worng a value judgement also?

[sjanich]

I guess I am calling it wrong or evil in the sense of my prefered civilization focus, that of Western Liberal Democracy. I do not have a problem with other Civiizations that do not try to expand and whom do not threaten Democracy. Western Liberal Democracy, for all its faults, still gives me, my familiy and friends the best chances to live in peace, say and think what will, and it provides the oppratunity for prosperity and fullfillmet.

Jeez, I am sounding like a politician. I have got to watch out for that.

--steve

Can't think, can you?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a big difference between bombing a city while engaged in a DECLARED global war where the AGGRESSOR is the target and the kidnapping of civilians to use their vehicle in an attack designed to murder even more civilians.

One has a legitimate, albeit gruesome, militarially and legally defensible objective of a sovereign state engaged in war, one is simply an atrocity visited by what the Geneva Convention labels "illegal combatants" upon innocents.

Whether you like it or not, the waging of war does have a rather consistent legal intrepretation developed over centuries, your anti-American tripe and factual errors notwithstanding.

Generally, persons posing as civilians in order to murder non-combatants in cold blood is probably about as far from the norms of combat as you can get.

Just look at the difference in the use of nuclear weapons against Japan, and the attack of 9/11. One was a cold-blooded murder for the sake of murder, one was an attack against an aggressor state designed to end the state of war more quickly - and in theory save lives.

To be able equate these two means you have no concept of reality. Please close you mouth when you breathe - you look stupid.

Unpalatable Home Truths

[meehawl]

> 1. All the money we give out every year to keep most 3rd world countries from colapsing?

The percentage of foreign aid as a percentage of total GNP by the US actually ranks among the lowest of all developed nations and is almost less than a tenth of the UN-recommended minimum. European countries such as Denmark and Sweden do far better. And of the paltry US aid amount, fully two-thirds of it goes to Israel and Egypt.

> 2. The constant military help we give countries who need it?

See point 1 above.

> 3. A government run by the people for the people? Granted it could be better.

The US political system is hidebound and locked in this weird two-party timewarp. You have no proportional representation and an unresponsive government almost totally controlled by special interests and lobbyists. Most social democricies evolved more inclusive political systems in the 20th century but the US system definitely dates from the early 19th. Where are your coalitions, your multi-seat districts, your party lists? Your political system scores abusmally on issues of transitivity and concordance.

> 4. Having our women on equal ground with our men in every aspect of our lives?

The gender gap for wages in the US is still pronounced. It is much less in European countries, such as Sweden, where State-sponsored universal child care facilties and generous statutory maternity and paternity leave enable women to pursue their careers with less disadvantage.

> 5. Having most of our diverse religous and ethnic backgrounds get along together?

Your US system is born of low population -- rather than deal with an interlocking, complex, mannered society you thrive on isolation and reclusiveness. European social systems are born of a much more densely inhabited continent where different cultures do not have the luxury of withdrawal or migration. It will take the US another century or two to reach European levels of social complexity.

> 6. Having a country where a "common" class person can become the richest person in the world? Granted I don't like Bill Gates.

US social mobility now ranks in the second-tier of developed nations, along with such luminaries as France and Italy. Northern European countries, less Latin in character (such as the UK and Germany) actually feature higher social mobility than the US.

> 7. A country where EVERY child has the ability to get an education?

The cost for US college education as a percentage of the average salary is far higher than in any other EU country.

> 8. A country that thoughsands of people are fleeing to every year?

All developed countries feature high immigration, or a desire for high immigration. The US has long used immigration as a strategy to fill the desolate wastes left after the genocide of the native populations. Additionally, the input of cheap immigrant labour retards the growth of salaries and wages in the US and undermines the progress of unions and collective bargaining and social compacts.

In the United States, the median real wage is about the same today as it was 28 years ago.This means that the majority of the labor force has failed to share in the gains from economic growth over the last 28 years. That is drastically different from the previous 27 years, during which the typical wage increased by about 80% in real terms. I note that this retardation of wages correlates with a dramatic increase in immigration.

> 9. A country that produces enough food to not only feed themselves but a large part of the world?

Using manifestly wasteful aquifer-draining agricultal systems that are massivley subsidized by the US taxpayer. If US food was costed to actually reflect its real inputs, it would not be able to be dumped so cheaply on international markets.

> 10. A country where people could protest against the government and ANY political official and NOT get shot or have family members killed?

Tell that to the family of MLK. There is freedom of speech in the US, but there is also repression and political assassination. In this regard, the US seems little different from the rest of the developed world.

Krebs on Krebs

[Anonymous Coward]

Maynard G. Krebs on an excert from Valdis E. Krebs

"Those who were trained to fly didn't know the others. One group of people did not know the other group."

Those stray cats were all into their own thing but they all dig the bird scene. Caaaw-Caaaaw

It's not missing.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Anyway, I find it interesting that the post that initiated this debate is missing.

Choose "parent".

Set your threshold to -1.

Press "change".

And... the post goes unmissing.

Re:It's not missing.

[Ashurbanipal]

Oops, you're right. (L)user error. I humbly apologize to the Slashdot staff for impugning their journalistic integrity. Thanks.

Mark Lombardi, artist, mapped criminal networks

[wkrebs]

I remember reading an article from May in the WSJ about a NYC artist named Mark Lombardi who did this type of mapping in his head.

He would read newspapers about criminal links, copy to index cards, memorize the links, and then build up his masterpiece.

He did works about various financial scandals, mapping the BCCI, Vatican Bank, and other criminal networks relating to the Savings and Loan Scandal.

He committed suicide (allegedly) in March of 2000, although some continue to speculate that someone didn't appreciate his art. His family disagrees, pointing out that he only worked from public sources, so why would anyone have a motive to kill him? (Valdis' work (no relation) shows that he was actually doing something --- running a map-generating algorithm in his head and putting the output in art galleries!)

Post 911, the FBI got interested and ask galleries for copies of his art. It seems that his work showed links between BCCI, various Saudis, and bin Laden's financial network.

Incidentally, recent articles in the Washington Post and on Stratfor suggesting that bin Laden has gotten cooperation again from his hidden bank accounts in Switzerland and managed to smuggle his gold out to Sudan are disturbing. Wars are fought with golden bullets, as one philosopher noted and as the Nazis new. The Nazis were obsessed with getting their hands on gold reserves, gold teeth of their victims, &c, because they realized gold was a strategic resource. Through banks in Switzerland, Rome, and possible even the U.S. (?) they were able to obtain financial for their war effort by moving gold onto the international market.

So, it would be interesting to see bin Laden's financial network mapped out.

The article ran on page 7 of section D of the May 1,2002 Wall Street Journal and discusses Lombardi's work, the circumstances surrounding his death, and the FBI interest. I don't have a link or a copy. Lexus Nexus also shows the July 5, 2002 New York Times as mentioning his work going on display at the CUNY art gallery.

Here are some links I get by doing a Google search on Mark Lombardi, including gifs of his work:

http://www.pierogi2000.com/flatfile/lombardi.htm l
http://www.ps1.org/cut/Gny/mlombardi.html

I wrote to Valdis Krebs (no relation) about this, and he also thought this was cool.

Re:Mark Lombardi, artist, mapped criminal networks

[commodoresloat]

Incidentally, recent articles in the Washington Post and on Stratfor suggesting that bin Laden has gotten cooperation again from his hidden bank accounts in Switzerland and managed to smuggle his gold out to Sudan are disturbing.

Can you post a link? I missed this story.

Re:Stalin and Pol Pot must have been religious. .

[E-Rock-23]

Yes, in modern history, they are. However, I'm not too sure that Stalin and Pot were quite the religious types. Stalin's Communism didn't really allow much room for it. Pol Pot, I'm not too sure on him at all. No religion was mentioned, I'm not quite sure his Genocide was Ethnically or Religiously biased.

Add the Crusades (three in all, including a Children's Crusade where thousands of "God's Children" died in the mountains), throw the events of 9/11 coupled with the sum of any and all terrorism, be it Muslim, Israelli, Catholic, Protestant or whatever religious group (they're all guilty at some point in history or another), the sacrifices of the South American Natives (10 Karma points to the person who knows what a cenotè is), do I really need to go on? You're GEEKS. PLEASE tell me you made world history a part of your knowledge base, and not just the Middle Ages themes of D&D!

And gee, doesn't it always seem like one is going after the other for some reason? It's not just random violence. Catholic v. Protestant. Christian v. Muslim or Roman (lions!), wasn't Buddah oppressed? What about the Muslim v. Judeism, Muslim v. whichever Indian sect occupies Kashmire...

Does anyone else notice a pattern? A cycle that continually spells certain doom at an early stage of life for large amounts of human beings in a short time? God's children or not, don't you think it's a little senseless for children to die before their lives even begin? The agressors kill indiscriminately: man, woman or child. It's all because of what they believe, conflicting with the other.

Does it make any less sense to believe that the goal should be furthering the species? Making sure we're not part of the list of failed life forms on this planet? Do we really want to lose to the FUCKING COCKROACH? We're the first ones to become aware of, and conciously realize where in the world we stand, and how we can manipulate the world around us to survive. And yes, that includes blocking asteroids targeting the Yucatan.

It's about us as a whole, not us as little sects. We can keep our beliefs, I have no problem with that. But we need to stop twisting the message into a violent struggle for power.

The general lesson Religion gives us is Faith. Faith in ourselves, faith in our task at hand. We have a good cause. Better lives for future generations. Faith that we can accomplish that goal wisely, if we all pitch in. It won't be a miracle. It'll be the sum of the work we can do now. During OUR period in time. Making it a MEANINGFUL LIFE. There isn't any God that's going to come along and zap it all to shit if we don't follow orders.

The only ones who can (and are) fuck it up are ourselves. If we keep squabbling like this, then faith might not be enough...

Re:Need to uncover the ISRAELI terrorist network..

[commodoresloat]

The US does not support the Israel because it is in the "holy land". The US supports Israel becuase it is a Western Liberal Democracy smacj in the middle of a geographic area surrounded by totalitarian nations. It is in the US national interest to promote Democracy (especially the Western Liberal style) throughout the world.

That's hogwash. The US supports many of the totalitarian nations that surround it. The US, like any other nation-state, makes its decisions about whom to support based on perceptions of rational self-interest (however misguided) rather than on the basis of ideology, no matter what our leaders say in their speeches.

Re:Need to uncover the ISRAELI terrorist network..

[commodoresloat]

But its all those guys you think we should be appeasing, by turning our back on a nation with values similar to ours? No thanks...

Yeah, no thanks. MUCH better to appease them by kowtowing to their regimes directly, like we do with Saudi Arabia, or by turning a blind eye to their gross abuses of human rights, like we do with Egypt and Pakistan among others.

If you think we're defending democracy in the Middle East you're a fool. The Israelis are not so dumb; they know that American support depends upon perceptions of American self interest as well as a well-funded and vocal lobby. And the Turkish are not so stupid as to believe their nation "free, democratic, and open." Especially not the Kurds in Turkey.

Re:Need to uncover the ISRAELI terrorist network..

[neocon]

Turkey is the closest thing the Islamic world has produced to a free, democratic, and open society. Yes, they still have some way to go, but they're not doing as bad as you suggest, and it is certainly in our interest to support their progress.

And, by the way, if your only beef with the US position is that you feel we shouldn't be supporting `Saudi' Arabia, Egypt, and so forth, well, guess what? We're in complete agreement. OK if we start with the really big fish (Iraq and Iran, for example), though?

keep up with current events.

[Anonymous Coward]

its kinda a responsibility, I feel.

John Walker Lindh, the young American captured in Afghanistan fighting for the Taliban, was convicted and sentenced under a plea agreement after a public trial. Yaser Esam Hamdi -- also an American who fought for the Taliban -- has been detained indefinitely without counsel or trial.

Zacarias Moussaoui, the alleged accomplice in the Sept. 11 bombings, is on public display in a Virginia courtroom, representing himself in what promises to be a bizarre public trial. Jose Padilla -- who allegedly wanted to assemble and use a "dirty bomb" laced with radioactive material -- has been detained without counsel or trial since May 8. Both men are suspected terrorists. The relevant difference is simply that Moussaoui wound up in the criminal justice system because he was arrested before Sept. 11, when the administration began playing by different rules.

The case of James Ujaama, arrested last week in Denver and detained as a material witness, has so far been shrouded in secrecy. Ujaama is an American citizen. Yet federal officials, classifying him as a material witness, refused at first to say whether he had been arrested or to confirm his whereabouts.

Re:keep up with current events.

[neocon]

OK, try to keep your facts straight. In order:

John Walker Lindh, the young American captured in Afghanistan fighting for the Taliban, was convicted and sentenced under a plea agreement after a public trial.

Certainly. This is one possible way to deal with such a suspect, but not the only one provided by the Constitution, see below.

Yaser Esam Hamdi also an American who fought for the Taliban has been detained indefinitely without counsel or trial.

Simply incorrect. Mr. Hamdi is being held as an enemy combatant, a practice which dates back to the earliest days of our republic, and was most recently upheld in the 1942 US Supreme Court case Ex Parte Quirin. The declaration that Mr. Hamdi is an enemy combatant is, in fact, subject to judicial review, and Mr. Hamdi has had full access to counsel at every stage of his detention. He is currently appealing the ruling that he is a combatant in a Virginia courtroom. For more on the Quirin decision, see below.

Remember that Mr. Hamdi was captured in battle in Afghanistan -- if you interpret that as unconstitutional (and remember, the Supreme Court does not), do you also feel that the Germans captured by the American soldiers who stormed up the cliffs on D-Day should have been read their miranda rights and given access to counsel?

Zacarias Moussaoui, the alleged accomplice in the Sept. 11 bombings, is on public display in a Virginia courtroom, representing himself in what promises to be a bizarre public trial.

Certainly true, but again, not the only means the Constitution provides for dealing with such a suspect.

Jose Padilla who allegedly wanted to assemble and use a "dirty bomb" laced with radioactive material has been detained without counsel or trial since May 8. Both men are suspected terrorists. The relevant difference is simply that Moussaoui wound up in the criminal justice system because he was arrested before Sept. 11, when the administration began playing by different rules.

The case of James Ujaama, arrested last week in Denver and detained as a material witness, has so far been shrouded in secrecy. Ujaama is an American citizen. Yet federal officials, classifying him as a material witness, refused at first to say whether he had been arrested or to confirm his whereabouts.

First off, his name is Abdullah al-Muhajir, not Jose Padilla. You don't call Muhammad Ali `Cassius Clay', do you?

Second, Mr. al-Muhajir's case is even more directly analagous to the precedent set in Ex Parte Quirin, and his declaration as an enemy combatant is subject to the same judicial review as Mr. Hamdi's is -- and is being heard on appeal right here in New York, even as we speak. As with Mr. Hamdi, Mr. al-Muhajir has had access to counsel at every step of the proceedings.

It is instructive to consider the precedent set in Ex Parte Quirin, as it is remarkably similar to that of Mr. al-Muhajir and Mr. Ujaama. The case evolved from the 1942 detention of an American citizen, Haupt, who had returned to Germany at the onset of the war, joined the SS, and then re-entered the US with a team of saboteurs, with orders to blow up power stations, Jewish-owned businesses, and other civilian targets. He was held as a combatant, under precedent dating back to the earliest days of our republic, and the Supreme Court upheld this practice.

Relevant excerpts from the case, and a link to the full ruling, can be found in this journal entry of mine.

While Mr. Ujaama is currently being held as a material witness (hardly a new practice), it is most likely that he will similarly be declared a combatant before long.

Re:Need to uncover the ISRAELI terrorist network..

[commodoresloat]

Turkey is the closest thing the Islamic world has produced to a free, democratic, and open society.

You obviously know little of Islamic history. Today, perhaps you have a point, though I disagree still (look at Algeria, Morocco for example - hardly democracies but not the bastions of torture and genocide that Turkey has been over the years. And while these places were hardly free, open, and democratic, Egypt, Iraq, Iran were all more progressive regimes than present-day Turkey before the US got involved mucking around with their internal affairs. The fact is the US doesn't want democracy in these countries, because democratic regimes might allow the people to decide how much to sell oil for, and, more importantly, whether to develop different ways of modernizing their societies. The fact is that tyrannical Arab regimes like Saudi Arabia are good for US economic interests. If we really wanted a "regime change" in Iraq we would have supported the Iraqi democratic opposition - which existed and was quite strong and credible - back in 1990 after we got pissed off about Kuwait. But we don't want a regime change; we just want a different dictator to deal with (in one state dept official's words of the time, we want "an iron fisted junta without Saddam Hussein."

OK if we start with the really big fish (Iraq and Iran, for example), though?

Actually, Iran is modernizing and democratizing, or at least it was before we put them in the "axis of evil." And Iraq is small potatoes. They had zero to do with 911, and they're in no position to do anything but sell us cheap oil and bitch about their sovereignty being violated by no-fly zones. It's a terrible regime, and Hussein is a miserable thug, but I could say the same of our ally Musharraf. The really big fish is Saudi Arabia, and we won't stop kissing their asses until America wakes up and begins to see past all this clash of civilizations bullshit. It's not a clash of civilizations; it's a clash between rich powerful men who cynically manipulate the populations they rule.

Re:Need to uncover the ISRAELI terrorist network..

[neocon]

You obviously know little of Islamic history. Today, perhaps you have a point, though I disagree still (look at Algeria, Morocco for example - hardly democracies but not the bastions of torture and genocide that Turkey [hrw.org] has been over the years. And while these places were hardly free, open, and democratic, Egypt, Iraq, Iran were all more progressive regimes than present-day Turkey before the US got involved mucking around with their internal affairs. The fact is the US doesn't want democracy in these countries, because democratic regimes might allow the people to decide how much to sell oil for, and, more importantly, whether to develop different ways of modernizing their societies. The fact is that tyrannical Arab regimes like Saudi Arabia are good for US economic interests. If we really wanted a "regime change" in Iraq we would have supported the Iraqi democratic opposition - which existed and was quite strong and credible - back in 1990 after we got pissed off about Kuwait. But we don't want a regime change; we just want a different dictator to deal with (in one state dept official's words of the time, we want "an iron fisted junta without Saddam Hussein."

Actually, I do know a fair deal about Islamic history, and I stand by what I said. To repeat: Turkey is the closest thing the Islamic world has ever produced to a democracy. If you want to argue otherwise, feel free to provide a counter-example, but if you are going to suggest either the Iberian Caliphate or the Ottoman empire, each of which tolerated some degree of autonomy for enclaves of accepted (dhimmi) minorities, but in no way practiced democratic governance in any form, you're not convincing anyone.

Actually, Iran is modernizing and democratizing, or at least it was before we put them in the "axis of evil."

On the contrary, Iran is in no way democratizing, much less modernizing. The secular government, such as it is, is under direct control of the theocratic dictatorship, who control the courts and have veto power over all government actions. Nor are they in any way tolerant of dissent (a basic prerequisite for democracy) -- the secret police have been quite efficiently living up to their promise to `fill the hospitals' with any students who oppose the ruling government.

But this is not what makes Iran part of the axis of evil -- for better or worse, we do not often interfere in nations which are only mistreating their own subjects. It is Iran's status as one of the principal arsenals of global terrorism which makes them a regime which needs to be changed. One need only consider the 50 tons of Iranian arms en route to Hamas bases in Gaza which were found on the Karine A, or the constant Iranian support for Hezbollah to see why this is so.

And Iraq is small potatoes. They had zero to do with 911, and they're in no position to do anything but sell us cheap oil and bitch about their sovereignty being violated by no-fly zones.

While it is far from clear that Iraq had `zero' to do with 9/11 (consider the meetings in Prague between Mohammed Atta and Iraqi intelligence shortly before the attacks), it is certainly clear that they are not small potatoes -- at least I do not consider a nation with an active biological and chemical weapons program which is on the verge of possessing nuclear arms, and has already threatened to use all of these to attack us, and which is (along with Iran and others) working closely with al-Qaeda to be `small potatoes'.

It's a terrible regime, and Hussein is a miserable thug, but I could say the same of our ally Musharraf. The really big fish is Saudi Arabia, and we won't stop kissing their asses until America wakes up and begins to see past all this clash of civilizations bullshit. It's not a clash of civilizations; it's a clash between rich powerful men who cynically manipulate the populations they rule.

First off, there are certainly elements of a clash of civilizations in this fight -- at any rate, that is why Osama bin Laden says he attacked us, but if you know more about his motives than he does, say so.

Secondly, we're in agreement that the Saudis should go. No doubt about it. But they are not as much a threat as either Iraq or Iran, nor are they as dispensable at the moment (try again in a few years -- the Russians have already surpassed the Saudis as an oil producer, and will soon surpass them as an exporter), so they will come later. That's all.

Re:Need to uncover the ISRAELI terrorist network..

[commodoresloat]

Well, you've intentionally misinterpreted everything I wrote and then conveniently skipped over the parts you don't want to argue. Interesting. Anyway, read things like this if you want to learn about democratic initiatives in Iran, and recognize that I realize this place is still a tyranny; my point was there is movement in that direction. Your comment about the Ottoman empire has nothing to do with anything I said; and I gave three examples of regimes who have historically come closer to being reasonable regimes than Turkey. Regarding Iran supporting Hezbollah -- duh!! All the Arab nations in the middle east aid Hezbollah and Hamas, overtly when they can get away with it, as well as covertly. If the US wants to stop Hezbollah and Hamas (who have no designs on the US, but that's another story) as well as al Qaeda, they need to think of something more intelligent than bombing, unless they are prepared to exterminate the Arab world, since every bomb creates more sympathizers. To think American bombs whaling on Teheran will somehow reduce Arab sympathy for Hamas is laughably naive.

Regarding Iraq, I haven't seen a credible report of Iraqi involvement in 911, and if there has been such a report, the US Administration is doing an alarmingly nice job of keeping it quiet, which seems to be completely contrary to the desire to get some of our allies to support an invasion. The meetings with Atta have not been confirmed, and US officials don't even seem to believe them. About the WMD stuff, yeah, Iraq wants WMD, but the evidence of a real nuclear threat is severely lacking. But even if they were pursuing nukes -- get real. Iraq has as much right as any regime to pursue whatever policy its statecraft dictates. Why would we feel threatened by Iraqi nukes? They could never develop a capability that could seriously threaten American interests, not even indirectly; as self-aggrandizingly cruel as Saddam Hussein is, he is neither suicidal nor stupid. Keep in mind too his regime is secular - he has about as much reason to fear the al Qaeda types as we do; more in fact, since the Iraqi citizens are far more likely to take up his call to overthrow their government than American muslims, Chicago gangbangers and Marin county white kids included.

Finally, I don't know why you want to let Mr. binLaden dictate the terms of our conflict with him. Of course he says it's a "clash of civilizations" - but we don't have to buy into that; it only helps him. If we want to defeat him and his kind we need to make sure the rest of the Arab Muslim world doesn't believe it's a clash of civilizations. We won't be able to do that by bombing them to kingdom come.

Re:Need to uncover the ISRAELI terrorist network..

[mr100percent]

"The US supports Israel becuase it is a Western Liberal Democracy smack in the middle of a geographic area surrounded by totalitarian nations."

Oh, COME ON.

So we support a parlimentary system that declares war on their entire geographic location, then seizes land belonging to other people, sets up troops, and throws people off their own land?

On top of that, Israel is in trouble with the UN for human rights violations, throwing Palestinian dissenters in prison for complaining about losing their homes.

So, Nobel Peace prize winner Yasser Arafat is elected by the Palestinians to negotiate the return of lands. Many Palestinians consider him way too gentle, and an obstacle in the way of an all-out war to get land back. On top of it, Isreal nearly assasinates him, a DEMOCRATICALLY elected Leader. That would have been horrifying, but the US might have still supported Isreal because of the high number of voters in the US supporting Isreal. (Don't forget, Hillary Clinton got her senate job by pandering to the Jewish population in NY, among other things)

The US wants to support Israel, but they don't want to anger Saudi Arabia and OPEC again. On the other hand, Israel just bombed an entire apartment building, killing a terrorist leader, AS WELL AS innocent families and children.

In short, the Palestinians are going about this like impatient children, while the Israelis are whining about how they're in the right, and doing the wrong thing by hurting people.

duplication

[oliverthered]

Isn't that more-or-less exactly what I said with 20 times less words. You could even say the your fluffed out version is less than my short and sweet version because it provokes more thought and doesn't tie the reader into one particular thought path.

My comment said, you've all been fed a crock of shit. US has gone and outed a perfectly good government (the Taliban who may have a different view of life then you but does that make them evil?) because they supported a independent trail of the US's prime suspect (osama bin-laden) and a year on the US still hasn't shown any connection to osama bin-laden.

And the US thinks what of Hitler evil commie Nazi bastards? Jesus there's a bit of pot and kettle going on there.

Sadam should be calling for sansions against the US not the other way around.

Re:Need to uncover the ISRAELI terrorist network..

[TWR]

If the US wants to stop Hezbollah and Hamas (who have no designs on the US, but that's another story)

The US wants to stop ETA, the Basque separatists in Spain. ETA has no designs on the US. They are officially a terrorist group according to the State Dept., and giving money to them is a felony. So, is there some massive Spanish conspiracy to secretly control the US? Or do you have a double standard when it comes to terrorist groups that threaten Jews rather than Europeans?

-jon

Re:Need to uncover the ISRAELI terrorist network..

[neocon]

Well, you've intentionally misinterpreted everything I wrote and then conveniently skipped over the parts you don't want to argue. Interesting. Anyway, read things like this [iranian.com] if you want to learn about democratic initiatives in Iran, and recognize that I realize this place is still a tyranny; my point was there is movement in that direction. Your comment about the Ottoman empire has nothing to do with anything I said; and I gave three examples of regimes who have historically come closer to being reasonable regimes than Turkey. Regarding Iran supporting Hezbollah -- duh!! All the Arab nations in the middle east aid Hezbollah and Hamas, overtly when they can get away with it, as well as covertly. If the US wants to stop Hezbollah and Hamas (who have no designs on the US, but that's another story) as well as al Qaeda, they need to think of something more intelligent than bombing, unless they are prepared to exterminate the Arab world, since every bomb creates more sympathizers. To think American bombs whaling on Teheran will somehow reduce Arab sympathy for Hamas is laughably naive.

Your mistake is to make the subtly racist assumption that people in the Arab world somehow don't want or don't deserve to be free. You suggest that `every bomb creates more sympathizers', but as can be seen by looking at the cheering crowds welcoming our march accross Afghanistan, this is simply untrue. Iran is in a similar state of crisis, with mass movements among many of the young calling for regime change being brutally suppressed by the current dictatorship. A little push, and things could turn out very nicely indeed.

Nor does such a push necessarily mean `whaling on Teheran' -- a tactic only you have brought up in this discussion. My own feeling is that a US victory in Iraq, followed by the establishment of a democratic government there would have reverberations accross the middle east, as people realized that they do not have to live in tyranny -- this is the real reason the Arab tyrants fear US action against Iraq.

Nor have you given any examples of Islamic regimes who are more free or democratic than Turkey -- though I welcome you to if you think you can.

Regarding Iraq, I haven't seen a credible report of Iraqi involvement in 911, and if there has been such a report, the US Administration is doing an alarmingly nice job of keeping it quiet, which seems to be completely contrary to the desire to get some of our allies to support an invasion. The meetings with Atta have not been confirmed, and US officials don't even seem to believe them [washtimes.com]. About the WMD stuff, yeah, Iraq wants WMD, but the evidence of a real nuclear threat is severely [worldnetdaily.com] lacking [smh.com.au]. But even if they were pursuing nukes -- get real. Iraq has as much right as any regime to pursue whatever policy its statecraft dictates. Why would we feel threatened by Iraqi nukes? They could never develop a capability that could seriously threaten American interests, not even indirectly; as self-aggrandizingly cruel as Saddam Hussein is, he is neither suicidal nor stupid. Keep in mind too his regime is secular - he has about as much reason to fear the al Qaeda types as we do; more in fact, since the Iraqi citizens are far more likely to take up his call to overthrow their government than American muslims, Chicago gangbangers and Marin county white kids included.

Here again, you miss the point of my argument. There is at least strong circumstantial evidence of Iraqi involvement in the 9/11 attacks -- both the Czechs and the CIA have stood by their statements in this area, despite the unnamed sources cited in the article you link -- but this is almost entirely beside the point. If we strike Iraq, it is not because of the attacks which have already occurred, but to preempt the attacks which Hussein is preparing for, and which he has threatened.

But here again, you rely on your strange inner voices -- Mr. Hussein has a long track record of using WMD on his own people and on his enemies, he has threatened us and our allies with their use, and every credible source says he has them (chemical and biological weapons) and will have them soon (nuclear weapons). But you somehow divine that Mr. Hussein's intentions are peaceful, despite the fact that he himself says otherwise? Please...

Finally, I don't know why you want to let Mr. binLaden dictate the terms of our conflict with him. Of course he says it's a "clash of civilizations" - but we don't have to buy into that; it only helps him. If we want to defeat him and his kind we need to make sure the rest of the Arab Muslim world doesn't believe it's a clash of civilizations. We won't be able to do that by bombing them to kingdom come.

You miss the point -- these are the terms on which Mr. Bin Laden has chosen to fight us. Just as Fascism did not go away until it was decisively defeated and shown to be impotent, Mr. Bin Laden's bizzare breed of Islamo-Fascism will not go away until the same thing occurs.

Re:Need to uncover the ISRAELI terrorist network..

[commodoresloat]

If you're asking me, I don't think we should be wasting our money and resources in either case. We're better off trying to encourage democratic initiatives in these places. We're never going to completely stop terrorism but the real goal should be to eliminate the conditions that make so many people sympathetic to terrorists. And I think that is true whether the terrorists threaten Jews, Spaniards, or anyone else.

Re:Need to uncover the ISRAELI terrorist network..

[TWR]

We're better off trying to encourage democratic initiatives in these places.

Spain is a democracy, you fuckwit. And so is Israel. Israel has been trying to give back the West Bank and Gaza since August, 1967. Look it up. Problem is, the Arabs don't want peace; they want to kill Jews. Jews are tired of being killed whenever someone in the world is looking for a scapegoat, and are fighting back. This makes the Arabs mad and confuses the Europeans, who want to know what happened to their favorite punching bags.

You are suffering under the all-to-common belief that terrorists are some sort of misguided Robin Hoods, out to redress wrongs. They're not. They are cold-blooded murdering thugs who want to impose their beliefs on a world that would never voluntarily agree to their insane ideas. So they intimidate fools like you into believing that if you just give in to their demands, then they'll go away.

the real goal should be to eliminate the conditions that make so many people sympathetic to terrorists.

Shutting down Berkeley would be a good first step.

-jon