Marking 10 Years Since 9/11/2001

10 years ago today, coordinated terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C. killed nearly 3,000 people. It wasn't the first terrorist attack directed against the U.S., or even on U.S. soil, but it was the deadliest, and came at a time of relative peace. Probably most people reading this remember where and how they heard the news. We've often discussed the consequences of the attack: security cordons, ID checks and metal detectors where none existed before, a reexamination of how U.S. policy affects international perception and attitudes, and the encroachment of surveillance policies and technology, to name a few. Today, we don’t want to inundate you with links to tributes and retrospectives, so we’ll offer the only thing we can: a look back at how the day unfolded here. Our thoughts are with everyone who lost friends and family members.

Comments

But

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not even November yet.

Re:But

[North Korea]

The US way to write dates is stupid, indeed. Not that European is that much better either. Everyone should just use time format YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS, for example 2011-09-11 15:30. It makes the most sense, and drops the stupid am/pm stuff too.

Re:But

[serviscope_minor]

what you propose is big-endian which is good because lexicographical sort works in the expected way. Little-endian (European style) is OK too. Middle endian is just silly.

Re:But

[PyroMosh]

September 11th very rarely falls in November.

Re:But

[MightyMartian]

Every time someone uses the date format "YYYY-MM-DD", Baby Jesus cries.

Re:But

[AmiMoJo]

Japanese style is my favorite. It is nominally big endian but can be any endian in practice, and places that stay open until 4am the list their closing times as 28:00 etc.

Re:But

[maxwell demon]

Every time someone uses the date format "YYYY-MM-DD", Baby Jesus cries.

But every time someone uses "MM/DD/YYYY", god kills a kitten.

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

September 11th WTF? Should be September THE 11th

Re:But

[Rosy At Random]

wouldn't little-endian be SS:MM:HH DD-MM-YYYY?

That would make, for me, right now 44:22:17 11-09-2011

Re:But

[unencode200x]

Not to be off-topic, but I and my IT co-workers started doing this a few years back (among other conventions we decided on). We couldn't be happier. It sorts nicely and is easier for the eye to find things in long lists. Sometimes others don't get it, but it takes them about one second to figure it out. I also set my Windows boxes to display short dates in this format and it makes working with files (especially images) a bit easier imho.

Re:But

[ZorinLynx]

Lately I've started using, for example, 2001-Sep-11, to completely remove ambiguity.

I wish we could agree on how to write numeric dates, but it's doubtful we ever will, so the above way is the best way.

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as I'm concerned, YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS is the European way to write dates. I live in Europe and I have not seen anyone write DD/MM/YYYY in years.

Re:But

[tompaulco]

That's not THE US way to write dates. It is A US way to write dates. People in the US. would also recognize 2001-09-11 (which is much more preferable, especially for programmers), or September 11th, 2001, which is certainly more understandable, but not much fun for programmers.

Re:But

[Risen888]

Don't be stupid, they're fucking numbers. Have you never had a set of files named "date-foo.bar"? Or "foo.bar.date"?

Re:But

[Chris Mattern]

Every time someone uses the date format "YYYY-MM-DD", Programmer Jesus cheers!

Re:But

[timothy]

Actually, I agree with you. Decreasing order of units, with all slots filled (2011-09-11, with or without dashes or slashes in there) makes the most sense, and (dadblastit!) sorts properly, when it starts off a file name, say.

However, this is an exception. Americans (perhaps the rest of the world? I think so, I'm sure I've heard it a few times abroad) have boiled that day's name down to "nine-eleven," so that is (approximately) how I wrote it. Believe me, I wish that the American convention was either big endian or little endian.

In casual speech, it makes much less difference whether it's middle endian, though, if the month name is being spoken / written -- I rather like "18 December, 1974" or "18th December, 1974," myself, but if you swap the month and day number, there's still no ambiguity.

Best,

timothy

Re:But

[bonch]

At some point, you have to let things go and just accept that people do things differently.

Or, you can spend the 9/11 anniversary article bitching about how the U.S. writes dates. Your choice.

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

Because Europeans use Little-endian for times as well...

Re:But

[phantomfive]

Uh, does anyone realize that there is an actual reason for our way of writing the date?

It follows the way we say it in speech. The numbers are just an abbreviation, after all. We don't say 1st September, 1990; we say September 1st, 1990. So it follows that when you use the abbreviation, you use the same order.

You can argue that it's not the best system, but to say it is not logical is just blind.

Re:But

[fnj]

It's not just "good," it's standardized. It's the only correct way. Anyone who doesn't format dates per ISO 8601 is stupid. "American style" and "European style" are both stupid. I haven't used either one in ages.

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it would require some sort of superior intelligence among the populous, although Hungarians write all dates like that ever since written history (they are also known to exit a revolving door in front of you whenever they step into a revolving door behind you - according to New Yorkers or at least this is what I have been told)

Disclaimer: I am an American, hence my IQ is much lower than a Hungarian's and I can not really comprehend their ways regardless how hard will I try

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

The US way to write dates is stupid, indeed. Not that European is that much better either.

I think the latter indeed is better: In day-to-day use, the most important part of a date is the day: "Let's meet on Monday 12th." Starting the date with the day puts emphasis on it—and you may skip the rest.

But I myself switched to YYYY-MM-DD long time ago, as it leads to reasonable file order if naming files by date, while still incorporating the European emphasis on the day: The ending of a phrase also gets some emphasis.

Everyone should just use time format YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS, for example 2011-09-11 15:30. It makes the most sense, and drops the stupid am/pm stuff too.

D'accord.

Re:But

[Old Wolf]

Start saying "1st of September" like the rest of the world does..

Re:But

[shutdown -p now]

It follows the way we say it in speech. The numbers are just an abbreviation, after all. We don't say 1st September, 1990; we say September 1st, 1990.

Um, I hear "1st of September" etc quite often.

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

It follows the way we say it in speech. The numbers are just an abbreviation, after all. We don't say 1st September, 1990; we say September 1st, 1990. So it follows that when you use the abbreviation, you use the same order.

Well, but WE do say 1st September 1990 (that is, "Erster September Neunzehnhundertneunzig"). But this doesn't hinder me to write it down as 1990-09-01 (I don't read it out as "Neunzehnhundertneunzig MINUS September MINUS Erster" or anything, you know ...).

Re:But

[phantomfive]

Oh yeah man. You're right. I'm gonna say it like that from now on, see what people say.

Re:But

[phantomfive]

That's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard all day.

Re:But

[alexandre_ganso]

Do you realize that it is said like that only in your language, don't you?

Re:But

[thetoadwarrior]

Some people do say the 1st of september.

Re:But

[jc42]

wouldn't little-endian be SS:MM:HH DD-MM-YYYY? That would make, for me, right now 44:22:17 11-09-2011

No, that's still mixed-endian; little-endian would be 44:22:71 11:90:1102.

(Are there languages in which numbers are routinely written little-endian? Yes, I know cases like German, in which 37 would be "sieben und dreissig", i.e., seven-and-thirty. But they only do this with 2-digit numbers, and larger numbers still have the nigh-order digits first. But what languages actually espress all numbers in little-endian fashion?)

Re:But

[shish]

I've always spoken "1st September, 1990", as has everyone I know o_O I think the only exception is "September 11th", but that's when people are referring to the event and not the date

Re:But

[ckarras]

Little-endian should be fine, but the problem with it is that the US format has created an ambiguity, meaning we can never be sure if 9/11/2011 means September 11, 2011, or November 9, 2011. At least with YYYY-MM-DD, I never saw anyone write "2011-31-12", so I can reasonably expect that "2011-09-11" really means "September 11, 2011"

Re:But

[jc42]

Start saying "1st of September" like the rest of the world does.

That's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard all day.

Hmmm ... You must not be a native speaker of English, or at least not of American English. Here in the US, "the 1st of September" is a totally ordinary way of saying "September 1st". I'd guess that the two are about equally common. (And note the definite article on the former but not the latter.)

I don't know the history of all this, but it seems likely that the common British way of writing dates dd-mm-yy is based on that spoken order, while the American mm-yy-dd order is based on the other spoken order.

There are languages that have adopted the yy-mm-dd big-endian order as the standard notation. This is done in Chinese (all of them ;-), though since /. doesn't permit the use of Chinese characters, I can't give an explicit example, which contains chracters for year, month and day between the numbers.

I wonder what other languages have adopted such a standard. And did they do this before or after the advent of computerized communication systems such as email or the Internet?

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

To misquote V: Remember remember, the 9th of November.

Re:But

[izomiac]

Drop the year and convert the time and you have the US date system. It's big-endian aside from the optional year and am/pm component that are typically omitted in spoken conversation. The European system never made much sense to me, times are big-endian and dates are little-endian.

Re:But

[wesleyjconnor]

from the country that brought us 'gaters'

Re:But

[ogl_codemonkey]

I think the argument is that people in other countries would say "The first of September, nineteen-ninety."

Which follows the conversational principle of adding relevant context in successively larger granularity.

1. "At 3." (i.e. today)
2. "At 3 PM."
3. "At 3 PM, on the 23rd." (i.e. 'the next 23rd' - could be this month or next...)
4. "At 3 PM, on the 23rd of June."
5. "At 3 PM, on the 23rd of June, 2012."

Re:But

[jc42]

September 11th WTF? Should be September THE 11th

So where in the English-speaking parts of the world do you live, that the definite article is required? Here in the US, we hear both of these, but the first (without any article) is by far the most common. They both sound quite ordinary to me, a native of the Seattle area now living in the Boston area.

Re:But

[n0tquitesne]

++ on this. If needed I'll say it's now 2001-Sep-11 16:57:02, often dropping the seconds unit

Re:But

[phantomfive]

Seriously you might as well be arguing that prepositions are better than prepositions. Really, it doesn't matter as long as the speaker/writer and listener can communicate.

Re:But

[Jaxoreth]

But every time someone uses "MM/DD/YYYY", god kills a kitten.

Every time god kills a kitten, I masturbate.

Re:But

[phantomfive]

A valid point, but choosing a date-writing order because "that's what the rest of the world does" is as dumb as saying all the world should learn English.

Re:But

[phantomfive]

Is that a joke? Your grammar is so bad I can only assume that you grew up among a tribe of pigmy rednecks in outer-Texas.

Re:But

[phantomfive]

You do realize we are speaking my language, right? When I speak Spanish, I say it in a different order.

Re:But

[jc42]

You're right. We should choose the notations that's the most practical and useful. So it's yyyy-mm-dd hh:mm:ss for everyone from now on, right?

(That is pretty much what most standards organizations have decided since they started tackling the question a few decades ago. Not that it has had much effect on the general public. ;-)

Re:But

[JRowe47]

The decreasing order of units is exactly why we say it the way we do. You start with the larger unit - the month - and then go to the smaller unit - the day. Big picture, then specificity. Since we use it in everyday speech, and year isn't usually required for context, we become accustomed to expressing dates as September 11th. November 5th. 5th of November. 11th of September. The idea is that the larger unit frames the smaller in order to express your information concisely. Because we're in the habit of just using the month and day without the year, the year sounds awkward because it's not a part of the usual phrase. So 2001 September 11th wouldn't be used. 2001 would get its own phrase, so it'd be expressed as "September 11th, 2001." There aren't any hard and fast rules. People who bash other cultures because of grammatical quirks need to get a grip.

Re:But

[phantomfive]

If that's what floats your boat, go for it. When I write Chinese, that's how I do it.

When I write English, I do MM, DD, YYYY, but I actually write out the full month (February, April) to avoid confusion, and because frankly, I find the ISO standard method ugly. When I am programming, I use whatever standard makes the most sense at the time, which is different in different situations.

Re:But

[identity0]

Agreed, but I think the ISO standard on it uses dots instead of dashes.

2011.09.11

Re:But

[lennier]

It follows the way we say it in speech.

Remember, remember November fifth...ember!

Re:But

[froggymana]

Uh, does anyone realize that there is an actual reason for our way of writing the date?

It follows the way we say it in speech. The numbers are just an abbreviation, after all. We don't say 1st September, 1990; we say September 1st, 1990. So it follows that when you use the abbreviation, you use the same order.

How do you know we don't say that because it is written that way?

Re:But

[jc42]

FWIW, I mentioned Chinese date notation in another message here, along with a question about what other languages use year-month-day as the normal order. And I don't even speak any of the Chinese languages. ;-) I've also occasionally liked to bring up Mayan date notation in discussions, and I'm not Mayan, either.

Someone else mentioned Hungarian, which has used big-endian dates since the earliest writing that we know of. There are probably some others. The reason this is such a common topic these days, of course, is that computers are more and more involved in our communications, and a date that's easy for software to parse has some clear benefits to most of us now. It's really handy to be able to copy-and-paste between email and a date book, and this only works if they both use the same date format. The constant need to retype dates is a PITA and a time waster.

But English now has a serious problem in that we have two common date formats that are ambiguous during a large fraction of the year. This isn't even a tenable situation for human-only communication, since communication is now common with the participants not knowing the local dialect of all the participants. There's a growing probability of people acting on the wrong interpretation of an ambiguous date in English text.

Of course, if you're planning another large-scale terrorist attack or other crime against humanity, you may see an advantage to a date format that's not recognized by software, or understood by other humans who don't know your preferred date format. ;-)

Re:But

[Pesticidal]

So Americans don't say "the 4th of July" then? Someone should tell Oliver Stone.

Re:But

[jrumney]

This seems like a chicken and egg argument to me. Do you say September 1st because it is written that way, or do you write it that way because that's the way you say it?

Re:But

[euroq]

Then you are a likely a computer programmer or someone who uses dates with computers often.

Regardless of what others have said here about the variations in English, dates are most commonly said "September 11th, 2001". There's a reason why it isn't called "The 11th of September, 2001" because that's not how (most) people say dates in (American) English.

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

islamic calendar is lunar so the anniversary would fall on a different gregorian date
9/11/2001=22 Jumada t-Tania A.H. 1422
9/11/2011=12 Shawwal A.H. 1432

22 Jumada t-Tania A.H. 1432 = 26 May 2011

Re:But

[superdave80]

Why does your way make any more sense? When you talk to people, do you say, "In 2011, on September the 11th...", or do you say, "On September the 11th, 2011..."? And why in the hell was this modded +5 Insightful?

Re:But

[tlhIngan]

Start saying "1st of September" like the rest of the world does.

That's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard all day.

Yeah, everyone who says "the Fourth of July" is stupid. We should call it July 4, instead.

Feh. Fourth of July indeed.

Re:But

[nacturation]

"I was born on July of the fourth!"

Re:But

[gullevek]

not everyone speaks english. In german it is 11ter September 2001. So?

As long as a month name is given it is easy to understand, it just gets problematic with computer software and texts where only numbers are. And when you are not sure about the source then the date is only a guess. 9/11/2001 in US and Europe are just very different.

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure right after England start driving on the right side of the road... Till then *flips the bird*

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

Or may be you say it that way, be cause you write it that way.
In bulgarian for example (like in many other languages) we say 1st September.

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't say 1st September, 1990

Many of us non-English speakers do.

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny. You know what's not funny? People who mock 9/11. Terrorist.

Re:But

[thePuck77]

And every time someone in the US uses metric, the terrorists have won.

Re:But

[tendrousbeastie]

Remember, remember, the 5th of November, etc.

Re:But

[Chris Mattern]

But then you have to have some sort of custom sort to get it to sort the months correctly.

Re:But

[phantomfive]

Say it however you want. That's fine. But if you say, "we should write it X way because the rest of the world does" is as dumb as saying the rest of the world should speak English.

Re:But

[phantomfive]

Do you really copy and paste dates very often? I've been trying to remember, and I don't remember the last time I had to. Usually I just pass them around in some struct or object, depending on what language I use.

Re:But

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Why should we change our habits to be like everyone else? What do we have to gain from that?

fuck the usa

[Anonymous Coward]

9/11 every day in Iraq

Re:fuck the usa

[sgt scrub]

Way to keep the hater meter pegged dumbass.

Re:fuck the usa

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed.
100,000 civilians died already in that war and you NEVER hear the USA mentioning them. Even though they started that war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

It's always "Thanks to our troops for your service" but the civilians of Iraq are not even acknowledged. I'm not even saying the US should apologize but they never even mention those civilian victims, as if they didn't exist!
Today the USA want the whole world to pity them. Well no, 9/11 was a tragedy but I won't have any sympathy for people who constantly ignore the innocent victims of their war. It's sick.

The responses OP received (and no doubt I will receive) just show how the US are callous, have no respect for foreigners whose lives they destroy, and never, ever admit any wrongdoing whatsoever. You don't want us to spoil your day by talking about people dying in Iraq, do you? Today should be all about America day, right? And those Iraqi civilians they can be mentioned any other day of the year, just like they have been so far, can't they? Oh wait, they have never been mentioned by the USA... Guess today is their day then!

For the rest of the world, 9/11 should be Fuck America Day and it should be so until the USA own up to their responsibilities towards the victims of the Iraq War.

Re:fuck the usa

[anagama]

Unfair troll mod requires correction.

Only a completely myopic, brainwashed person without a shred of intellect could possibly think that attacking countless civilians day in and day out is anything but institutionalized terrorism.

Re:fuck the usa

[Pino Grigio]

Oh I just love it when people who claim to be Liberal and Democrats (I don't mean that in the narrow US political party sense, I mean Liberal as in philosophy and Democrat as in Democratic) jump in and defend a Fascist dictatorship ruled over by a mass murdering psychopath, against the actions of United States and her allies. There's a great book called "What's Left?" by Nick Cohen that details the rise of moral relativism and the decay of Western values really rather well. I recommend you read it.

Re:fuck the usa

[digsbo]

It's a little more complicated than that. There are those of us in the USA who recognize that our government takes actions on its own behalf, often unbeknownst to most citizens, that cause strife, violence, and suffering. The US citizens are currently under economic assault from the same banking/government cartel which has launched full wars on the citizens of other countries. Some of us try to raise awareness, but as many have found through history, it's much easier to get people to hate than to get them to look at the failure of their own actions (or inactions).

Ron Paul, for example, is a presidential candidate who is largely mocked by the media, but he has explained publicly and repeatedly that US foreign policy creates the very conditions that foster terrorism - by interfering in other sovereign nations' governments, by having belligerent and aggressive foreign policy, and also by exporting our inflation by taking advantage of the dollar's reserve status. There are many, many things we do that are wrong, and most happen simply because the schools, media, and government don't see it profitable to make sure that the average Joe (who is too busy either working or watching TV) understands these issues. But the two big parties and the media have already decided that nationalism is our country's pastime, and anyone who questions it must be mocked. Other nations have had similar, if more heavy-handed, cooperation between government and media to suppress dissent, no?

I, for one, as an American, have made it a priority to educate my fellow citizens on such issues. I recently explained to a coworker why the Egyptians who revolted against our satrap Mubarak were also angry at us (our support of his regime through money, training, and weapons). He was shocked. He's not a bad guy, he's just too busy to take any serious steps to get the CIA/Pentagon under control.

When you consider how easy it is for the powers that be to quash real change in our democracy (again see Ron Paul), it becomes a question of whether the American people, even if they woke up to the evils our government does, could do anything to change it. We're not unique as a nation, whatever people believe.

Re:fuck the usa

[jafiwam]

Ron Paul has repeatedly introduced legislation that would gut the United States Constitution. He does not want a democracy, he wants a theocracy.

He's a fundamentalist whack job, and like his followers, does not deserve to be heard. Go buy your own boot-strappy media outlets if you want his garbage broadcast you teabaggot douchebag.

Re:fuck the usa

[eugene ts wong]

"also by exporting our inflation by taking advantage of the dollar's reserve status"

What does that mean?

Re:fuck the usa

[morari]

Oh I just love it when people who claim to be Liberal and Democrats jump in and defend a Fascist dictatorship ruled over by a mass murdering psychopath.

I didn't realize it was just those groups jumping in to try to defend America.

Re:fuck the usa

[Anonymous Coward]

America is "Mystery Babylon, Mother of Harlots and the Abominations of the Earth" She will be destroyed in one hour.... soon.

Re:fuck the usa

[anagama]

We have a theocracy. Nobody can win a major seat in our government without professing to be a person of faith.

Secondly, what legislation are you thinking of specifically -- I'd like to read it and see if it says what you say it does.

Finally, if it takes a whack job to stop burning people and money around the world, that's a whack job I'd prefer to the scum currently dictating policy.

Re:fuck the usa

[digsbo]

Since oil is priced in dollars, when we increase the money supply the whole world feels it. When we sell sovereign debt the same thing happens. China has been importing our inflationary effects for decades to support their export based economy. Arab nations the same with oil. When the portion of your income which goes to food and energy is 30% like in the USA and food and energy prices rise by 20% you feel a pinch. But to the people in Arab nations whose food and energy costs 80% of their income, when those prices rise by 20% they get wiped out. Hence the "arab Spring" (among other drivers). There's a lot more to it that can be better explained by smarter people than me at Mises.org.

Re:fuck the usa

[digsbo]

I think on all issues he has repeated kept his faith personal and his policies firmly in the separation of church and state category. He wants to legalize drugs and eliminate government restrictions on who can marry whom. That is not a theocratic point of view.

Perhaps you would do well to spend some time quietly contemplating why you feel the need to suppress open exchange of ideas and launch personal attacks. After 9/11 I had a lot of anger, but I found that thinking about the reasons why it happened to be useful, as opposed to blind rage.

Re:fuck the usa

[arth1]

What about the huge amount of Iraqi civilians killed after said despot got killed? Or were you thinking about the despot that now rules the country, namely the US commander in chief?

Of course, there's also the stupid majority (and I'm not even kidding) who believe that Iraq was fully or in part responsible for 9/11.

Re:fuck the usa

[digsbo]

FYI the other responder is factually wrong. Ron Paul has a 100% pro-Constitution voting record. Thanks for asking for information on the matter. Here are some good examples of his votes which were pro-constitution but against the religious right: http://thesteadyconservative.com/wordpress/2010/02/09/the-ron-paul-voting-record/

Re:fuck the usa

[digsbo]

I should note that every that I applied to Ron Paul above should be equally applied to Denis Kucinich, who is very liberal but shares many of the foreign policy views of Dr. Paul and was also suppressed by his own political party for not being nationalistic enough.

Re:fuck the usa

[Anonymous Coward]

What about the huge amount of Iraqi civilians

That's "huge number of", you fucking subliterate.

Re:fuck the usa

[monkyyy]

every week but the point still stands, the war proves an eye for an eye makes the world blind

Re:fuck the usa

[monkyyy]

-1 someone who doesnt understand what their talking about

Re:fuck the usa

[adamchou]

you got it twisted son. the war against 9/11 was not iraq. its afghanistan. as a current service member, i absolutely abhor what happened iraq. that was not our fight to begin with and never was. but afghanistan absolutely was the fight for 9/11 and continues to be. as long as those in the middle east continue to wish death against those of us in ANY western nation, then i will continue to fight, till death does me part. for it is not only the sovereignty for our nations, but the right for us to leave in peace without fearing a terrorist attack that i will continue to fight against those that wish harm upon my friends, family, and brethren.

Re:fuck the usa

[Mindcontrolled]

If you think you have a theocracy now, you have seen nothing yet.

Re:fuck the usa

[Mindcontrolled]

Yeah, Paul is quite a devious fuck. When it comes to vote "pro-Constitution" (as if it was holy scripture), he votes for gutting the feds - so that the states can finally set up the theocratic-fascist hellhole he would like to instate.

Re:fuck the usa

[Mindcontrolled]

He wants to eliminate any federal restrictions on those issues - freeing the states to go as nuts as they please. Sorry, Paul is kinda straightforward, and I gotta honor him for that, but the consequence of his politics will be worse repression than we have seen in the US ever before.

Re:fuck the usa

[Raenex]

Today the USA want the whole world to pity them.

No we don't. This is a day of national remembrance. We don't want your pity and didn't ask for it.

Re:fuck the usa

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't realize it was just those groups jumping in to try to defend America.

You're not clever at all faggot.

Re:fuck the usa

[Risen888]

I just love it when people who claim to be Liberal and Democrats (I don't mean that in the narrow US political party sense, I mean Liberal as in philosophy and Democrat as in Democratic) jump in and defend a Fascist dictatorship ruled over by a mass murdering psychopath

Can you quote where the OP did that? I'm not seeing it.

Re:fuck the usa

[Risen888]

[citation needed]

Re:fuck the usa

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you explain to your coworker why Egypt is run by their army now and under marshal law?

Re:fuck the usa

[makubesu]

Yes let's blame American today. It'll make the rest of the world feel better. They'll be able to forget the millions of people who died under United Nations sanctions of Iraq. The 500,000 children dead, the drop in literacy, decline in agriculture, the end of opportunities for women. The rest of the world can sit back and say that they did no harm, it was all those Americans, who started the actual war. Remember, it's not murder if you're not dropping bombs. Hell, at least during the war the Shiais and Sunnis who apparently need a ruthless dictator in charge to not kill people of a slightly different religion can share the blame. Go take a look at how your country voted on the issue, and remember heartless imperialism isn't a uniquely American endeavor.

Re:fuck the usa

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Oh I just love it when people who attack who they claim defend a Fascist dictatorship called the same people assholes for attacking Saddam Hussein when he was still the US's darling.

Re:fuck the usa

[dtml-try MyNick]

Remembrance my ass. It became a another national day to make more money and get extra exposure for politicians. The way 9/11 is commercialized is shocking

Re:fuck the usa

[tverbeek]

Even if Ron Paul doesn't want create a theocracy at the state level, his strict-constructionist/fundamentalist reading of the Constitution would allow that to happen in those states that are prone to that theocracy. It may be in keeping with the letter of the Constitution, but certainly not its spirit.

Re:fuck the usa

[haruchai]

Pino Grigio is just another one of those rightwing assholes that inject a liberal / Democrats are ( take your pick ) pussies, hypocrites, hate America, etc. comment into every discussion on every damned site on the 'net. There seems to be no getting away from them. A. Hart Coulter would be very proud of the sycophants she's inspired.

Re:fuck the usa

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. Fuck you, asshole.

Re:fuck the usa

[bonch]

100,000 civilians died already in that war and you NEVER hear the USA mentioning them.

And how many died under Saddam?

I can't believe this crap is getting +5. Seriously? "Fuck America Day"? The fact it's all getting posted by anonymous cowards should be a red flag. Did most of the normal people leave Slashdot or something, leaving behind the crazies?

Re:fuck the usa

[Anonymous Coward]

ok. well have fun with that cycle of violence.

Re:fuck the usa

[bonch]

Prepare to get modbombed for not towing 2011 Slashdot's left-of-center worldview. No wonder the traffic these days doesn't compare to that of Slashdot 10 years ago.

Re:fuck the usa

[Myopic]

Mmm hmm. I appreciate your sentiment, but I think you are mistaken to direct your feelings at America. The USA just happens to be the powerful country today. All powerful countries through all of history have always acted as you describe. The problem is human, not American. Trust me, if Portugal or Chad or Tibet were the most powerful country, you'd be upset (rightly) with those humans.

Me? I'm an American. If I were President, I wouldn't have done what Bush did, but whatever I did do probably wouldn't have been popular with a majority of the world's human population. I'd like to think I wouldn't have fucked up everything so badly as Bush, though.

Re:fuck the usa

[Myopic]

We have a theocracy. Nobody can win a major seat in our government without professing to be a person of faith.

Luckily, that isn't the description of a theocracy. That's the description of a democracy with a religious population.

Re:fuck the usa

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to be a Democrat, BUT ever since I have seen Ron Paul, I am all for him, the parent's post is a superb summary of facts! So are his actions: educating the masses is a must, since keeping them dumb and fighting each other is part of the machiavellian government-banker control over the populous (look at where your income tax goes, or the fact that more than half of the population in the USA lives under less than minimal conditions with the rest who lives and works to pay off loans until they die - you never own anything, wealth can not accumulate (it used to in as little as three generations) the banks own your ass and you are a working slave

Re:fuck the usa

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to admit, the 9/11 attack, with all the suffering that it caused, was the most perfect and successful attack in history. The Trojan Horse is a history told over thousand of years, and pales in comparison. Ten years ago, 19 guys with plastic knives successfully attacked the most powerful country in history, and won in a spectacular way. The revenge was terrible, yes. I bet millions, not thousands, are the real middle-east dead count. But 9/11 was just perfect.

Re:fuck the usa

[shutdown -p now]

He wants to eliminate any federal restrictions on those issues - freeing the states to go as nuts as they please.

Well, the states can go nuts either way, and, last I checked, freedom of movement is still a constitutional requirement - so what's the problem?

Re:fuck the usa

[shutdown -p now]

afghanistan absolutely was the fight for 9/11 and continues to be.

How so? Afghanistan was invaded because talibs refused to unconditionally hand over Osama, but they themselves didn't play any significant part in 9/11. So eventually they've got Osama in Pakistan - what's Aghanistan about, now?

Also, let's see what the track record of U.S/NATO there has been so far:

1. Replaced autocratic theocracy with sham democratic theocracy. Beheading for apostasy and stoning to death for adultery are still the law in "liberated" Afghanistan.

2. Taliban-controlled areas, both in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, became the breeding ground for terrorists. Now that they are attacked by the U.S., it's a good and easy way to be "martyred" for those looking for it.

3. Poppy production is through the roof again, and floods Russia and Europe. Taliban used to burn the fields and kill the growers; the new government almost entirely consists of those people who cash in on selling drugs.

Re:fuck the usa

[Anonymous Coward]

Did most of the normal people leave Slashdot or something, leaving behind the crazies?

Well, it is a weekend. You see on the weekends the normal workday American IT drones mostly disappear and we're generally left with 'foreigners' who seemingly like to practice their English by making low brow comments about Americans.

Re:fuck the usa

[Platypii]

Really? Afghanistan declared war on America? They ordered the 9/11 attacks? Were any of the hijackers even afghani? NO. Afghanistan was just a convenient shithole to hideout in. Just like Pakistan now. Totally agree that Iraq was unjustified, but why do you think your meddling in Afghanistan is any better?

Re:fuck the usa

[icebraining]

Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in its place? That's a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off: part of it, the Syrians would like to have to the west, part of it -- eastern Iraq -- the Iranians would like to claim, they fought over it for eight years. In the north you've got the Kurds, and if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey.

It's a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq.

The other thing was casualties. Everyone was impressed with the fact we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had. But for the 146 Americans killed in action, and for their families -- it wasn't a cheap war. And the question for the president, in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad, took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein, was how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth?

Said by the 'leftist' Dick Cheney in '94.

Re:fuck the usa

[Anonymous Coward]

Technically, you're correct. For the definition of a theocracy, see for example the Texas Consitution.

Re:fuck the usa

[alexandre_ganso]

So this is because some shitty dictator was killing people, so usa should interfere? can you explain me why then they do not "fix" africa? It is much easier and cheaper to finish all these small dictatorships and send some teachers there.

Don't get me started on where us invented to be with no need.

Re:fuck the usa

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, look at your sentence "as long as those in the middle east continue to wish death against those of us in ANY western nation". I'm really not trying to put you down here, but that is an incredibly one sided way to look at the issue.

Do you think 'terrorist's just think 'Oh hey, who's the biggest super power in the world? It's America, let's attack them!'. No the reason that people labelled as terrorists have been largely targeting the United States is because the U.S of A has a long history of moving into other nations to exploit their natural resources or push their own agenda. It's actually simple cause and effect. Have a listen to some of what Dr Ron Paul has to say, he can explain to you how the current American economic and political system actually encourages 'terrorists' with it's heavy handed actions towards other nations. Have you ever considered that other nations might consider American soldiers terrorists? or tried to see things from the perspective of a small fledgling nation filled with yet unexploited natural resources?

Also 'terrorist' actions are clearly not limited to those in the middle east (as was demonstrated recently by the mass shooting in the Netherlands).

What actually needs to happen is for everyone (both sides of the conflict) to practice forgiveness (that the majority of Christian American's are constantly preaching about, but strangely not engaging in a huge amount of), true forgiveness, where you actually forgive the other people involved. Then we all need to work together towards the future.

Re:fuck the usa

[jez9999]

It's always "Thanks to our troops for your service" but the civilians of Iraq are not even acknowledged. I'm not even saying the US should apologize but they never even mention those civilian victims, as if they didn't exist!

I think the precedent may have been set when Europeans sailed over, killed thousands of native Americans, invented a flag, and said "this is our land now; fuck you if you don't recognize us as a sovereign nation".

Re:fuck the usa

[manwargi]

Is that so...

Re:fuck the usa

[arth1]

Not after being hit by explosive rounds.

Re:fuck the usa

[Anonymous Coward]

sanctions caused many of the deaths. sure, at first you can say it was saddam's fault, but after awhile, it's just retarded to keep them up knowing what was going on and still pointing the finger at him. of course he was bad, but the sanctions hurt more innocents than anyone in his regime, and to continue with them was nothing more than complicity. its like what the u.s. did to central america in the 60s-80s. if you arm death squads, at some point you have to be held accountable for their actions.

Re:fuck the usa

[Cow Jones]

It's a little more complicated than that. [snip]

Yes, it is. As a European, and I have to admit that when I read the world news, it's sometimes hard not to think of the US as nation of cowboys, jingoists, and idiots. Then I open Slashdot, and I'm once again reminded that it's indeed "more complicated than that". This site, along with other IT-oriented websites, has often helped me to understand how diverse your country really is. I'm never going to say "typical American" again.

(which is one more reason why dropping bombs on the US just doesn't make sense)

CJ

Re:fuck the usa

[Anonymous Coward]

"Oh I just love it when people [...] jump in and defend a Fascist dictatorship ruled over by a mass murdering psychopath, against the actions of United States and her allies. "

You know most civilians have been killed when NO fascist dictatorship is ruling the country, do you?

Unless you consider US to be a fascist dictatorship, that's it.

Re:fuck the usa

[jc42]

Agreed. 100,000 civilians died already in [the Iraq] war and you NEVER hear the USA mentioning them.

While you have a good point here, there's a much better way to point to the US's attitude toward the rest of the world. We should also bring up the constant American PR claim that 9/11 was an "attack on America", and point out what this phrase means to the rest of the world.

The attack on the World Trade Center resulted in the death of citizens of around 60 nations. Those buildings were truly a World center, and a large fraction of its workers on any given day were from other countries. When US politicians claim this was an "attack on America", they are widely understood to be saying "Only American deaths are important; the death of all those people from other nations isn't worth mentioning". This is one of the main things that people outside the US have heard from US leaders, and nobody should be too surprised if assorted non-Americans react to such a slogan with a "Well, screw you, too!" attitude. You don't make friends or allies by casually dismissing the violent murders of their friends and relatives.

Of course, we might note that this isn't really different from the US ignoring civilian deaths in Iraq. But that's not as galling to most people, because people everywhere know that their leaders and news people routinely do the same thing. It's a "sin of omission", not a blatant dismissal of others' deaths.

Middle-East experts have also point at another problem with this slogan. The bin-Laden crowd is well known to object generally to all of the modern Western World. The US may be the Great Satan in their eyes, but all the rest of us involved in modern society are also targets. The World Trade Center was attacked primarily because it was a major symbol of the modern world, and secondarily because it was physically in the US. Claiming that the attack was on the US ignores this fact, and erects a wall between the US and the rest of that modern world. This isn't a smart thing to do, when the best approach would emphasize improving connections between the US and the rest of the modern world. But this is a more "scholarly" take on the topic. It doesn't have the same impact as a blatant dismissal of everyone else's casualties as beneath our notice. But in general, dismissing others' lives as unimportant is not a good idea if you want to set up institutions that can prevent similar actions in the future.

Re:fuck the usa

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what passes for insightful now?

Re:fuck the usa

[morari]

So says the anonymous troll.

This so-called Patriot Dat sure does bring out the inbreds, huh?

Re:fuck the usa

[Anonymous Coward]

It's ironic you would say this:
"...the right for us to leave in peace without fearing a terrorist attack that i will continue to fight against those that wish harm upon my friends, family, and brethren."
The citizens of Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan would probably say the same thing. Wars of aggression, i.e. US foreign policy will only breed more of the same....

Re:fuck the usa

[Anonymous Coward]

Kucinich is better than Ron Paul, because Kucinich agrees with most intelligent people that evolution is the explanation for biodiveristy, human origin, etc.

Ron Paul may say nice things, and have the best intentions. But his various opinions on less serious subjects start to imply that below the surface of that kind man may be something sinister/insane/retarded.Like a Bush-lite

Re:fuck the usa

[euroq]

I'm somewhat interested in what you've said, however...

I didn't read the OP's post as a defense against a Fascist dictatorship ruled over by a mass murdering psychopath. I think you wanted to see that in the post, but it wasn't there. It was clearly a post about innocent civilians caught in the crossfire of war.

Re:fuck the usa

[euroq]

The OP didn't say it.

Re:fuck the usa

[eugene ts wong]

I still struggle with understand some of what you said. If I understand you correctly, globalization is the problem, which allows American inflation to affect other countries. I certainly believe that to be the case. In the last little while, I have come to believe that globalization and free trade are bad things.

I'll check the web site.

Thanks.

Re:fuck the usa

[Anonymous Coward]

10 years and still no proof that Hani Hanjour could fly an 80 ton 757 at all much less through a maneuver that even ace pilots like Cmdr. Kolstad say he personally would have a hard time doing. I agree with the good commander on this one "the government's story stinks to high heaven". Just compare 2 resumes people, Hani Hanjour and Cmdr Kolstad then ask is that even remotely possible?

History repeats because people don't learn from it. So there will be more "terrorist" attacks because most people can't learn from the previous ones that we are being lied to by our government. To disprove me is simple, prove that Hani Hanjour could fly an 80 ton 757. Should be easy.

Re:fuck the usa

[euroq]

The poster said that the OP "[jumped] in and defend a Fascist dictatorship ruled over by a mass murdering psychopath" when he clearly didn't. Is it left-of-center to deny that? If I said it sucked for the ~100,000 dead Iraqi civilians, would I be left-of-center? If you made the accusation that I was defending a Fascist dictatorship ruled by a mass murdering psychopath, and then I defended myself by saying I didn't, would I be left-of-center?

I think you're wanting to see something that isn't there. The poster you are defending was wrong, regardless of right/left politics. And what exactly do you think would have happened on Slashdot 10 years ago if such a post was made?

Re:fuck the usa

[euroq]

The states must go "less nuts" with more federal restrictions.

Freedom of movement, to me as a gay man, doesn't matter if 100% of the states voted 51%-49% which legislated gays as second class citizens. That means 49% of the national population is okay with treating me as an equal, but 100% of the laws in 100% of our states says otherwise. Freedom of movement doesn't help here.

I don't believe everything should be up to the states. In Alabama, you can't buy sex toys. Why is it that a 51% vote to 49% vote prevents 49% of the population from purchasing a dildo? The federal government should do more to restrict what states can't restrict on personal freedoms.

An extreme example is that states-right supporters back in the day said that slaves should be legal in some states even if illegal in others - it is up to the individual state. I don't think that freedom of movement is a strong enough argument for allowing some states to restrict freedom in varying degrees.

Re:fuck the usa

[goobenet]

Collateral Damage. Tell that to the Japanese who saw the two largest bombs dropped on them in history. Same thing. They might not want a war, but someone in their ranks did, which makes them "collateral damage".

Sucks to be them. Poke the giant, and not expect to get swatted is plain stupid. Quite honestly, i'm very surprised that the US didn't have the testicular fortitude to do it again. IMO, they should've turned iraq/bagdad into a parking lot 5 years ago. The "humanitarian" in me would even give them a little warning... say 3-4 hours. Just let them know it's coming, get out of the way... if you don't, oh well, call our bluff, we dare you.

But no, instead of making sure we're okay at home, we had to rebuild the nation in our image (not theirs mind you). Nor did they want it. So be it, we should've got the hell out of there as quick as we came in. Should have MAYBE taken 6 months to wipe the terrorists off the map (yes, with collateral damage)... not ten years.

As for the "victims" of the 9/11 war, hey, they started it, what did they expect? We'd roll over and take it? No sir, Fuck You. I have every right to live just as much as you do. Just because i don't agree with your religion nor subscribe to it, i should not be allowed to live? Hmmm... Yet, the Arab nations do still live by "eye for an eye" law, yet we're the evil ones because of collateral damage.

Re:fuck the usa

[adamchou]

and what made you think that the taliban wouldn't have said that what he did was justified because it was jihad? the taliban had ultra religious views not too dissimilar from osama bin laden

Re:fuck the usa

[adamchou]

Afghanistan wasn't just a hideout, it was a center of operation for Osama. Plus, they knew his whereabouts and refused to turn Osama over to us. All they had to do was turn him over. What was so difficult about that? But they refused and let him continue to run Al-Qaeda from Afghanistan. They didn't even arrest him! So tell me, if a country's government allows some entity to launch attacks against us, why should we let that government stay in power?

Re:fuck the usa

[euroq]

afghanistan absolutely was the fight for 9/11 and continues to be.

How so? Afghanistan was invaded because talibs refused to unconditionally hand over Osama, but they themselves didn't play any significant part in 9/11.

I'm no expert, but the basic answer to your question is that the Taliban government of Afghanistan was the only government in the world that supported the 9/11 terrorist attacks and harbored people who would continue to make more terrorist attacks. Even Palestine officially condemned the 9/11 attacks.

So, in a very simple explanation, the Taliban government would harbor more attacks like 9/11 against the world, so it needed to be destroyed.

Of course, the real solution is more complicated than that, and you have correctly pointed out major problems in the war in Afghanistan which are not the optimal outcomes (except for #2 - I think that is an explicit goal of the war, to stop #2 from happening... yes the #2 objective isn't complete yet, nor is the war, and the objective may never be completed).

Re:fuck the usa

[adamchou]

Afghanistan was so full of shit. They didn't even arrest Osama but had access to him. They were harboring him and allowing him to run Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan. We had every right to go in and take out the Taliban. Even though we've got Osama, there is still plenty of fighting to do in Afghanistan. I'd be ok with us pulling out now, but I don't at all believe that the terrorist threat posed by Al-Qaeda is over. Would you?

As for the track record... are you suggesting that those are good reasons why we shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan and allow Al-Qaeda to continue its operations against us?

Re:fuck the usa

[shutdown -p now]

Freedom of movement, to me as a gay man, doesn't matter if 100% of the states voted 51%-49% which legislated gays as second class citizens.

You know that this is simply not the case in practice. There already are states which have recognized gay marriage (or civil union with equal rights) - I live in one. We also have legalized medical cannabis and euthanasia here. And I think that, if not for the federal drug laws, it would probably have cannabis legalized outright.

I don't believe everything should be up to the states. In Alabama, you can't buy sex toys. Why is it that a 51% vote to 49% vote prevents 49% of the population from purchasing a dildo? The federal government should do more to restrict what states can't restrict on personal freedoms.

Why pushing it up to fed level is any better? You'd still get 51% voting to ban such things. The only difference is that, country-wide party split being what it is, you'll get the pendulum swinging back and forth every election cycle - does that sound any better? At least when it's down to the states, you know that there are some that will consistently vote liberal, so you can stay there and know that your sex toys don't become illegal all of a sudden in 4 years.

Another argument is, well, who decides what shouldn't be subject to vote? Americans are big about this whole "republic not a democracy!!1!" thing, but in reality constitution is still subject to voter approval (since amendments can change it). Does it really make you feel any better if 66% or 75% take away your freedoms, rather than 51%? Clearly there cannot be a moral difference in percentages alone - either it is okay, or it is not. But if you say that it's not, then you're basically saying that democracy itself is worthless, and you'd rather see a dictatorship where the ruling elite shares your view.

An extreme example is that states-right supporters back in the day said that slaves should be legal in some states even if illegal in others - it is up to the individual state.

Slavery is a very special case, though, because slaves themselves did not vote, nor did they have freedom of speech (and thus could not argue for abolition) nor movement. In my opinion, these are the three "key" freedoms: freedom to vote on laws, with every person's vote being equal to any other; freedom to publicize and promote one's views and criticize others', to convince fellow citizens to vote in a certain way; and freedom to move within the country, so that, if one finds himself in a society where his views are not shared by the majority, they can seek a different place with more like-minded citizens. The rest is subject to the whims of the majority - for the simple reason that no better system has been devised so far.

Re:fuck the usa

[shutdown -p now]

Taliban government of Afghanistan was the only government in the world that supported the 9/11 terrorist attacks and harbored people who would continue to make more terrorist attacks.

I don't recall Taliban saying, prior to the invasion, that they supported 9/11. They did refuse to hand Osama over, but the demand was unconditional; Taliban, instead, requested that evidence be provided to their highest court that Osama is responsible for 9/11 (and, at the time, the guy himself denied that he is responsible). I don't see it as an unreasonable demand, since this is exactly what all Western countries do in response to extradition demands.

Re:fuck the usa

[shutdown -p now]

Afghanistan was so full of shit. They didn't even arrest Osama but had access to him. They were harboring him and allowing him to run Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan. We had every right to go in and take out the Taliban.

Taliban has agreed to extradite Osama if evidence is provided that he is responsible for 9/11 (which he denied). U.S. categorically refused any such requests, and demanded "immediate and unconditional" extradition. I don't know about you, but it seems to me that sovereign states shouldn't normally hand over their residents willy nilly. Would U.S. send Bush packing to Iraq if Iraqi government announces that he is responsible for several thousand civilian deaths, and demands "immediate and unconditional" extradition?

I'd be ok with us pulling out now, but I don't at all believe that the terrorist threat posed by Al-Qaeda is over. Would you?

The terrorist threat posed by al-Qaeda is not over, but it cannot be ended by any form of conventional military action, so the entire mission in Afghanistan does not contribute anything in that department. Besides, of all the threats U.S. citizens face, terrorist attacks by al-Qaeda rank very, very low on the list in terms of likelihood.

As for the track record... are you suggesting that those are good reasons why we shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan and allow Al-Qaeda to continue its operations against us?

One good reason would be that the invasion did exactly zero to curtail al-Qaeda operations - they simply moved over to Pakistan, and will move elsewhere if needed. There's no shortage of countries with majority Muslim population where a radical Islamist underground organization can set up a base of operations.

On the other hand, the invasion did bring about a lot of negativity on many other aspects (e.g. civilian casualties, extreme corruption in the new pro-Western government etc) and cost a hell of a lot to boot.

Re:fuck the usa

[euroq]

You make a reasonable and sane point. I, however, disagree that America has dismissed the Western World's shared danger in the struggle of terrorism. Today America grieved about the loss of its own lives, but I don't think that the American government has been dismissive of the rest of the Western World at all. Disagreed about the means and methods to the struggle regarding terrorism, yes, most especially about the Iraq War. But not about 9/11.

I routinely interface with non-native Americans/foreigners almost every day, in work and in play. I even remember the taxi I took the week following 9/11 and the driver talking about how someone from his African country had been killed. Yes, it's just a personal anecdote, but I think it's fair to say that both "America" as in the people and "America" as in the government does not dismiss the rest of the world when it comes to 9/11.

Re:fuck the usa

[euroq]

Only a completely myopic, brainwashed person without a shred of intellect could possibly think that attacking countless civilians day in and day out is anything but institutionalized terrorism.

From what you say, general war is institutionalized terrorism.

I disagree with the Iraq war vehemently. But I would argue that you're pushing semantics here: the public agrees that the definition of war is separate from terrorism, in a hard to conceptualize manner. War terrorizes civilians, yes, but the general concept, while quite similar, is nonetheless distinct.

Re:fuck the usa

[Zancarius]

1. Replaced autocratic theocracy with sham democratic theocracy. Beheading for apostasy and stoning to death for adultery are still the law in "liberated" Afghanistan.

2. Taliban-controlled areas, both in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, became the breeding ground for terrorists. Now that they are attacked by the U.S., it's a good and easy way to be "martyred" for those looking for it.

3. Poppy production is through the roof again, and floods Russia and Europe. Taliban used to burn the fields and kill the growers; the new government almost entirely consists of those people who cash in on selling drugs.

Doesn't seem to be much different now than it was pre-9/11... Seriously, there's a whole lot more wrong with Afghanistan than just the US, and it goes back to colonial times.

Re:fuck the usa

[bronney]

in that case...

HAPPY 911 everyone!!! weeeeeeeeeee~

Re:fuck the usa

[Pino Grigio]

My opinion (and I realise it isn't shared by the majority), is that if you don't back at least the aspiration to rid the world of people like Hussein, you are effectively supporting them. One can argue about the method, and the post-reconstruction plan was pathetic (actually non-existent), but I find it impossible to take any view other than that the world is a better place without him. Now, we have learned a lot about interventionism since and the more successful operation in Libya has proved it's possible provided you encourage the people to take the lead.

What I don't understand is that the same people who were against sanctions, the no-fly zone and the war, are the same people who come and demonstrate against Fascism here in the UK. The idea, articulated by Jody McIntyre here in the UK, is that freeing yourself from your local evil dictator is good, but if you do it with NATO help it's bad. So my view is that many people who articulate a belief against interventionism are not so much anti-war, as anti-US and anti-NATO.

Re:fuck the usa

[Genda]

I'm sorry but moral relativism and decay is the friggin hallmark of this entire debacle. Let's do this by the numbers;

1. When the Clinton staff was leaving the White House they made a passionate plea to the incoming administration to keep an eagle eye on Bin-laden because they has solid intell that he was up to something ugly. Instead the Bush Administration lead by Dick Cheney spent the next 9 month trying desperately to start a new umbrella missile defense initiative so he could get a bunch of no bid contracts for Halliburton.

2. Our nation has always had strict rules for managing flights that are no been in proper communication up to and including scrambling jets to intercept a jet that hasn't been in communication for more than 10 minutes. Shortly before 9/11 Rumsfeld was put in charge of nations air security and planse could not be scrambled without his say so. He was unavailable to have the jets scrambled until well after the attacks. There is a solid case here for at least criminal negligence, and strong hints at something much worse.

3. Upon the certain attribution of the attack on Al Queda, The Bush Administration, lead by Dick Cheney, began beating a drum to invade Iraq, a country without a single member of Al Queda in its borders, whose only justification for invasion was to pillage their oil resources and provide Dick Cheney an endless supply of no bid contracts for Halliburton. To quote Dick Cheney, when asked why weren't pursuing Bin Laden where he and Al Queda lived (Afghanistan), his response was "There are no good targets in Afghanistan, we're going after Hussein instead."

4. The only justification the Bush Administration could come up with for this insane misadventure, was that Saddam had yellow cake uranium and was a threat to US security (and we were all scared as hell after 9/11.) One of the top experts in the world was sent to determine if the threat had any validity, and when he came back and informed The Bush Administration, the CIA, the FBI and finally when nobody else would listen the Washington Post that there was exactly zero credible threat. The Bush Administration outed his wife as a CIA agent (this was tied back to Karl (Turd Blossom) Rove. This single act clearly qualifies legally as an act of treason.

5. When ex-general Colin Powell, one of the finest and most decorated and respected soldiers to come out of the first Gulf War informed the Bush Administration that the first president Bush's was wise for leaving Iraq alone, and that if "We broke it we'd have to buy i." with innocent Iraqi lives and the lives of our young soldiers, the men in charge of the Bush Administration cut him out of the decision making, and ultimately out of the cabinet altogether.

6. The in the name of national security, they gutted the Bill of Rights, eliminated Habeus Corpus, legalized no warrant wire taps and domestic espionage on a scale never before seen in this country, discarded the Geneva Convention and allowed torture as an allowable means of extracting information and in general just crapped on pretty much everything that distinguished our culture as something worth preserving. By the way if you saw 60 Minutes this evening you'd discover that one of the best CIA interrogators we have in the middle east stated for the record that the Bush Administration just plain lied when it said that torture produced even a single useable piece of information, and he clearly explained why it would always fail to do so in the middle east.

See I don't defend Saddam Hussein, because the man was a vomitous waste of human protein. I just say that bombing the crap out of innocent civilians and getting 10,000 of our best and brightest brought home in body bag, while turning their country into a toxic cesspool in the name of oil and greed and personal self indulgence rates as one of the most heinous things this country has been involved in, in the last 100 years, and we've been involved in some pretty disgusting business. It took Obama what, 3 years to nail Bin Laden? Iraq is still b

Re:fuck the usa

[thePuck77]

I think you are either misunderstanding or are being purposely obtuse. The poster is basically saying the US is morally equivalent to that fascist (why the capital?) dictatorship ruled over by a mass-murdering psychopath. Except it's ruled over by a whole lot of mass-murdering psychopaths. The very fact that you completely ignore the point involving Iraqi civilians killed by US soldiers in a war we started to "liberate" a people who never asked for our help or interference pretty much proves their point.

Your opinions of other country's governments shouldn't get to dictate their governments. To say that the US is somehow special, that out of all the world, the US has the right to dictate terms to other countries about how they govern, is nothing but jingoism and crass exceptionalism. It just doesn't pass the straight-face test. We are not special, we are not different, the rules aren't different for us.

Do you think it would be just fine for, say, the EU to "liberate" the US citizens from their corporate and governmental masters? There are plenty of people in this country who hate and despise the current regime, just like the Iraqis who "cheer" us for coming and bombing their homes. I, for one, would welcome it, I'm a US citizen, isn't that equivalent to the Iraqis who are "happy" the US came and got rid of Saddam? Why would it be different? US authorities torture, murder, and ignore the law to get what they want, and there is a partnership between the government and corporations...that sounds pretty fascist (by the actual definition of fascism, written by the person who started the movement, Mussolini) to me. Why shouldn't other countries come and "liberate" us?

You complain about moral relativism...what else is it when you think we're special, that the US has special rights and privileges that no other nation has? If you want actual moral absolutism, you have to judge your own country by the same rules you judge others, and what you say is good and right to do to others must apply equally to the US. If it is acceptable for the US to attack and displace another nation's government because we don't agree with it, then it is acceptable for other countries to do it to us. And don't cry "But we're America, we're the good guys. They don't have any REAL reason to liberate us because we're RIGHT". Every country thinks they are right. Every form of government claims it's the right one.

Of course, you can just choose to roll with your jingoism and say "But the US is REALLY right." I don't know how you would justify that, other than on the basis of it being your "team", but Americans have historically always been really good at moralizing at others while having just as dubious a moral standing as anyone else, so good luck with that.

Re:fuck the usa

[Lotana]

Sucks to be them. Poke the giant, and not expect to get swatted is plain stupid. Quite honestly, i'm very surprised that the US didn't have the testicular fortitude to do it again. IMO, they should've turned iraq/bagdad into a parking lot 5 years ago.

What does Iraq has to do with 9/11?! What have they done that you define as "Poke the giant"?

Afghanistan is another story: They refused to hand over the person responsible for planning the attack.

Re:fuck the usa

[znrt]

For the rest of the world, 9/11 should be Fuck America Day and it should be so until the USA own up to their responsibilities towards the victims of the Iraq War.

Why "should"? it is, at least in this "rest of the world" I am in! After 9/11 US started to fuck America(ns) real bad too, not just the ROTW. Don't you even realize how fucked you are? Wait, it'll get better!

Re:fuck the usa

[Xest]

"Afghanistan was so full of shit. They didn't even arrest Osama but had access to him. They were harboring him and allowing him to run Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan. We had every right to go in and take out the Taliban."

Right, and America was harbouring Bush et al., they didn't even arrest him, but had access to him. They were harbouring and allowing him to run the US military out of America, and they had every right to go in and take out Americans, I mean, it's not like America hasn't been playing that game in their backyard now for how many decades?

Far more civilians died by Bush's orders, than died by Osama's you know, and for what? Is the world more secure now? No, much less secure. By crippling Iraq you emboldened Iran and it's now a resurgent power in the middle east, able to destabilise the region as it sees fit.

"As for the track record... are you suggesting that those are good reasons why we shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan and allow Al-Qaeda to continue its operations against us?"

Yes, because it has not and cannot achieve that goal as they'll just regroup in Pakistan, as they have and are. By invading Afghanitan the only net effect is more dead Americans (soldiers) and more dead civilians (Afghans). By invading Afghanistan Bush managed to double 9/11 death toll for Americans, then more than triple it with his Iraq adventure too. What a great fucking achievement that is?

When 9/11 happened America had a choice, it could've stood tall with the rest of the world standing with it, condemning what happened and forcing countries like Pakistan to sort out their own problems by withdrawing support for the Taliban across the border and removing them from their own backyard or face being linked with the atrocity. Or it could've, and did, turn round and unleash a vengeful hatred that made it lose respect, and resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands more people instead.

You really think the option they took was the smartest? Even Iran stood by America as a result of 9/11- you missed an opportunity to turn 9/11 into something good for the world, and instead made it something far, far worse than it was by multiplying the global death toll stemming from it by about 10 times.

Re:fuck the usa

[Xest]

"for it is not only the sovereignty for our nations, but the right for us to leave in peace without fearing a terrorist attack that i will continue to fight against those that wish harm upon my friends, family, and brethren."

Do you know how hollow that sounds when it was your country that allowed the IRA to use your backyard as a fucking training ground and fund raising arena to commit terrorist attacks against civilians in Britain?

You only give a fuck about terrorists when they've hurt you, the rest of the time you support them- even against your supposed allies. Excuse me if I can't help but let out a slight chuckle at the irony of terrorism coming back to bite you. Where were you and what were you doing before 9/11 when your government and country was at least implicitly supporting terrorism? Your wars were nothing to do with removing the global threat of terrorism, they were purely about revenge.

Re:fuck the usa

[adamchou]

I don't know anything about the IRA using our backyard as a training ground and fund raising arena so I can't really comment on it much. But if it was attacks on Britain, then why didn't the British government bring it up to our government? And if they did, then why didn't we do anything about it? And stop being so pissy and trying to turn this around and cussing me out for it. I don't know much about the IRA. And yes, I really do only care about terrorism when it affects my country... that's why I said "my friends, family, and brethren". And if we support them, then they're our allies.

Re:fuck the usa

[adamchou]

Just because your argument about Bush's actions in Iraq are possibly correct does not invalidate my argument for the invasion of Afghanistan. Nice straw man.

How many civilians died by Bush's order? I'd like to in fact see an order from Bush that directs us to attack civilians. I'm fairly certain that your claim is farce. Al-Qaida, on the other hand, has launched numerous attacks against civilians.

Yes, invading Afghanistan will cause more loss of life, but how in the world would your plan have helped? The Taliban wasn't going to turn over Osama. Osama didn't need Pakistan's help. Did you think Osama was just going to stop trying to attack us because Pakistan didn't want to be their friends anymore? He sure as hell has stopped attacking us now though.

Re:fuck the usa

[Jorth]

As an Englishman do you even read what you write and imagine how it sounds? You (USA) demanded a foreign national be handed over from a sovereign nation because you wanted to charge him and do any other stuff you can think of because you say so? Any government around the world should tell you to shut up and come back with something more substantial.

Seriously... Your America FUCK YEAH attitude reeks from the post. You have no right to destroy another nations government because terrorists attacked you. If 8 English guys had carried it out would you be in my town, tearing down my government because we "allowed it" to happen?

The world is a shit place to be sometimes, but America's actions in foreign nations are disgusting. The 3000 odd people didn't need to die, but America's response means I don't give a shit about what happened because what you have done is far far worse, including crippling your own economy with the costs of fighting. I think 80 something English people died (notice how I don't even know the number... because its a tiny number compared to say, cancer or road accidents) and the fact that we have been at war as your lap dogs for all these years is a total disgrace...

I don't mean this to be overly hostile to you directly, but more to your attitude that you had any right to respond in the way you have in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Re:fuck the usa

[Xest]

"But if it was attacks on Britain, then why didn't the British government bring it up to our government?"

They did.

"And if they did, then why didn't we do anything about it?"

Because the Catholic/Irish vote is more important to your politicians than terrorism is.

"And stop being so pissy and trying to turn this around and cussing me out for it."

Right, so your view is your view and everyone should listen, but you shouldn't have to listen to anyone else?

"And yes, I really do only care about terrorism when it affects my country"

Okay, well, don't cry next time you get bombed to shit and no gives a fuck or is willing to help.

"And if we support them, then they're our allies."

So you're against terrorism, but you're not, because you supported the IRA who were terrorists and because you supported them they were your allies. So which is it, do you admit you support terrorists, or do you condemn your own government, country, and people and not support terrorists? Your politicians pretend terrorism is some awful thing and refer to 9/11 as their reason for this, but they're more than happy to see the same atrocities committed elsewhere. The cold hard fact is your government and your people funded a group that were willing to murder innocent civilians including children in Manchester and other places in the UK. Nice allies you've got there. I guess having allies like that officially makes you a country more evil than the likes of China who doesn't engage in such bullshit, so congratulations on sinking so low.

Might I remind you that a fair amount of British blood has been spilt fighting your wars alongside you? We stand by you when you ask, it's a shame you're so quick to stab us in the back. You get everything you deserve- and that is why 9/11 happened, because you did exactly the same with the Afghans, calling them allies one minute, then fucking them the next once they beat the Russians back.

Don't pretend what you're doing in Afghanistan is fair or just though, really, you're just committing legalised murder of people who don't want you in their country. You're not making the world a better place, you're not doing good, you're not making your homeland safer. No, you're just pursuing the same old hypocritical policies that got 3000 of your own civilians killed in New York 10 years ago. Don't be suprised when it happens again, you're just a cog in the same machine that caused Al Qaeda to come and kill your people in the first place.

Re:fuck the usa

[adamchou]

I never said I woudln't listen to other people's opinions. In fact, quite the contrary. I'm engaging in a discussion with you now aren't I? I was telling you to stop with the flaming and unnecessarily cussing me out.

As for supporting terrorism, I don't support the terrorism of the IRA against your country. I never said I did. I just doesn't affect me so I'm not going to go off getting all worked up over it. Otherwise, they're you're allies. Your country supports Israel which regularly terrorizes the people of Palestine. They're only terrorists when they're committing violent acts against you. If they're for you, then they're your allies. So lets not be so hypocritical here. Britain has supported terrorists of their own.

Re:fuck the usa

[pacinpm]

Fasist dictatorship created with USA help. Please read http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/217.html and other sources commenting CIA involvement.

Re:fuck the usa

[adamchou]

Do you even know what you're talking about? He wasn't just some innocent foreign national. He had an Interpol arrest warrant out for him in 1998. He was convicted of numerous murder charges by a United States grand jury prior to the September 11th attacks. Besides all that, the BOTH the FBI and your government had classified evidence linking him to the September 11th attacks. In fact, we were seeking extradition of him from the Taliban since 1998. Know your facts please.

If 8 English guys did the attack, I wouldn't care because they'd be dead. But if Osama was in Britain and was continuing to plan further attacks against our nation and your nation would refuse to turn him over, I sure as hell would want us to invade your nation too. What else would you expect us to do? Stand by and say please stop him while he continues to kill our people? Lets be realistic here. Your country would do the same damn thing.

As for Iraq, I NEVER said I supported the war in Iraq. I didn't enlist until after we said we would pull out of Iraq and we go full force into Afghanistan. In fact, my very first post said that I absolutely abhor the war in Iraq.

Re:fuck the usa

[Xest]

"So lets not be so hypocritical here. Britain has supported terrorists of their own."

Of course it has, and it's been a victim of terrorism long long before America woke up to the problem 10 years ago.

Even before the decades of IRA terrorism there was jewish extremists in then Palestine attacking us. Before that we saw another form of terror- the Blitz.

Trust me, us Brits are used to people trying to blow us up, and we're not really scared of it. It's shitty, but we get on with it.

But there's a fundamental difference- America acts all shocked "How could anyone possibly commit terrorism against us?", "What have we ever done to deserve this!", "We must go on a global crusade against terror!" - It's all bullshit. America must accept that 9/11 happened because you nurtured a foreign policy that made it happen, it must accept that Afghanistan wasn't about defeating terrorism, it was about trying not to look weak in a moment of hurt, only, it got bogged down about 9 years longer in doing that than it ever expected to.

Re:fuck the usa

[adamchou]

I agree with everything you just said. Most of my countrymen are too stupid to realize why 9/11 happened and what our operations there mean. And terrorism can never be completely defeated. Its not a vaccine that we can just administer to everyone. Nevertheless, I still support the fight because I honestly believe that them shooting at me while I'm overseas will distract them from plotting the next big attack against my friends and family living at home.

Re:fuck the usa

[Xest]

"How many civilians died by Bush's order? I'd like to in fact see an order from Bush that directs us to attack civilians. I'm fairly certain that your claim is farce. Al-Qaida, on the other hand, has launched numerous attacks against civilians. "

It doesn't really matter if the order was explicitly "Attack civilians" or "Attack that country. Oh, and try to avoid civilian deaths", the fact is the net result is going to be civilian deaths- anyone giving an order to go to war should be pretty fucking well aware of that. George Bush can't hide away from that with excuses claiming he only said to attack the country, not to explicitly kill civilians. Civilians always die in war- you have to take responsibility for that as part of your order to go to war.

"The Taliban wasn't going to turn over Osama."

Actually, they offered to do just that in the 90s. Clinton wasn't interested at the time.

"Osama didn't need Pakistan's help."

Yes he did, without a doubt. The ISI have been fundamental to keeping the Taliban going, without support from the ISI Osama and the Taliban would've struggled to last anywhere near as long as they have.

"Did you think Osama was just going to stop trying to attack us because Pakistan didn't want to be their friends anymore?"

Yes, because he'd have no safe haven, and more importantly- no source of funding.

"He sure as hell has stopped attacking us now though."

Right, but are you safe from terrorism? I'd wager that by all the security put in place on the anniversery of 9/11 yesterday your government certainly doesn't think you are. As an aside, where was he found? A few hundred metres from a military base, and a few hundred more from an ISI base? You really think he didn't need the help of the Pakistanis?

It's long been noted that Pakistan supported the Taliban and Al Qaeda because they're paranoid about war with India. They supported the Taliban in the mountains separating Pakistan and Afghanistan because their plan was, should India invade, they could withdraw to the mountains, and Afghanistan and launch guerilla war on the occupying Indian forces. The Taliban and Al Qaeda are a fundamental part of Pakistan's defence strategy, and that's why the ISI supports them.

Re:fuck the usa

[adamchou]

Ok, so now you're changing your argument because originally, you said

Far more civilians died by Bush's orders, than died by Osama's you know

That doesn't suggest anything about casualties of war from our operations, which is what you're suggesting in your last response. But even with you changing your argument, I'd still argue that the civilian casualties of war form our operations is much less than the casualties caused by suicide bombers or outright attacks against civilians, which is what Osama has done.

Actually, they offered to do just that in the 90s. Clinton wasn't interested at the time.

Actually, he was interested and they never offered... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#Clinton_administration. Sudan, on the other hand, did offer. But that has nothing to do with what we're discussing.

As for Pakistan, Al-Qaeda are only heavily relying on them now because of our invasion of Afghanistan. Which goes back to the point earlier, if we hadn't invaded Afghanistan, having Pakistan sever ties with Afghanistan wouldn't have done a damn thing. And your last paragraph just tells me why Pakistan relies on Al-Qaeda, not the other way around. So tell me again, how would your plan have worked to ask Osama to stop and have Pakistan sever ties with the Taliban?

Re:fuck the usa

[adamchou]

I don't see it as an unreasonable demand

Sure, maybe not providing all our evidence for 9/11 was unreasonable, but how about having an Interpol arrest warrant or being indicted for murders of numerous people at different times? We had plenty of evidence against him for other acts of terrorism and we've been seeking his extradition from Afghanistan for at least 3 years prior to the attacks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#Criminal_charges

Re:fuck the usa

[Xest]

"Ok, so now you're changing your argument because originally, you said "

No I'm not, you're just applying your own arbitrary and incorrect interpretation to what I said.

"That doesn't suggest anything about casualties of war from our operations, which is what you're suggesting in your last response."

I'm not really sure what you're on about, the fact is, Bush ordered the war, civilians died. Civilians that wouldn't have died in anywhere near such great numbers if Bush didn't order the war. Bush's actions and orders hence led to far more deaths than were otherwise going to happen.

"which is what Osama has done."

No he hasn't. It's not Osama's modus operandi for the most part- he doesn't concern himself so much with petty level sectarian violence, he's more interested in attacks on Western interests which are relatively fewer and further between. Those suicide bomb attacks on civilians are a direct effect of Bush destabilising the country with his poor military strategy of going in guns blazing with no clue what to do after you've stopped shooting.

"Actually, he was interested and they never offered"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/nov/05/afghanistan.terrorism3

"As for Pakistan, Al-Qaeda are only heavily relying on them now because of our invasion of Afghanistan."

This is silly, al Qaeda has depended on Pakistan since it's inception. Even it's mujahudeen forerunners depended on Pakistan because Pakistan is the place the US equipped them from in the 80s. North and Western Pakistan have been al Qaeda strongholds for decades.

"having Pakistan sever ties with Afghanistan wouldn't have done a damn thing."

It would because the Taliban regime in Afghanistan depended on support and arms from Pakistan to hold out against the Northern Alliance, without that strong support from Pakistan the Taliban regime would've been defeated by other Afghans, and it'd have nowhere to hide like it does now in Pakistan.

"And your last paragraph just tells me why Pakistan relies on Al-Qaeda, not the other way around."

I told you, funding.

"So tell me again, how would your plan have worked to ask Osama to stop and have Pakistan sever ties with the Taliban?"

I said nothing about asking Osama to stop, that would be a no go, he's an extremist. What I said was to force Pakistan to sever ties so that the Taliban became too short on funds and arms to realistically pursue anything much of an agenda. Without the backing of Pakistan the Taliban would've found themselves short on funds and isolated, with a resurgent Northern Alliance then able to fight back against them which would in itself apply pressure against the Taliban there too.

Re:fuck the usa

[euroq]

You make great points.

I guess my problem is the last point you made - we are still subject to the whims of the majority. What I would like is there to be MORE restrictions on what governments can't do to its citizens (government can be thought of in this case as 51% of the population). The US Constitution was revolutionary in that aspect - it was a list of things the government can't do. Well, I'm saying that we need to add to the list of things the government can't do.

Why pushing it up to fed level is any better?

The federal level can place farther-reaching restrictions.

Clearly there cannot be a moral difference in percentages alone - either it is okay, or it is not. But if you say that it's not, then you're basically saying that democracy itself is worthless, and you'd rather see a dictatorship where the ruling elite shares your view.

That's one way. Another way would be to have a democracy but put more "rights"* to which its citizens have and the government can't do. The penultimate solution would be to say "It cannot be made illegal that which does not hurt anyone else. Things that the population can vote to be made illegal are those things which have the possibility of hurting others".

* don't get caught up on the definition of what rights really are, that's another topic...

Re:fuck the usa

[shutdown -p now]

What I would like is there to be MORE restrictions on what governments can't do to its citizens (government can be thought of in this case as 51% of the population). The US Constitution was revolutionary in that aspect - it was a list of things the government can't do. Well, I'm saying that we need to add to the list of things the government can't do.

It still boils down to the same thing, though. Who decides what the restrictions should be? By your own definition of government as 51% of the population, it's clearly not the population. And if we look specifically at US Constitution, due to the way the amendment procedures are worded, not only the voters are who ultimately define what's in there, but they don't even need a qualified supermajority to do so - it can actually take less than 50% of the country's population to arbitrarily amend (you need 3/4 of state legislatures, but states have different population levels, and if you sort them by population, then the bottom 3/4 will have less than 50% of the total population of the country).

The federal level can place farther-reaching restrictions.

How so? So far as I can see, any right or freedom that can be protected on federal level, can just as well be protected on state level. Indeed, many states have constitutions with more extensive protections.

So it's only farther-reaching in geographical sense. But then you may have a situation where e.g. a state has 99% majority in favor of death penalty, or banning third trimester abortions, or something else along these lines; but other states force their own views of those things through the feds.

y. Another way would be to have a democracy but put more "rights"* to which its citizens have and the government can't do. The penultimate solution would be to say "It cannot be made illegal that which does not hurt anyone else. Things that the population can vote to be made illegal are those things which have the possibility of hurting others".

Well, it would definitely require the legal definition of "rights" as well as the definition of "hurt" to be workable, and I don't see how to define those in a strict and unambiguous way. In some cases, it is highly debatable which category some particular action falls under.

One example is abortion - on one hand, it's woman's exercise of her rights to her body, but on the other hand it definitely does hurt the fetus. Another example is self-defense limits, such as duty to retreat in various circumstances - the possibility of hurting the attacker is inherent in self-defense, yet we do consider it permissible within certain boundaries - but the specific boundaries vary widely from person to person (and from state to state). Is it legal to fatally shoot someone who's trying to punch you in the face? what if there are five of them vs one of you? what if they had just made a threat to seriously bodily injure or kill you? I don't see how to resolve these kinds of ambiguity without resorting to popular vote.

In any case, it's worth remembering that any form of government is subject to whims of the majority, regardless of legal restraints. You can write a constitution that restricts the ability of people to vote in certain laws, and you can even make such constitution immutable with respect to those restrictions, but if enough people are unhappy about it, it will simply be thrown away and replaced with something they like better - by force of arms if needed. The only alternative is to use the force of arms to prevent this from ever happening, but if such is done against the will of the majority, it is what we normally call a dictatorship...

Re:fuck the usa

[Yunzil]

There's a difference between defending a fascist dictatorship (which no one is doing) and thinking that we had no business barging in like Yosemite Sam.

Re:fuck the usa

[Magius_AR]

How's that tin foil hat working out for ya? Lemme guess, 9/11 was masterminded by the Bush administration too, right? I love Ron Paul and I can tell you right now that he is _not_ that clever.

Re:fuck the usa

[Magius_AR]

All this debate is exactly why I think all federal law should require either a three-fifths majority or a super majority. Shit that is direly necessary will get passed. Borderline opinion-bullshit the federal politicians have no business meddling in would never passed. And most importantly, they'd be forced to compromise (or simply be completely lame duck).

Re:fuck the usa

[Magius_AR]

Why do you care what a bunch of religious nutsos do? If they want their own theocracy with a state built on their religious dogma, and the vast majority (or nearly all) of the people that live there are cool with it, why the hell does it bug you so much? Right now about 80% of Utah's legislature are Mormon, as is 61% of their population -- if they want a Mormon paradise with strange laws, so be it -- why the hell does it bug you so much? More importantly, why doesn't it bug you that those people are using federal law to determine what your freedoms should be? (Defense of Marriage act anyone?). The "spirit" of the Constitution is to limit the federal government from dictating how people should live their lives. That means very little federal law.

Re:fuck the usa

[digsbo]

I don't know what you mean by "globalization". It is a term used many different ways. I do not think that trade is the problem, though - I think it is manipulation of the money by the powers of the banks and governments, for profit and politics. For normal men, we try to make money to build wealth and a better life. But when that savings is constantly devalued to meet some political end or to profit a bank, then we suffer.

Personally, I don't see the problem with free trade. Why should anyone not be able to trade just because we live in different countries? I should be able to buy coffee from a farmer in Brazil, or ham from Spain, or sell my wife's art to someone in New Zealand. If one country has a generous amount of some natural resource, why not sell it overseas? I have no problem with that. To restrict free trade is to restrict the division of labor and the benefits of specialization which have benfited all.

Re:fuck the usa

[euroq]

Once again, all great points. I don't have a perfect answer, and I expect no one does.

Any government is subject to the whims of the majority. I feel like the steps towards a more perfect government is as I stated - less ability for others/government to restrict your personal freedoms. I also feel like a self-governing society needs to be educated in order for it to work well (and then I teeter down the route of restriction of voting rights, also bad news... I keep sounding more and more like I'd like an oligarchy).

Perhaps the suggestion of Magius_AR would be a step in the right direction - require a three-fifths majority or a super majority for all laws.

Re:fuck the usa

[eugene ts wong]

By globalization, I meant that increased international trade would encourage debt to be transferred as you mentioned. Now that I read your second reply, I'm starting to think that I really don't know what I'm talking about.

Countries could still have trade without free trade. For things like art, I have no problems with trading tax free, but for commodity items, I'd be a bit more hesitant. The problem with free trade is that it favours those who don't play by our rules, whether those rules are good or bad. This creates an unbalanced playing field. We have minimum wage laws and high housing prices [which are caused by other laws]. That automatically makes it easier for other countries to compete against us. That's not fair.

To see the absurdity of this, imagine the government saying, "If your workers [whether they be local or international] have a higher cost of living, then you must pay a higher wage, whereas if they have a lower cost of living, then you are welcome to pay them as little as possible.". That would allow your employer to pay you $100/hour, since you own a nice home, and then pay your shantytown neighbour as little as possible. We could bring back a mild form of slavery, where the slaves would have the lowest standard of living, and thus be paid nothing. It would be worth while, because the employer, through the generosity of his heart, is giving them free work experience.

I don't think that it is right for the government to enact laws to protect us, which makes us uncompetitive, while the workers overseas compete for low paying jobs. They live in places where there are lower costs of living, only because there are lower standards of living. By allowing the consumer to pay less, the consumer ends up spending that money on more things, which is usually good, but in theory can end up spreading the money around pitifully.

I think that, in general, it isn't healthy to have all jobs of a certain kind to be shipped overseas. Some people just aren't cut out to be technical or to be in management. Some people, for better or for worse, are only good with grunt work. Also, when we have a variety of jobs, it allows us to have flexibility in the economy. For example, there are a lot of jobs out there are great for transients, who through bad luck, need a temp job. Having a variety of jobs will allow him to do that.

Laissez-faire market advocates are always telling the riff-raff to go get a job. Well, okay, but what would you have us do, when we can't do the jobs that are available? You could blame us for not finding the perfect job, but sometimes things just don't work out well.

Laissez-faire market advocates are always talking about control of their own money, and dealing with risk on their own, either through good insurance plans or whatever. If that is you, then surely you agree to ban all government services and let the market protect you from overseas invaders? You don't expect the government to protect your ships from pirates, do you?

If you see some value in some government services, then hopefully you can see some value in government protecting the economy as well.

Re:fuck the usa

[Pino Grigio]

If we made it our business then the world would be a better place.

Re:fuck the usa

[digsbo]

Interesting. I think a lot of the trade balance positioning with currency devaluation, etc., could easily be done away with if people just allowed pricing to clear the markets. Long-term, that also has the benefit (for those in poor countries) of equalizing wealth levels globally. See how today China is starting to see the emergence of a middle class for the first time (it is small now, but poised to grow), even as many people are suffering under the types of work conditions that those in Europe and the US did around the time of the 1900s. So if we stop putting barriers up to the pricing system (of people setting a price for their goods that they can sell those goods for) and to currency exchange (to help facilitate the wealth exchange between overvalued and undervalued currencies) a lot of these problems would be short-term and insignificant. It is the economic policies that cause the disparities to remain instead of letting arbitrage take place and things to equilibrate.

Regarding piracy and such, remember that people often assume that just because the government acts against these types of criminals that there is no other solution. But yet look at the regular police - is it not the case that private entities (corporations and individuals) hire private security firms to protect their persons and property? Even when the government has a monopoly on law enforcement, there is still a market for security. So back to piracy...sell off or build the naval warships for insurance firms to buy; insurance premiums for freighters would naturally help pay for private shipping security financed through the insurers. Walter Block is a great advocate of such market-based solutions to these kinds of problems.

Re:fuck the usa

[eugene ts wong]

Thanks for the reply. You must get tired of discussing these issues.

Regarding allowing the pricing to clear the markets, I agree with you. In fact, I agree with all you said. I want to create jobs overseas to help people, and to make life better.

The problem that I have is the time frame in which it occurs. Typically, a company can literally just fire people and move overseas, if I understand correctly. It's all based on the idea that the owners and innovators are the people who took the only risks. That's not true. Every person who took on a career with the company could have potentially taken another job, assuming, of course, that the person has the potential for learning it. So to just move the company overseas is very disruptive.

Regarding private navies and piracy, that is very clever. I never thought of private navies. I'm very supportive of market-based solutions, if it really does work.

This discussion reminds me of my friend who talks about his right to buy things at the cheapest prices. I that that is great, but I also think that it isn't fair to allow somebody to compete with less restrictions [e.g. minimum wages, work place safety, handicap ramps and washrooms and parking, etc.]. By allowing you to buy those t-shirts for $1, we are essentially, but not literally, allowing "you" to lower your costs, without allowing "me" to lower my costs. Local businesses and workers support the local health care systems and educational systems, whether we want the government to be involved or not. Foreign countries don't support these systems, and thus offer lower prices.

Re:fuck the usa

[Pino Grigio]

I'm not right wing. I'm kind-of a half-breed. In the UK I would be called a "cross bencher", or a "floater" (don't laugh). But yes, a lot of this is anti American and anti-NATO, and cuts right into the fact that we are all evil Imperialists, except the Left of course, who only have the good of the people at heart. This is why Lefties like George Galloway would say to Saddam Hussein's face "I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability". Presumably he had no idea that he was addressing a mass murdering Ba'athist gangster? Who knows. Another prominent Leftie in the UK, Jody McIntrye, writes, "This is not a revolution; it is a western-backed, NATO-sanctioned, colonialist regime change in a sovereign African nation" when discussing the Libyan intervention. These people claim to represent the masses but what, if anything, are they offering them? There's no rational explanation for views like this except as anti-American contrarianism.

Anyway, I agree with Nick Cohen about the abrogation of any kind of moral compass by the Left over the last 25 years. If you read his book, you might too.

Remember being thankful....

[Anonymous Coward]

We had a Texan in the White House.

Re:Remember being thankful....

[PyroMosh]

Yeah, because to paraphrase Bill Maher:
"I'm sure Al Gore wouldn't be able to point at a map toward Afghanistan and say 'bomb that!'"

Re:Remember being thankful....

[Anonymous Coward]

The question, of course, was whether he would.

Re:Remember being thankful....

[PyroMosh]

Not really. Exactly one member of the house and no members of the senate voted not to go into Afghanistan. I don't remember if she gave a "no" vote, or simply abstained.

There is a near-zero probability that any president in the White House in 2001 would have elected not to go into Afghanistan. He might have done things a bit differently, but we would have gone just the same.

and the saddest thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't that 3000 ppl died, that happens also in car accidents every few months.

It's that USA went from being a respected member of the world community to a nation hated even among its allies. A nation that things it owns the whole world, can torture other country's ppls, can force them to act in ways it wants, and that is in everyone else's face.

It was the day that marked the beginning of the end for the USA.

Re:and the saddest thing

[North Korea]

So well played. I don't think the purpose was ever to cause destruction - it was to provoke US to make themselves look like asses. Just like you do when you want to get back to big stupid bullies who just use power.

Re:and the saddest thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Road Fatailities US
~ 33,000 per year * 10 years = 330,000

Iraq war - estimated 1,000,000 deaths (nothing to do with 9-11, but many believed so in the run up)

Worried about terrorism? More people die from dog bites.

Re:and the saddest thing

[RebelWithoutAClue]

Hmm, no. Car accident statistics dont get worse if you ignore them.

On the other hand ignoring something as big 9/11 would have emboldened OBL and invite him to make the next one even bigger...

It would have made us look like paper tigers. The appearance of weakness is the sort of thing that tempts our enemies to start wars.

Re:and the saddest thing

[Anonymous Coward]

So if someone started up some right wing group to assassinate liberal leaders, then they could dismiss outcries simply by saying "Haha! A single death? That's a second of road traffic incidents, your concern is laughable and overblown!" ?

Sorry, but the reason for a death and the motivation behind it is (as the preceding two lines illustrate) of monumental and extreme importance.

Re:and the saddest thing

[anagama]

retard.

Re:and the saddest thing

[maxwell demon]

Hmm, no. Car accident statistics dont get worse if you ignore them.

They do. If it weren't for the car accident statistics taken seriously, our cars would be much more dangerous today.

Re:and the saddest thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Original Anon Coward with car stats here.

I agree, should not be ignored. But the disproportionate treasure spent, goodwill towards the US completely spent, and disproportionate fatalities from Iraqi side alone cannot be ignored either.

If retaliation is required, Afghanistan would suffice, alas, I don't believe a real effort was made to rout Taliban etc. And in consequence opium production is far higher that before. How much of this opium will find its way to the US?

The real point here is, if you want to save US lives, there are more positive and productive was of doing it, rather than taking a bad temper to far away third world countries for what will likely engender more ill-will.

My sympathies to all who suffered.

Re:and the saddest thing

[Mindcontrolled]

And what did you exact in the last 10 years? Except for pointless death, that is. In what humane sense has the world improved by American action in those years? You gained a slight geostrategic point with getting a foothold in the gulf, but that, too, is rather fleeting and pretty much offset by the hate it generated, by proving the Wahhabists' point in the end.

Re:and the saddest thing

[Anonymous Coward]

I whole-heartily disagree that car accident statistics don't get worse if you simply ignore them. For reference, read up on Robert S. McNamara's efforts with Ford Motor Company spent improving vehicular safety. Or, if you'd prefer, just watch the applicable parts of Fog of War. However, I'd like to point out that the number of deaths, that were rapidly increase as more drivers took to the roads, was address through physics, research, and education--not bullets, bombs, and bloodshed. Though, I'll admit that blowing up everyone and their cars would also have lowered the number of deaths by collisions as the number of drivers and cars decreased.

Re:and the saddest thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Except the last assassination attempt was Demoncrats trying to take out a Republican.

Re:and the saddest thing

[chrb]

It wasn't even a secret. British journalist Robert Fisk interviewed Osama bin Laden several years before the Twin Towers attacks. He stated that his aim was to draw the U.S. into a protracted war in Afghanistan, one which would last a long time, ultimately leading to defeat of the U.S. - just like the way they beat the Soviets. He understood that, as with the Soviet campaign, they could not hope to win a conventional war. He also named the U.S. Somalia experience as being an influence. When U.S. marines went to Somalia Osama sent some Afghan Mujahideen fighters to battle them. They reported back that the American soldiers had fled the country after a few short battles; they believed that the Americans were not ready to fight against a long-term guerilla campaign. And why did Osama want to fight the U.S.? Two of the important factors he mentioned in these interviews were U.S. troops entering Saudi Arabia, and U.S. sanctions against Iraq leading to the indirect deaths of 600,000 Iraqi children. Fisk also pointed out that some of the first anti-U.S. operations - the U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, which had been blamed on simple "hatred of America" by the western media, occurred on the eighth anniversary of the arrival of the first US troops in Saudi Arabia in 1990.

Re:and the saddest thing

[RebelWithoutAClue]

Sure, but next year's accident statistics are likely to be proportional to the number of cars/traffic/congestion no matter what.

But if you appear to be a paper tiger, the next attack will be an order of magnitude bigger.

Re:and the saddest thing

[RoLi]

I would think that a real investigation of what happened on 9/11 should come before a response.

Re:and the saddest thing

[Zoxed]

> Hmm, no. Car accident statistics dont get worse if you ignore them.

I beg to differ: what about all that legislation of road safety rules, car design etc that stopped the early rise of car accident stats ? OK it was a long time ago, but it still happened, and still relies on constant law enforcement.

Re:and the saddest thing

[Mindcontrolled]

First of all, America starts wars, not your perceived enemies. Second, ignoring something as big as "9/11" would have shown that you have greatness, cojones, all what you would like to convince yourself that you possess. Doing what you did only showed that you are yappy little dogs that can be strung along as planned on the slightest provocation. My condolences to those affected, but the reaction to it showed what your government was - bullies with no perspective.

Re:and the saddest thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh my friend you are far from correct. The day will come when America will wake up but are we living in the beggining of the end for the US, I wholeheartedly disagree.

Re:and the saddest thing

[RebelWithoutAClue]

I'll repeat this.

next year's accident statistics are likely to be proportional to the number of cars/traffic/congestion no matter what.

But if you appear to be a paper tiger, the next attack will be an order of magnitude bigger.

Re:and the saddest thing

[onepoint]

If it was not that your user ID shows that you have been a member of slashdot since 1999ish or before ( I lost my id that started at 147000ish ) I would have taken it as a troll.

but with that said, I'll read it.

Also note, I am a witness to what happened and I worked in both towers for a while and tower 7 and OLP ( One Liberty Plaza ).

While I respect older consistent users, I have to say, unless you have been in a hotel fire or been shot at or ended up in a war/sniper zone by accident ( all 3 I have been at as a civilian, shelled in Lebanon was the most frightening ), Pancaking is common. and something that firefighters are taught is never to trust the trusses. and fires get real hot.

while many people look to see conspiracy, I see normal fire that could not be fought due to issue way too large and overwhelming. Don't forget, OLP was bent due to the stuff falling off the towers, and WTC 7 was a lot closer to the twin towers than OLP

if you start asking yourself about why the towers collapse, you really have to ask yourself this question .... why is the skyscraper design prior to WTC safer... don't forget it was a new design at that time, and you are correct, the design failed due to flaws that were not foreseeable. if it was the empire building, I think nothing would have happened in sense of a collapse.

thank you for the link. I will enjoy reading it

Re:and the saddest thing

[Anonymous Coward]

AMERICA...... FUCK YEAH!!!

Re:and the saddest thing

[RebelWithoutAClue]

Hmmm?

China could invade Taiwan sensing weakness, N. Korea could step up it's little campaign.

You must come from an alternate reality where "greatness, cojones" means delusional.

Re:and the saddest thing

[a_nonamiss]

Are you referring to HInkley as a Democrat? Jesus, dude, do just a little bit of research before posting bullshit. Hinkley was crazy out of his mind insane. He had been following Carter with a gun for months, but could never find his opportunity. Then Regan got elected, so he started following him. All it took was one opportunity. He was not a Republican nor a Democrat.

Re:and the saddest thing

[Anonymous Coward]

When U.S. marines went to Somalia Osama sent some Afghan Mujahideen fighters to battle them. They reported back that the American soldiers had fled the country after a few short battles; they believed that the Americans were not ready to fight against a long-term guerilla campaign.

Maybe you saw soldiers running away in Black Hawk Down, but Marines have maintained a presence at the Horn of Africa and performing counter-terrorism ops since 1991. Don't confuse the two; the Army is a large occupying force (5x the size of the marines per wikipedia) that is ill-suited for guerrilla warfare. OTOH, there is a mutual respect between the professional mujahideen and the Marines, since both will risk their lives to retrieve bodies of fallen comrades, both will fight to the death instead of surrender/being captured, etc. Part of that is that the marines doctrine does not teach lines of retreat therefore, the idea of falling back is not even in their mindset. Counter-example to your argument: the Taliban was at its weakest point in 2004/2005 after fighting marines. Marines were pulled out to go to Anbar Iraq which was a hotbed of Sunni radicalism and on the verge of becoming Anbaristan. Three years later, Anbar was the most peaceful part of Iraq and Afghanistan had fallen to chaos again, now the marines are back in Afghanistan cleaning up that mess. So you are partially right about the American soldiers, but not the marines.

Re:and the saddest thing

[Mindcontrolled]

Good Lord, you think China is in on the plot of some goatherders that got you to your knees? Gotta nuke the goats, else China is getting uppity? Small tip - seek medical help. Not everyone is out to get you. Basically, everyone wants to be left alone by the likes of you. I hear we have decent medication to alleviate the symptoms of paranoia these days.

Re:and the saddest thing

[maxwell demon]

Well, the idea to get the USA to fight (and lose) in Afghanistan was a stated(!) goal of Bin Laden. OTOH, if all forces had been concentrated in Afghanistan instead of going into the totally pointless Iraq war (remember, it was that war which made America lose much of its reputation [and Guantanamo, of course]; few questioned the appropriateness of the Afghanistan war), maybe Afghanistan wouldn't have turned into the disaster it is now.

Re:and the saddest thing

[RebelWithoutAClue]

I would argue that there wasn't much goodwill to begin with. There's a reason the US is called the great satan, and the Palestinians celebrated in the streets after 9/11.

As for the opium issue, that calls for a rant about the drug war which would be completely offtopic. In short, the war on some drugs is responsible for many ills in the US and the rest of the world.

The best defense is a good offense.

Re:and the saddest thing

[jopsen]

Isn't that 3000 ppl died, that happens also in car accidents every few months.

It's that USA went from being a respected member of the world community to a nation hated even among its allies. A nation that things it owns the whole world, can torture other country's ppls, can force them to act in ways it wants, and that is in everyone else's face.

It was the day that marked the beginning of the end for the USA.

Add "reinvent" the English language to the list too :)

Re:and the saddest thing

[RebelWithoutAClue]

Showing weakness (by inaction) to OBL will be interpreted as a sign of weakness by everyone else.

Re:and the saddest thing

[kestasjk]

Yeah I think Neville Chamberlain did something similar in 1938 and it went pretty great.

Re:and the saddest thing

[sydneyfong]

WTF? N. Korea is sort of unpredictable, and has nothing to lose, but China isn't going to sink trillions of dollars, attract international animosity, potentially declaring war with various countries, and forgo actual economic development --- just to wage war on a petty little country.

Seriously, for all its other flaws, China isn't as idiotic as the USA when it comes to these things. It may be hard for you believe this, but it's true.

Re:and the saddest thing

[Sancho]

UID doesn't mean much--just that you're probably older. Sometimes older people have the dumbest ideas. They get more frightened and paranoid the less life they have left.

Re:and the saddest thing

[RebelWithoutAClue]

How do you think the power balance around Taiwan would be affected if China became convinced that the US wouldn't have the cojones to militarily support Taiwan?

Re:and the saddest thing

[RoLi]

First, as I said, this "pancaking", even if you believe in it, is strictly unofficial, because in the official report, the towers just "collapsed" without any explanation at all and WTC-7 did not collapse at all. So with your claim that "pancaking is common" you are also on strictly unofficial territory.

Of course when the "pancaking"-theory is correct and the floors got loose from the core, shouldn't the core be left standing?

Why did WTC-7 collapse? Why did it even burn? The official version does not say - what else are we supposed to do except make up our own minds?

I mean even if you believe in everything the government says, you have to make up your own mind because the government does not say anything about the WTC-7 collapse (and many other things).

Also missing in the report is the reason for this perfect symmetry in the collapse of all 3 buildings. Especially the South Tower was hit on a corner, why should it collapse in perfect symmetry. (Oh and of course I repeat myself that WTC-7 was not hit at all)

Oh, and why does the official report say that the plane crash in the 90th-something floor causes the software to fail in the command-center in the 22nd floor? What kind of weird logic is behind that?

And why do you call me a troll when I just link to the official report and a summary of the official report? Are you now already a "conspiracy theorist" when you look at the official report? Has 9/11 become some taboo? Are we not supposed to think or talk about it, is even looking at the "official version" some kind of evil subversion?

So tell me what a "good citizen" or "non-troll" is supposed to do, when you don't even allow reading of the official report. So far, the 9/11 Commission Report is the only official document available, there is nothing else out there. If you don't allow even that, then there is nothing left.

Re:and the saddest thing

[Shihar]

The US faced down the fucking USSR. The USSR could literally destroy the world, and we had a policy of going toe to toe with them if they messed with us or our allies. We were just as ready to jab the 'blow up the god damn world' as they were, if not more so. We went nearly a decade in that mindset without pissing away our civil liberties.

9/11 comes along and one of the least scary threats to Americans, a threat that ranks well below eating McDonalds food (which actually DOES kill Americans), and we piss ourselves.

Our actions didn't scare away OBL. OBL couldn't do it again because as soon as we installed $100 security doors and airplanes and passengers decided to beat the shit out of anyone trying to take over the airplane, it made that attack impossible. The US could eat a 9/11 10 times a year, and if we didn't act like fucking cowards in response, terrorism still wouldn't even make it into the top 10 most likely ways to die as an American. Eating your fat American ass to death would remain safely on top by over two orders of magnitude.

I am all for beating the piss out of Afghanistan post 9/11. It is a friendly reminder to other nations not to harbor enemies. I was okay with dropping a couple hundred on security doors for airplanes and telling passengers to beat the shit out of anyone trying to take over and airplane. Absolutely everything beyond that was a complete fucking waste of money and much of it a violation of civil liberties we managed to keep even when facing down the fucking USSR.

Seriously, consider that. The fourth amendment meant something when facing down the god damn USSR, an world ending threat. When faced with sheep herders who are as likely to blow their own dicks off as they are to blow up a single airplane (of our many thousands), we promptly rip up the constitution and use it as toilet paper to help clean up the mess when made we shit ourselves in cowardly fright.

Anyone who fears terrorist in the US is a fucking coward, pure and simple. Anyone who fears them enough to mew and bleat to politicians to strip their fellow Americans of civil liberties and constitutional protection is not only a complete and total fucking coward, but a sniveling traitorous coward of the worst kind, as they have the nerve to bleat for politicians to strip their fellow citizens of freedoms that 200+ years of Americans fought and died to build and protect. If you are going to be a coward, do it quietly, and don't be a traitorous piece of filth working to undo freedoms bought with 200+ years of sweat and blood by men and women far more deserving of those freedoms than your sniveling pathetic ass. If the thought of dying really causes your bowels to loosen, eat less fucking food.

Re:and the saddest thing

[Anonymous Coward]

The main motivation of all the hijackers and Osama himself as mentioned in every interview was US support for Israel...you dont mention that. Neither did the US commission on 9/11 report or nearly 10 years of media coverage...the motive. The motive is never mentioned. Fisk had an article about this a week ago...its the reason Americans know next to nothing about 911 after 10 years.

"Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple:
(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.
a) You attacked us in Palestine:
The British handed over Palestine, with your help and your support, to the Jews, who have occupied it for more than 50 years; years overflowing with oppression, tyranny, crimes, killing, expulsion, destruction and devastation There is no need to explain and prove the degree of American support for Israel. Each and every person whose hands have become polluted in the contribution towards this crime must pay its price, and pay for it heavilyThe Palestinians do not cry alone; their women are not widowed alone; their sons are not orphaned alone"

OBL

http://mondoweiss.net/2011/09/weve-learned-nothing-since-911.html

Re:and the saddest thing

[Anonymous Coward]

If anybody calls you a "conspiracy theorist",

Saying man never walked on the moon makes you a conspiracy theorist. Saying a magic bullet swerved through the crowd and made a u-turn before hitting JFK makes you a conspiracy theorist. Seeing two commercial airliners hit a pair of giant towers then wondering why the buildings collapsed and watching the tons of debris hit and destroy another building and wonder how hundreds of tons of falling flaming rubble could possibly damage a building doesn't make you a conspiracy theorist, it makes you batshit bonkers.

Re:and the saddest thing

[RebelWithoutAClue]

I agree with you. Surely there's a better way than the current security theater.

Re:and the saddest thing

[vadim_t]

Er, he's dead.

Also no, the rest of the world doesn't interpret the US actions as strength, but as war mongering.

Re:and the saddest thing

[chrb]

Robert Fisk is, was, and always will be uber anti-american. Quoting him on this day just makes you look like the idiot you are.

My post was not intended as anti-American, since I am not anti-American. I was summarising an interview with Osama bin Laden on why he planned to attack the U.S and what his motivations were. Is that not relevant to this discussion? Why is interviewing Osama bin Laden considered anti-American? Why, "on this day", are we not allowed to state the reasons that he gave for attacking the U.S.? Would it make you feel better if we all pretend that he was just a crazy guy who never tried to justify his actions?

Yes, life under the Taliban sucked. Yes, killing thousands of civilians is bad. Yes, Al Qaeda is not a conventional military of a nation state (although the Taliban could have been considered that way in 2001). I have no idea if they have a functioning legal system, perhaps Sharia? Regardless, I really don't see how these points are relevant; they do not refute Osama bin Laden's statement that he intended to draw the U.S. into a protracted war in Afghanistan, and that he stated some reasons, which is all that my original post said...

Re:and the saddest thing

[Anonymous Coward]

+1 If I could mod this up, I would. Bin Laden was actually counting on the idea that we wouldn't retaliate. This idea that the past 10 years have all been part of his awesome plan is just a liberal hippie-minded peace-and-love myth.

Educate yourself. OBL *did* expect and *wanted* the US to retaliate.

One example from 2004: "We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah," bin Laden said in the transcript. He said the mujahedeen fighters did the same thing to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s, "using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers. "We, alongside the mujahedeen, bled Russia for 10 years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat," bin Laden said. He also said al Qaeda has found it "easy for us to provoke and bait this administration. All that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al Qaeda, in order to make generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses without their achieving anything of note other than some benefits for their private corporations," bin Laden said.

Looking at the US today, OBL's goal is proceeding nicely. The "banking crisis" (aka the "housing bubble") is helping make his goal come true to a larger degree and faster than it otherwise would have, but none the less the US is done and rapidly declining. As the US continues to bleed manufacturing and other jobs, all that is left is the US war machine. Everything else is drying up. From torture on, the US has reduced its self to a has been, dying nation. The US has a great war machine, no doubt. Torture and invasions? Yup - Good at those. As to the people within the US... Who cares? Not even US politicians, democrat or republican, care as long as their personal nest is well feathered... Even the veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan will end up like so many Viet Nam and Korean "war" veterans - Abandoned with increasingly de-funded (aka "gutted") veterans benefits by their politicians as the years go by.

Re:and the saddest thing

[AchilleTalon]

There is no political significance behind car accidents. This event is not about the number of deads. The number of peoples who died is just much more shocking to the public opinion than the USS Cole, the US Tanzania's Embassy or WTC terrorists attacks many years before the 9-11.

So, your point is completely off-topic, at my humble opinion. You are just trying to banalize somewhat the terrorism. It's like to say no terrorist attack will worth paying attention to it until it reach the deads count of Hiroshima or something like that.

Re:and the saddest thing

[JWSmythe]

    So you're saying that crush bumpers, crumple zones, padded dashboards, airbags, seatbelts, stronger passenger compartments, crash sensors, OnStar (collision detection and reporting), standardized signs and signals, wider lanes, and better designs for intersections are all from statistics and logical research. Oh, that would make you right. The only factor they haven't removed is the idiots operating the vehicle. But we're not all that far from that now either.

    I still see it as, in the 10 years following the 9/11 attacks, there has not been a successful attack on American soil. As has been well noted, post 9/11 security is far from perfect, yet they seem to have a perfect score for defeating subsequent attacks. That tells me that either the attackers continue to use such obvious methods that they are always caught, or there hasn't been a real attempt. But why bother with another attack, when the United States government has continued its own campaign of fear against its population.

Re:and the saddest thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Hear! Hear!
(Though you could try making the same point without swearing quite so much.)

Re:and the saddest thing

[Oligonicella]

We're called the Great Satan because we are successful as a civilization using exactly the quality that their brand of Islam requires be eliminated: individuality in thought.

For no other reason does the Koran, and therefore OB, want people such as those comprising the US exterminated.

Re:and the saddest thing

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what? I'm mostly an anti-war liberal. BUT, fuck these guys. They're still using 60-year old excuses for things. We've been respectful to them and have helped safe millions of their lives. If they want to go at it; bring it motherfuckers.

Re:and the saddest thing

[Anonymous Coward]

still don't get it, do you?
Your boneheaded approach to life and other people sucks big time.
And yes, in a way, you completely deserved getting bombed

Re:and the saddest thing

[Joe Jay Bee]

That, my good man, was beautiful in so many different ways. Kudos.

Re:and the saddest thing

[bdenton42]

the government does not say anything about the WTC-7 collapse

http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=861610

Re:and the saddest thing

[Bing Tsher E]

It's rather amusing that you have found a way to 'put down' both sides in the conflict with a single sentence. Goatherders? Do you think the Taliban and AQ are simply that? How racist and derogatory. Are you some sort of right wing European Nationalist?

But likely, you're just some troll-dork who lives in New Jersey. Net-rage, right? I've been trolled, eh?

Re:and the saddest thing

[multi io]

The US faced down the fucking USSR. The USSR could literally destroy the world, and we had a policy of going toe to toe with them if they messed with us or our allies. We were just as ready to jab the 'blow up the god damn world' as they were, if not more so. We went nearly a decade in that mindset without pissing away our civil liberties.

The USSR could destroy the world, but they DID NOT WANT TO. The commies were corrupt dictators, but they were rational people who loved their lives and that of their children. They wouldn't attack the west with terrorist sleeper cells that used airplanes as bombs, or with suitcase nukes in NY harbor. With people who love life, the "mutually assured destruction" deterrent works. The USSR had the capability to destroy the world 10 times over, but they didn't use that capability for 40 years. Islamic terrorists do want to destroy the world. If you gave the nuclear arsenal and launch sites of the USSR to Al Qaida, western civilization would cease to exist the next day.

Re:and the saddest thing

[Anonymous Coward]

When Al Qaida has enough nukes the destroy the world, call me. If I was Superman I would rule the world with an iron fist. What the fuck exactly is your point? Al Qaida can't even hold onto the poorest nation in the world filled with goat herders. Who gives a fuck what they would do if they magically got a pile of nukes dropped into their lap.

Stop being such a fucking coward.

Re:and the saddest thing

[unitron]

Don't I recall something about Hinkley's family being friends with the G.H.W.Bush family as well?

Re:and the saddest thing

[Mindcontrolled]

Projecting much? Around here, we call it hyperbole. A rhetorical tool. Lost on those who can't take any subtlety. Goat herders in comparison to the American war machine. And, for your info, no - I am no right winger, from your perspective, I am probably a couple of light years left from center. European, though, you got that right.

Re:and the saddest thing

[Anonymous Coward]

wow... powerful -- clumsy prose, but well said.

Re:and the saddest thing

[ultranova]

Showing weakness (by inaction) to OBL will be interpreted as a sign of weakness by everyone else.

No, but wasting over a trillion dollars and ten years to find and kill him and turning your precious Constitution into toilet paper in the process certainly was.

Re:and the saddest thing

[TheGratefulNet]

It was the day that marked the beginning of the end for the USA.

even I don't believe this.

its the beginning of a dark period, to be sure. but the whole WORLD has gone 'down hill' along with us. this is not a USA issue but it shows what people are like. more specifically, it shows what people IN POWER are like. world wide, all countries have take the same liberties away from its citizens. this isn't an american issue; its about all world leaders and how human beings react to threats and threats on their powerbase.

if you can't see this, you are as foolish as the people you accuse.

Re:and the saddest thing

[onepoint]

maybe you don't have any construction experience or maybe you don't understand some big mass physics, I don't know...

let's just look at the video.... the building came somewhat down straight... it was tilted but it's not going to slide completely off. the tower's designed shows that everything would more or less fall center ( don't forget, a core for the elevators, and a girder wall to enclose the living space ) there is a lot of attachment to each piece so at the end everything should pull towards the center of the core.

as for the core left standing, there is tons and ton's, when it goes it just goes, nothing ever is left in most cases.

And why is wtc-7 left out of most reports, real simple, it's port authority ruled and not part of the WTC development.... but a report was written later

since you were not there, and I really don't see it mentioned much, WTC 7 has this huge gash in it, and the lowest floors were a con-ed sub station ( or power station I am not sure )

But you can believe what you want.

Re:and the saddest thing

[sgt scrub]

This isn't the U.S. It stopped being the U.S. when W was sworn in as govner and ended for the rest of the nation when he was sworn in as prezdent. His administration knew damn well there was going to be an attack but didn't give a shit. They knew that fear was going to play in their hands in the war against americans that don't believe in their ideological bullshit. FUD was W's tool to repay debts and give power over the nation to a handful of evangelical nutbags. The more fear, the more freedom stealing power available to put into the hands of their loyalists. Americans are not cowards! They are tired. Tired of working multiple jobs, and getting beat down for every penny in their pockets. No one can fight while out of breath. The piles of shit that want to destroy everything so "jesus will retern" run the voting booths. These fuckers roll out the church buses for early registration. The people that decide who gets off work to vote are the ones that want low wages, high unemployment, and a tax breaks to invest in the stock market. The employees that work for those cock suckers have to decide on if they take a chance on loosing their job too run out at lunch time to cast a vote or keep eating shit. Americans are cowards?!? I'll give you coward mother fucker!

Re:and the saddest thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Great comment, 100% agreed and very well said.
I wish we had politicians with the balls to say it like it is.
Thanks.

Re:and the saddest thing

[ultranova]

Islamic terrorists do want to destroy the world.

The problem is, the Religious Right also wants to destroy the world. Go see Rapture Ready forums: every time something bad happens somewhere, the news is met with jubilence; because, after all, it hastens the day when Lord Jesus returns and drowns the world in fire while the righteous - meaning people who'll enjoy watching everyone else burn - watch. And if Lord Jesus might seem to be taking his time in returning... Well, one could always help God's plan along by causing some bad news, right?

Basically, we have two bunches of omnicidal maniacs, one with nuclear weapons, and both are trying to goad each other to get on with it.

Re:and the saddest thing

[Mindcontrolled]

While you are right, what are you going to do about it? How do you get those who swallowed the propaganda for more than a decade now back?

Re:and the saddest thing

[gomiam]

As has been well noted, post 9/11 security is far from perfect, yet they seem to have a perfect score for defeating subsequent attacks.

Correlation is not causation. There have been several attempts in Europe too and you don't see train stations overloaded with detectors... excepting perhaps the high-speed trains.

Besides, I think any pilot with enough brain to tan his hide knows the air kidnapping rules got thrown out of the window and will do whatever is needed to keep kidnappers out of the cockpit. Blow the plane up? Hell, it's either that or blow it into some building.

Re:and the saddest thing

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are going to try and fucking say something insightful, be accurate:

> 9/11 comes along and one of the least scary threats to Americans, a threat that ranks well below eating McDonalds food (which actually DOES kill Americans), and a few war profiteers jump on the opportunity to make money.

FTFY, also, wake the hell up.

Re:and the saddest thing

[gomiam]

Yes, of course it will... if you show weakness by inaction, which is very different from showing bully stupidity by mis-action. I said it then and I'll say it again: USians are (un)fortunate enough to not have had to deal with terrorist groups in their midst for too long and don't know (have forgotten) what really works against them. Hint: it's not hitting at wrong places in the wrong way.

Re:and the saddest thing

[gomiam]

Oh, please, not veiled references to Nazis... besides, your analogy would be completely flawed anyway.

Re:and the saddest thing

[sgt scrub]

Vote. Educate people. Volunteer for Obama's campaign. Did I say vote?

Re:and the saddest thing

[Risen888]

It's that USA went from being a respected member of the world community to a nation hated even among its allies. A nation that things it owns the whole world, can torture other country's ppls, can force them to act in ways it wants, and that is in everyone else's face.

Are you fucking daft? That has been the normal state of affairs for decades.

Re:and the saddest thing

[RebelWithoutAClue]

Those are 2 different issues. The Constitution did not have to be trashed to go after OBL. For instance the terrorists were neither protected by the Geneva Convention, nor the Constitution. The trashing of the Constitution here at home was already happening and was merely accelerated by the War on Terror.

Re:and the saddest thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Enemies of what? Your country kills people for economic reasons!
What part of that is unclear to you? Your whole so called "defense industry" is about that.

EU citizen here (also not too proud about that...)

Re:and the saddest thing

[Anonymous Coward]

We're called the Great Satan because we are successful as a civilization using exactly the quality that their brand of Islam requires be eliminated: individuality in thought.

In your dreams. In reality, the Iranians call us the Great Satan because in 1953 we overthrew their democratically elected government and imposed a dictatorship, complete with a terrifying secret police (SAVAK), on them. For decades afterwards, our puppet, Shah Reza Pahlevi, allowed our companies to basically steal the oil from Iran.

Given all that, it says a lot about the basic decency of Iranians that all they do is call us names. And it says a lot about the utter moral corruption of Empire that we fail to acknowledge the evil we do.

Re:and the saddest thing

[Antisyzygy]

Hear hear. I really don't think people would let a terrorist hijack another plane. Before 9/11 people thought hijackings ended at some point on the ground, not burrowing into a building. When people realize there is a good chance they will die, some of them with balls will react.

Re:and the saddest thing

[Mindcontrolled]

True. I am no American, though - so I can only wish you good luck. Trying to do my part here, over the pond.

Re:and the saddest thing

[Risen888]

To paraphrase you, showing weakness (by misguided action) has in fact been interpreted as a sign of weakness by the world.

Ten years of war didn't kill bin Laden. Two helicopters full of Special Forces did it in half an hour, in Pakistan no less.

Re:and the saddest thing

[Anonymous Coward]

And sometimes young people live in an ideological bubble with little appreciation for the realities of the world. Idiocy in not an age related characteristic.

Re:and the saddest thing

[Anonymous Coward]

So fucking what? It's between the Chinese and (well, the other kind of) Chinese. Why do the US has to meddle in it's affairs? Just to show you have cojones?

Re:and the saddest thing

[Anonymous Coward]

The US could eat a 9/11 10 times a year

Nice hyperbole, you math-deficient retard.
Because 30,000 additional violent murders a year, 40 large passenger plane hijackings a year, 20 office towers and 10 government office building per year - that would totally have no effect at all, sure. Cumulatively, that'd bring to total today, on the 10 year anniversary of the first one, to 300,000 murdered citizens, 400 planes, 200 skyscrapers, and 100 government offices.

Get back under your bridge.

Re:and the saddest thing

[bonch]

So apparently Slashdot's 9/11 memorial article is going to be dominated by anonymous anti-America posts calling it Fuck America Day and getting +5 Insightful. I think there's clearly been a demographic shift in the last ten years on this site as most of the normal readers left for Reddit/Digg/Hacker News and left behind the more chemically imbalanced posters. It's also interesting to note the difference in traffic--a popular post on Slashdot 10 years ago routinely got over 1,000 posts. This article only has about 400 as of this writing, and a large portion of it is anonymous trolling.

I know it makes you feel really enlightened and intellectual to take the contrarian anti-America position on 9/11, but for you to actually claim that the U.S. was a "respected member of the world community" after Vietnam and other mistakes is completely laughable. You also ignore things like the atrocities of Saddam against his people and the mass graves that were discovered. Absolutely nothing is so black-and-white in this world. Who did America force to act in ways that it wants? You don't give any names. Those who chose to act with America did so of their own volition.

It was the day that marked the beginning of the end for the USA.

I wonder how many people have claimed the end of the U.S. was coming in centuries it has existed. People love to be alarmist because it gives them attention, and they love to bash the U.S. because it makes them feel like enlightened intellectuals, especially if they inexplicably also live in the U.S. A lot of people have latched onto modern liberalism and turned it into an excuse to smugly feel superior to "normal" Americans. You see this a lot on sites like DU and DailyKos, where they've constructed a worldview in which they are the enlightened minority who sees the true reality but is surrounded by lesser individuals who just aren't smart enough to understand.

I suspect that a lot of this trolling is from the same couple of anonymous posters and that it signals a bitterness among people on the political left right now who are stinging from a disappointing presidency and want to relive the halcyon days of Bush-bashing and America-bashing. Bashing America doesn't make you smart. You're still just sitting there doing nothing, having no effect on the world.

Re:and the saddest thing

[martyros]

Car accident statistics dont get worse if you ignore them.

You have it exactly backwards. The only reason people do terrorism is to get attention.

Look, the whole point of terrorism is to be an effectiveness multiplier. The purpose of flying the planes into the twin towers wasn't to kill people. It was to get the US to spend billions of dollars on counter-terrorism measures.

You'll occasionally see in sports games, people who strip naked and run onto the field. When that happens, the TV broadcasters point the cameras away. Why? Because they know that the cameras is what the guy wanted. By putting him on TV, they're giving him exactly what he wants, and encouraging more people to do the same. By talking about the game and ignoring him, they're sending a message: Your little stunt will be largely ignored.

If the media did that with terrorism, then terrorism would not exist: there would be no point. But the fact is that terrorism is very good for the media. It has people glued to their television sets. The media are an integral part of a terrorist attack; it wouldn't function properly without it.

Now, I'm not saying we should just ignore terrorism. We need to find out the root causes and see what we can do about it. But one of the biggest things we could do is just not make a big deal out of it.

Re:and the saddest thing

[JWSmythe]

    Exactly. The reason there haven't been successful domestic attacks isn't because of increased security. It's because they haven't needed or wanted to do it right. We've surrendered or otherwise lost our rights to privacy for the sake of the illusion of security (also known as security theater).

    There are so many things that can be done, that are virtually impossible to stop. What has been done to stop a repeat of the Oklahoma City bombing? Not much. You can still rent trucks. If you couldn't rent them, you can buy them. You can drive down, or park on streets. You can still buy precursors for very effective improvised explosives.

    How about the "Beltway Sniper Attacks"? You can still buy and own guns. If all firearms were outlawed in the United States, they could be smuggled in without too much difficulty. If firearms were outlawed, and smuggling effectively blocked, weapons could be improvised (see "zip guns"). All it would take is one guy with a machine shop that knew what he was doing, and an ancient formula for gunpowder (damn those Chinese).

    How about serial killer terrorism, in the style of Jack the Ripper? You can own knives. I'd name more recent serial killers, but the list is too long, and the end result is always the same (dead victim, live killer).

    There is no way to fully protect against anything and everything. Even in prison, where it should be impossible to get weapons, and security guards patrol and search all the time, zip guns and shanks are used. Instead of those, chairs and makeshift clubs will do the job.

    Humans are an awful species, and they do horrible things. Most will be good. Some will do things that remain a part of our history for generations. Surrendering our rights and living in fear is insanity. It has made quite a few company quite a bit of money though.

Re:and the saddest thing

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Sure, but next year's accident statistics are likely to be proportional to the number of cars/traffic/congestion no matter what.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s1103.pdf

Item Unit 1980 1990 1995 2000 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Traffic death rates:
Per 100 million vehicle miles ........ Rate ..... 3.3 2.1 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.3
Per 100,000 licensed drivers ........ Rate ..... 35.2 26.7 23.7 22.0 21.5 21.7 21.1 20.1 17.9
Per 100,000 registered vehicles ..... Rate ..... 34.8 24.2 21.2 19.3 18.0 17.7 17.0 16.1 14.5
Per 100,000 resident population ..... Rate ..... 22.5 17.9 15.9 14.9 14.6 14.7 14.3 13.7 12.3

Re:and the saddest thing

[nmb3000]

The US faced down the fucking USSR. The USSR could literally destroy the world, and we had a policy of going toe to toe with them if they messed with us or our allies. We were just as ready to jab the 'blow up the god damn world' as they were, if not more so. We went nearly a decade in that mindset without pissing away our civil liberties.

I agree with the sentiment of your post, but I also think it's important not to gloss over history.

The truth is that more than a few people had problems during the Red Scare (both of them), but even more so as a result of McCarthyism. While we may have done better then than we are doing today, the US didn't weather the Cold War without any blemishes on civil rights or liberties.

Re:and the saddest thing

[haruchai]

Exactly. If there had been any brains in the US leadership, they should have turned the terrorist tactics back on them. The US has bases, secret installations and safe houses all over the world to provide support for surgical strikes and snipers. Even if they had to bribe thousands (which they probably did anyway), they MIGHT have spent a few billion to take out the Al Qaida leadership at the cost of only a few dozen additional American lives and perhaps hundreds in collateral damage instead of tens of thousands.

Re:and the saddest thing

[RebelWithoutAClue]

The Taliban, then the government of Afghanistan directly supported AQ. And once the Government of Afghanistan supported the attacks that makes it a act of war, going to war was thus a reasonable approach.

Re:and the saddest thing

[RebelWithoutAClue]

What the heck are you talking about? When 3000 people die, you can safely bet that it will not be ignored anywhere in the world, except maybe Soviet Russia, Mao's China or NK.

Re:and the saddest thing

[RebelWithoutAClue]

More than just the one man bore responsibility for those attacks. Although OBL may have planned the attacks himself, he was helped by other people as well as supported by the Taliban, then the government of Afghanistan.

Re:and the saddest thing

[russotto]

It's that USA went from being a respected member of the world community to a nation hated even among its allies.

You're behind the times. We elected the black dude for President, and now all is forgiven. Mission Accomplished, as they say.

Re:and the saddest thing

[MightyMartian]

They are worse the the worst of the Nazi's - and deserve whatever can bee brought on them at every opportunity.

The worst of the Nazis came up with an industrial system of mass murder than killed to 10 to 11 million people. The worst of the Nazis are so much worse than the worst of the Islamist terrorists, or any terrorists for that matter, that ti beggars belief that you could, unless you're a complete ignoramus, make such a statement.

Re:and the saddest thing

[MightyMartian]

I suspect that there wouldn't have been a 9-11 if US security services hadn't basically atrophied after the end of the Cold War.

Re:and the saddest thing

[MightyMartian]

Ignoring 9-11 would have been absurd, and no civilization in the past, now or in the future would ever permit its leaders to simply ignore it.

The appropriate debate is not whether or not the US should have responded. That's fucking ludicrous, and if you're not a complete idiot I think you know it. The appropriate debate was how to deal with it. I can certainly say that toppling Hussein was counterproductive and cost the US billions of dollars to get to a point where we have a shaky government whose future no one can have that much confidence in. The destruction of the Taliban might have made more sense, since they were directly linked to Al Qaeda. The problem being that the US's "ally", Pakistan, it now turns out, was playing both sides of the fence, and has undermined almost everything the US and NATO tried to do.

But certainly I think most people can agree that bin Laden was an arch-criminal who had to be pursued, and furthermore tackling Al Qaeda as much as possible was a worthwhile goal. Again the debate is over methods, and there is no lack of criticism in that department.

Re:and the saddest thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Bravo!

Re:and the saddest thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy shit, how did this get modded up? And I thought I was good when maintaining my excellent karma after years of trolling. I bow to you my master!

Re:and the saddest thing

[haruchai]

You can be reasonable and still be incredibly stupid. The smart leader goes to open war with an enemy when 1.) you know where their forces are 2.) you have a reasonable expectation of success 3.) you have something to gain.

The US has shown themselves to be "geniuses at gadgets, morons at maneuver" - despite having every possible military advantage including an internal militia,after 10 years they don't have full control. And since it was well known that PAKISTAN also supported the Taliban and sent 10,000 troops to fight against the US, why didn't Bush and Cheney declare war on them ( a country that DOES have real WMDs)? Is their geography so bad they confused it with Iraq?

Re:and the saddest thing

[Pseudonym Authority]

I like how your username summarizes what you will say.

Re:and the saddest thing

[Pseudonym Authority]

When it is not possible to be both feared and love, it is better to be feared, than loved.

Re:and the saddest thing

[ElusiveJoe]

Why do you hate USSR? KGB murdered your family or what?

Re:and the saddest thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Robert Fisk is one of the few jounalists with the courage to tell the truth. If you dont like the truth change your countries actions dont shoot the messenger. Thyere no need for anti american garbage, the truth is there for all to see, and if you think thats anti american-bad luck

Re:and the saddest thing

[RebelWithoutAClue]

I like how people mock my username when they don't have a real comment to make.

Re:and the saddest thing

[ChatHuant]

Vote. Educate people. Volunteer for Obama's campaign. Did I say vote?

While I agree with the sentiment (maybe not so much about the Obama part, given his apparent lack of a spine, but that's another discussion), I doubt education will work anymore. You see, I think Americans are at this point the best managed people on Earth. They're intentionally misinformed, fed lies after lies and mentally forced on a junk diet of nationalism, hate, suspicion and ignorance.
 
Note how often ridiculous red herrings are raised, just in time to distract from the real issues (for example, the gay marriage scare of a few years ago, or the swift boat people, or today's deficit cap crap). And note that *it works!*. It works because Americans are managed into believing this kind of thing. There isn't another place I know of where so many people are suspicious of education (see how Michelle Bachman wants to dismantle the Dept. of Education, or how all Republican candidates had to pledge their disbelief in evolution). Those people consider the word "liberal" an insult, and I don't believe your attempts to educate them have a chance.

Re:and the saddest thing

[Shihar]

Quote the whole sentence, asshole.

I said, "The US could eat a 9/11 10 times a year, and if we didn't act like fucking cowards in response, terrorism still wouldn't even make it into the top 10 most likely ways to die as an American."

30,000 deaths each year still would not break you into the top 10 leading causes of death. You would still be below the number 10 spot which is occupied by a specific infection. The 9 spot kills 60,000 people a year due to the flu. We lose 300,000 people in just six months to heart disease alone.

It isn't hyperbole. The terrorist are not going to kill you. Stop being such a god damn coward and realize that you are going to eat your fat ass to death, not get struck dead by a sheep herder. Mewing and pleading for the government to strip you of your liberties over the absurdly rare possibility that a terrorist might get you is pathetic and cowardly. Stop trying to defend such pathetic craven bleating.

Top 10 ways to die in the US: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm

Re:and the saddest thing

[antifoidulus]

Actually Al Qaeda's real goal was never destruction of the US, it honestly doesn't actually care about the US nearly as much as they say they do. Their goal was to goad the US into attacking Middle Eastern countries which then Al Qaeda would defend. By doing so they hoped to unite the Muslim world under their rule. Thats why they spent much more time attacking Iraqis in Iraq than they ever did attacking the US, they needed the US to stay, at least for a while, while they consolidated their power. However while they predicted the US response pretty well, they really botched their predictions for how the Middle East as a whole would react. Most people outside Iraq and Afghanistan were really pretty indifferent towards the whole thing. They were opposed to the US invading Iraq, but not enough to take up arms or get behind Al Qaeda.

Re:and the saddest thing

[Pseudonym Authority]

Fair enough. Perhaps it is too easy to dismiss people as idiots. But can I be blamed, given the comments and the corresponding moderation of said comments that are in this discussion?

Re:and the saddest thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Besides, when you are successfully terrorized, hand all authority to a government that responds to no one, get x-rayed from HS vans, watched for suspicious behaviour in the airport where they fondle your baby daughter, get reported by the neighbour who has issues with your way of parking the car, in the end... you die anyway.

The way to fight terrorism is to make it irrelevant. Making it irrelevant means nobody has to win or lose anything from an act of terrorism, the perpetrators must pay for the crime and that's all. No bending to terrorists' requests, no bending to people who want special laws. There are enough laws for criminals, apply those.

Re:and the saddest thing

[Anonymous Coward]

you are sick.
killing innocent people in afghanistan, iraq for the sake of what?
isn't doing so terrorism too?

Re:and the saddest thing

[Darinbob]

3000 people die in auto accidents in a month maybe. But if the government tried to prevent this they'd be accused of clamping down tight on our liberties, forcing us to wear seatbelts and helmets and destroying jobs by forcing honest upstanding auto companies build better cars. Too much government intrusion. But 3000 people in one day, well... Tell me where to sign to hand over my rights and which line to stand in for the federal groping.

Re:and the saddest thing

[jackbird]

How about if we had helped a a free Afghanistan get on its feet after the Soviets left?

Re:and the saddest thing

[froggymana]

This is gold.

Re:and the saddest thing

[CastrTroy]

That's death rates. So what I see is that deaths are going down, but I'm not seeing less accidents. This is most likely due to increased safety of cars, and improved crash handling. My guess, just from the number of cars on the road, is that the number of accidents even per capita is probably going up, but that more people are surviving them.

Re:and the saddest thing

[pcolaman]

Good Lord, you think China is in on the plot of some goatherders that got you to your knees? Gotta nuke the goats, else China is getting uppity? Small tip - seek medical help. Not everyone is out to get you. Basically, everyone wants to be left alone by the likes of you. I hear we have decent medication to alleviate the symptoms of paranoia these days.

Brush up on history and the politics of China in reference to Taiwan (aka Republic of China) before you go spouting off. He wasn't referring to anything having to do with a plot involving China. He was discussing a very real and long standing issue between China and Taiwan, and China's willingness to perhaps settle the issue if they smelled blood in the water.

I'm going to attempt my best to give you a very brief history lesson here. Okay, so a long time ago (see also, shortly after World War II, although it started before WWII) the end of the Chinese Civil War resulted in a split between mainland China (which was taken control of from the at that time present government) by essentially the Communist Party. The government that had been overthrown moved to Taiwan and although this is very simplified, essentially the Peoples Republic of China (what we know of as China) claims the Republic of China (Taiwan) as a part of their sovereign land. We recognize both countries, but also recognize (and have pledged strongly to defend) the right of Taiwan to remain a separate country.

Now one of the reasons that China, who very easily could overthrow Taiwan if they threw their might against them, doesn't invade is because of the United States, or more specifically, the US Navy and US Air Force. The US Navy 7th Fleet is specifically designated to defend both South Korea and Taiwan in similar situations of an ally democratic nation against a nation that desires to reunify them (see also, invade and conquer). In addition, the US Air Force has an AFSOG (Special Ops) and F-15 fighter wing designated for defense of our interests in Southeast Asia in Japan (specifically, Kadena Air Base).

I tell you all of this to illustrate what parent tried to get across and what you missed. That it's more about projection of power than power itself. A big reason why WWIII never happened is because of projection of power. In a sense, Ronald Reagan helped peace in the 80's by mounting huge pressure on the USSR while increasing military capabilities exponentially. A lot of times, you can convince a mighty power like China to keep from doing whatever they want just simply by talking big and putting your chips on the table. If they smell weakness, however...

Re:and the saddest thing

[pcolaman]

A fucking men. Dude, I'd buy you a beer if I fucking knew you.

Re:and the saddest thing

[tompaulco]

Car accidents are accidents. And we DO worry about them. Terrorists are people killing other people ON PURPOSE. Each death is an unnecessary and avoidable one. There are only 15,000 murders every year, but we don't just let the murderers go scot free just because other causes of death happen to have more numbers attached.

Re:and the saddest thing

[Risen888]

Oh, you mean the government we deposed in two weeks ten years ago? That Taliban? I've heard of them.

Re:and the saddest thing

[dcavanaugh]

There is more to terrorism than begging for attention. Yes, that's part of the incentive, but the terrorists don't get much of an advantage no matter how much attention they get. From the terrorists' point of view: "OK, now what?"

Terrorism is an industry; a relatively unstructured mercenary program. Unemployment is sky-high throughout the middle east and has been for decades. Young males in particular have a lot of anger about their perpetual unemployment. A variety of special interests have enemies they would like to see attacked in various ways, and lots of young people need something to do. Understanding terrorism is as simple as understanding supply and demand.

Before his jihad against the US, OBL was busy fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. Since the Soviets invaded Afghanistan on their own, OBL's band of merry marauders was quickly funded by a plethora of interests (US and Muslim). The entire shift in strategy for OBL was necessary because with the Soviets gone, business was bad. Nobody was going to fund anti-Soviet fighters in Afghanistan if the Soviets were gone. They were going to fight someone as soon as a new client stepped forward with a target in mind. Speculate as much as you want about who OBL's client is, but the targets are obvious. For the right amount of money, these guys could be easily flipped against their clients. Problem is, they are just going to flip back someday when the money runs out. So the appropriate response is to tag 'em, bag 'em, and dump overboard.

Re:and the saddest thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Your (and the general public's) analysis of streaking is freudian and simplistic. You imply that they do it because of a sexual fetish, or ego. I've never seen a streaker with a hard-on, or heard of any exhibitionists even interested in it. Nor have I seen any streakers that seem to be doing it because of an inflated ego. They're not fit, they're not stopping for pictures or making eye contact.

Ignoring them as a solution has not stopped them. People still streak. God, the fact that I will be ignored would make me more likely to do it.

The reason people streak is right in front of you. Look at their facial expression, their eyes, and their actions. They're doing it because it's fun. Just random, stupid fun.

this is written by someone who has not been seen without a shirt on for 17 years. I can totally understand streaking as a protest against people like me. :)

As for what this means for the problem of terrorism and foreign policy, I have no idea.

Re:and the saddest thing

[Anonymous Coward]

You sir, are an idiot. No, terrorism is not like streaking at football games. If you streak at a football game, you might get a rush. You might get a high by exposing yourself. You might like the fear of being caught and arrested. Sure, you like attention. You don't do it because you hate all the people in the stadium and think they are infidels, and that they should die. You don't streak to escape a shithole existence in the armpit of the world and a culture so backward it makes its woman wear getups one step short of burlap bags, ending your life in one last act of supreme destruction in the vain hopes of pleasing a bloodthirsty god whom you might get to meet after doing so.

Nice analogy. Try again? Y/N

Re:and the saddest thing

[RebelWithoutAClue]

And once you've deposed them you gotta support the replacement to make sure they don't take over again. etc. etc.

Re:and the saddest thing

[Zancarius]

Why is interviewing Osama bin Laden considered anti-American? Why, "on this day", are we not allowed to state the reasons that he gave for attacking the U.S.? Would it make you feel better if we all pretend that he was just a crazy guy who never tried to justify his actions?

The problem isn't necessarily with you, but if you were to scroll a little further up the thread, you might find topics titled "fuck the usa" along with matching rhetoric that leads those who may have lost (or feel a strong emotional attachment to those lost) loved ones on Sept. 11th to feel pretty upset. There isn't anything wrong with sharing opinions, but I think one of the generalized problems here is that most of us tend not to fully appreciate social norms for when certain things are truly appropriate to share, and more importantly when they are not.

Of course, there's those who feel that condemning the actions of the US on the 11th to be highly appropriate; though, they're simply delusional and more interested in their own self-righteousness. They won't feel that way, of course, but piousness and a feeling of moralistic superiority over others (like Americans) is the fundamental definition of such. Hence, it should be at least somewhat reasonable to expect that most Americans might feel an inkling of offense at the anti-American (either presumed or real) slant offered in some posts above. Again, I don't think all of these posts are so much malicious as they are exceedingly poorly timed, like yours. Yes, I know: What better time to discuss bin Laden and his motives than in a story about 9/11! To do so and to be honestly surprised at some of the negative responses supports my inference that we geeks tend to be difficult at handling social norms. Don't be surprised; instead, I would advise that you (but mostly the others who are more vocal and less polite) try to offer some degree of understanding.

For instance, assuming all else is equal, some of these posts would be akin to waiting until 2021 and posting on Slashdot for the anniversary of the Norway shooting/bombing "Fuck Norway." Unfortunately, even this example won't be well received, because the moralistic superiority of the individuals here who want to raise emphasis and awareness of the perceived injustices of the current wars and past actions of the US precludes them from the expectations of respect and civility for their fellow man.

And honestly, I'm just outright pissed off that such a significant number of people here seem incapable of demonstrating any degree of kindness toward each other. I guess I raised the bar of expectations for today a little too high when I got up this morning.

Re:and the saddest thing

[Zancarius]

To paraphrase you, showing weakness (by misguided action) has in fact been interpreted as a sign of weakness by the world.

Ten years of war didn't kill bin Laden. Two helicopters full of Special Forces did it in half an hour, in Pakistan no less.

Not completely. For twenty years (likely longer), the intelligence apparatus of the US had been weakened, but most importantly, it was never designed to address the use case presented in the Afghan/Iraqi wars. Rather, it was designed with a strong, state-like adversary such as the USSR, in mind where conventional tactics tend to work reasonably well and door-to-door tribal-level tactics do not.

That, fundamentally, is why it took ten years to find and kill bin Laden.

Re:and the saddest thing

[euroq]

Bin Laden was actually counting on the idea that we wouldn't retaliate.

Absolutely. More accurately, he was counting on the idea that we wouldn't succeed in retaliation. He wanted to use the Soviet-Afghanistan war strategy against America. He even explained his strategy before the attacks.

This idea that the past 10 years have all been part of his awesome plan is just a liberal hippie-minded peace-and-love myth.

WTF? Where did you get the information and believe it which says 10 years of war and economic problems was part of OBL's plan is "liberal", "hippie-minded", and "peace-and-love"?
Liberal philosophy has nothing to do with terrorist mastermind strategies.
Hippie-minded has nothing to do with terrorist mastermind strategies.
Peace-and-love myths have nothing to do with it either.

As far as the "past 10 years" idea, what you are in almost complete certainty referring to is the American left's opposition to the war in Iraq. These are quite unrelated.

As far as the "liberal hippie-minded peace-and-love" idea, you are probably referring to the economic toll of the September 11th attacks on America and how leftists didn't want to do all the things the rightists did in the past 10 years and spend so much money/blood and the leftists blame the rightists for it. I'm going to remove "hippie-minded peace-and-love" from your vitriolic hatred of the left and just use "liberal". The economic toll of September 11th was quite immense, but the following 10 years of war was exponentially larger. The "liberals" didn't/don't agree with the methods of said 10 years, nor with the inability to pay for them.

You may not like the fact that Osama bin Laden succeeded in fucking the USA over 1 trillion dollars, but he did. And the "liberals" would have very, very likely lost less than 1 trillion dollars.

Re:and the saddest thing

[Zancarius]

The problem is, the Religious Right also wants to destroy the world. Go see Rapture Ready forums: every time something bad happens somewhere, the news is met with jubilence; because, after all, it hastens the day when Lord Jesus returns and drowns the world in fire while the righteous - meaning people who'll enjoy watching everyone else burn - watch. And if Lord Jesus might seem to be taking his time in returning... Well, one could always help God's plan along by causing some bad news, right?

I think you're a little too willing to tar most of the religious right with the same brush. I'm religious and reasonably right-leaning, and I suggest taking anything read on Rapture Ready with a grain of salt; had they actually read scripture, they'd understand two things: 1) it's impossible to predict the day or the hour and 2) the end cannot be hastened by our actions. That said, I do admit that I would classify those guys as the fringe religious crowd.

However, I suspect, judging by the rest of your rhetoric, that you simply have an axe to grind and have no real interest in dialog. I do hope I'm wrong, because it would also appear that the atheist-leaning mods of which I believe the majority is comprised agree with your position.

Side note: Why is Slashdot degenerating into Reddit all of a sudden? I thought we were more civil here?

Re:and the saddest thing

[WNight]

The United States is indeed in a war in Afganistan.

It sure is.

And its not operating on a purely evil operation.

Actually, it is. It invaded Afghanistan under the false pretense of catching Osama. If someone busts into my house and kills someone that doesn't give me the right to burn your house down while chasing him.

Maybe you should go back and read what life is like under the Taliban where Osama Bin Laden and his 'followers' inflicted misery and death on ordinary people,

Maybe you should go back to 2001-09-10 and see the absolute lack of concern for that suffering that your entire government showed. It's a convenient justification, after the fact, but it's a flat out lie to say that the USA went into Afghanistan to help the people in any way.

The ability to take out a kite and fly it.

Yes, the kite-hating Muslims. Biggest sect, right after Sunnis.

There was no oil there - a standard claim of the leftists brain dead dogma often pitched.

The USA has invaded and killed millions for many reasons. Oil is only one. The Philippines were a convenient base. Central American countries fell for as little as bananas, or the rights of US companies to grow them.

US troops being anywhere on the planet is no reason to slay 3,000 civilians anywhere.

Terrorists killing 3000 is no reason for you to kill over a million, mostly noncombatants, in a country totally unrelated to the attack.

the greatest numbers of people dying are deliberatly killed, maimed, and tortured by this enemy as *their primary* ethics and policy.

The greatest number of people dying because of the war are doing so because of restricted access to food or medicine, largely because of embargoes. A ways down the list are people unintentionally killed by predator drones over Pakistan.

Al Quaeda's actions, 9/11 and all, is really just a rounding error on an unstopping US-led killing spree

And the visitation of guests in Islamic lands is no acceptable way to slaughter 3,000 people in a couple of buildings because you don't happen to like that idea very much

Try for coherency.

Also, apply this advice to yourselves. One guy killing some people doesn't justify you killing whole cities full of other people.

You are monsters.

Americans and Western troops may not indeed be angelic on occasion in this dark war, soldiers generally aren't, but they are brought to account, and if they commit crimes they are brought to book.

Liar. Fucking useless jingoistic liar.

Thousands of people knew about atrocities at Abu Ghraib and a handful have token sentences - certainly none of the higher ranks.

The US armed forces' main job these days is losing Apache gun-cam video.

When was the last time you saw Al Quida or one of its affiliates bringing one of their scum to court becuase they broke laws.

I imagine they do it all the time, actually. Sharia law is reputed to be quite strict. Stupid religious nonsense of course, but strict.

Oh, thats right, they don't follow law, geneva convention, wear uniforms, or any civilised premise.

Hint, asshole. You don't follow the Geneva convention. You kidnapped innocent brown people (this is all you used to select them) from international flights and sent them to Syria for literally years of testicle zapping, waterboarding, torture. You're fucking monsters.

They actively target and kill civilians as their primary weapon, and do not deserve an ouce or vestige of the humanity often given to them.

Awww, they've grown up just like you. Isn't it sweet.

You've killed hundreds of thousands in a war against Saddam (under false pretenses no less). The vast maj

Re:and the saddest thing

[Anonymous Coward]

That is only partially true. Of course, that is very much what they wanted.
But on the other side, the attacks can also be seen as a reaction to the allready established negative perception of the US.

I remember seeing reactions from US citizens in Europe, asking "Why us, what did we do?", and thinking "Are you kidding me? After fucking up the Middle East for half a century? After the Palenstinian mess?" Of course the US is not the sole responsible for the mess in that region. Several European nations (i.e. UK and FR), Israel, etc... have played dirty, too. But still... that was just ignorence..

Re:and the saddest thing

[Anonymous Coward]

FACTUALLY the Russians were winning in Afghanistan and would have completely won if it were not for the US. Period. The Russians lost because the Afghans were used as proxy soldiers for a mutually beneficial alliance. His revision of history wonderfully shows just how distorted his reality really was.

Re:and the saddest thing

[vadim_t]

Ooh, a disciple of Machiavelli! Well, don't forget about the part that follows:

Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated, which will always be as long as he abstains from the property of his citizens and subjects and from their women. But when it is necessary for him to proceed against the life of someone, he must do it on proper justification and for manifest cause, but above all things he must keep his hands off the property of others, because men more quickly forget the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony.

Let's see, avoiding hatred? Nope, complete failure there in many countries.
Abstaining from the property of the citizens? The US wrecked plenty of it in Iraq.
Proper justification and manifest cause for killing people? Sure, for some, but there was plenty "collateral damage" as well.

Sorry, if you think Machiavelli figured out the proper way to rule, the US isn't really following it well at all.

IMO the biggest failure on the US part is the demonstration of that they do whatever they please, and that if you don't want them in your country, better get nuclear weapons fast. Yes, that was a great lesson to learn.

Re:and the saddest thing

[Anonymous Coward]

We didn't keep civil liberties intact when facing the USSR. See: red scare, McCarthyism, J. Edgar Hoover, mistreatment of American communists/socialists during the Cold War...

Re:and the saddest thing

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

That's death rates. So what I see is that deaths are going down, but I'm not seeing less accidents. This is most likely due to increased safety of cars, and improved crash handling. My guess, just from the number of cars on the road, is that the number of accidents even per capita is probably going up, but that more people are surviving them.

Since we were talking about deaths in car accidents, what you think matters even less then if you actually had a point. But since the first line shows the number of accidents going down over the decades, you have just proven to be a complete idiot. Thanks for your cooperation.

Re:and the saddest thing

[thePuck77]

This is a fundamentally immature, grade-school bully's way of thinking. "I have to make sure I look tough, otherwise everyone will beat me up." It's the attempt to look tough all the time that puts others off and makes enemies all over the planet.

How about trying to look civilized? Is that nearly as important? How about looking reasonable or intelligent? Nope, it's all about looking tough...which is exactly why the actual civilized countries (you know...the ones that have existed long enough to know "looking tough" isn't nearly as important as, say, having a functional infrastructure) can't take us seriously no matter how much we puff ourselves up. No one cares. War is a stupid way and simplistic way of trying to solve complex social, economic, and philosophical problems. It's just like the bully beating up the nerd for "talking smart" to him. Sure the bully will win on the physical level in that moment...but that was never really the level that counted, and the nerd will have the last laugh as he makes sure to order his fries "fresh and piping hot" from the bully a few years later.

And so we destroy ourselves and the great American experiment comes to an end less than three centuries later. The bully of the world flails and screams while no one takes it seriously and the world moves on. We can't solve our problems with infrastructure, the economy, the government...hell, we can't even deal with diversity in our own citizenry. The white and entitled get more and more anxious every year as it looks like their privilege is getting challenged. We can't balance the budget, half the population doesn't believe in basic science, can't do math, and can barely read. But we can kick ass! We have the biggest, baddest weapons and a fighting force second to none! It doesn't matter that we're stupid, barbaric, brutes...we can kick their ass! Yeah! America! America! America!

The whole time the EU, Canada, and the rest of the First World is hiding their smile and shaking their heads to each other, like the adults at a family reunion while the drunk, belligerent, mildly retarded country cousin keeps wandering around, shoving people, and demanding "What?! What?! Wanna fight about it?!? Huh?! Huh?! I'm not a paper tiger! I'm tough, I'm tough, see?!? SEE?!?!"

Re:and the saddest thing

[thePuck77]

If I could mod on this thread, I would mod you up. Well-said.

Re:and the saddest thing

[Risen888]

I agree completely, and obviously my hipshot post was grossly oversimplified. My point was that it didn't take ten years of war to kill bin Laden.

Re:and the saddest thing

[Risen888]

Endless war! Hooray!

Re:and the saddest thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Great post. love it.

Re:and the saddest thing

[richcj10]

I am all for beating the piss out of Afghanistan post 9/11. - aggree

Re:and the saddest thing

[Anonymous Coward]

People who strip and run on to the field at sports games have become more rare since the introduction of the tazer...

Re:and the saddest thing

[RebelWithoutAClue]

And the world resembles a schoolyard without a teacher more than anything else. America is currently the biggest kid on the block ("Pax Americana"), and is actually using that power to protect friends (Taiwan, Israel, etc). Because we're "tough", mere reputation is sufficient, but if we ever show weakness, we might have to actually use force ...

Being "reasonable" won't help our allies or convince our enemies. Seems like you don't understand the game or the rules nation-states play by.

Those civilized countries have chosen not to have a large army since Europe was destroyed in WWII, and can spend money on a welfare state because of Pax Americana. Essentially our military is allowing them to take it easy. The EU and Canada understand this, but that information often doesn't trickle down to the man on the street.

Yeah, there's lots of problems, but nothing really problematic that can't be fixed. We can't back off and let the terrorists go just because there's a recession. Recession or not, our allies depend on us to protect them.

Re:and the saddest thing

[cobrausn]

Wait, you are now using the postings of a few religious crazies on a web forum as indication of the larger thought process of the religious right? Even if there were 100,000 people that showed up to say 'Yay!' every time something blew up, that would still only be 0.03% of the total US population who was 'waiting to watch it burn'. That's not enough people to drive the 'religious right'.

Re:and the saddest thing

[Anonymous Coward]

And if you stopped blowing the arse out backwards-ass middle-eastern countries, creating orphans, widows and widowers by the thousands - maybe a lot less of them would turn towards extreme religion to try and explain why dicks like you can do that without repercussions - and we would have significantly less terrorism....

Or you could go on whining about looking tough and continue this cycle of human self-abuse....

I didn't realise until now just how Jersey Shore accurately describes the US mindset as a whole :)

Re:and the saddest thing

[Evangelion]

Or, you know, it will keep going down year after year.

Re:and the saddest thing

[LanMan04]

I suggest taking anything read on Rapture Ready with a grain of salt; had they actually read scripture, they'd understand two things: 1) it's impossible to predict the day or the hour and 2) the end cannot be hastened by our actions. That said, I do admit that I would classify those guys as the fringe religious crowd.

Isn't it your duty as a Christian to get on Rapture Ready and set your misguided brothers straight?

Like Christians (not you, necessarily) are *constantly* telling Muslims to do?

Re:and the saddest thing

[RebelWithoutAClue]

That's fatalities not accidents.

Re:and the saddest thing

[multi io]

And if you stopped blowing the arse out backwards-ass middle-eastern countries, creating orphans, widows and widowers by the thousands - maybe a lot less of them would turn towards extreme religion to try and explain why dicks like you can do that without repercussions - and we would have significantly less terrorism....

Or you could go on whining about looking tough and continue this cycle of human self-abuse....

I didn't realise until now just how Jersey Shore accurately describes the US mindset as a whole :)

I'm German, thank you very much.

Re:and the saddest thing

[jftitan]

Its all about profitability. The "War On" anything makes people fear the .... fear itself. Someone makes serious money when we fear something. Like shihar pointed out, money is always easy to make in war. We just justify it by instilling fear into Americans, and Americans will let Big Government to protect us.

    However if the News Media points out the story for all to hear, who will argue Big Government because its supposed to protect us.

  Over the past two weeks, I have been reading, listening, and watching everything to remind Americans why we went to war. To stop terrorism. "If you don't buy our shit, you support terrorists.", worse yet, If you stop shopping, the terrorists win! -G. Carlin. Americans let the tragedies affect us by allowing us to feel compelled to be protected. Unfortunately it was a disguise to cover up a bigger problem. We were making money, as a Surplus economy, and this money can be given easily away to rich, and the richer. To do this, we needed a fear, and a war. 10 years later.... We are effecting every economy on the planet, and yet, everywhere we have protests because the rich are richer, and the poor are being told to foot the bill for the worst world economic situation on history.

    I hate whats happening today, yesterday, and 10 years ago.

I watched the news brief given by Donald Rumsfeld on September 10th, 2001. I explicitly saw the man, in front of (whoever cares about politics watching TV press releases) 20 or so reporters. Tell America. "The US Military cannot account for 2/3rds of its military budget." Due to contractor/secret security funneling of the money. The very next day. terrorist attacks, and the very pieces that would allow Americans to review those records were destroyed.

    This I knew before the documentaries, docudramas, conspiracy theories came about. This is just one Average American who paid attention to the news at a young age.

    In 2001, I was in a high school classroom, rolling the TV out to the room, so everyone could see the second plane hit the World Trade Centers. watching live feeds from multiple news organizations show people jumping out of the windows in hopes they could survive the fall. When the towers came down, I was floored watching how something so preplanned, and done by people supposedly terrorists bring down the towers in a perfectly controlled manor. The way the planes hit the second building, I only imagined how the top section of the building would collapse by falling over. Leaving the rest of the building intact so other could get out. So many questions, never answered when the news start painting what happened, versus what was witnessed.

    Some people made a lot of money. But it wasn't the citizens.

Re:and the saddest thing

[Yunzil]

shouldn't the core be left standing?

No?

Why did WTC-7 collapse? Why did it even burn?

Oh I don't know. It's not even like it had been standing next to a burning building that had collapsed and dumped a bunch of flaming debris onto it.

why should it collapse in perfect symmetry.

Well for starters, it didn't.

Re:and the saddest thing

[onepoint]

>>why should it collapse in perfect symmetry.

funny I looked at the video's and in a wide scale look, it does look like to was smooth symmetry, but upon looking at it in a micro view, my points from above seem to validated IE: the connections to the core elevator shafts ( the trusses ) seem to behave as they are pulling inwards. does this mean pancaking? I don't think in the first set's of floors it's valid, it's just building trusses failures, but then on the later floors I would think it is.

If anything, we should consider that the building design was somewhat luck and that there was no huge lateral movement of the mass in the weakest points, otherwise those masses would have completely covered other buildings and killed more folks. Now don't hold my numbers firm: it's about 1000 feet up where the building mech floor is ( about 75ish ) and using that as a reference point, I would think that the falling mass if it slid like people would like to believe, would fly outwards greater than 500 feet ( 2 down 1 out )

they went down, and it's somewhat straight down, and I am glad that it did not slide and kill even more people.

Re:and the saddest thing

[jafac]

It wasn't getting killed that Americans feared. (and it wasn't really American Voters that drove resulting policy anyway).

It was the fact that the disaster of the loss of the twin towers, WTC 7, (etc) - was a huge FINANCIAL loss. In a real sense, the "big boys" had to set down their champagne glasses, sit up, and take a look and say "WTF was that?" and "What happened to Jimmy, working at Cantor Fitzgerald doing trades for us?" (etc). --- THAT was what got "America" so riled up and pissing in our adult diapers about "the terror threat".

Of course, we all knew DAMN WELL about the threat posed by our dependency on foreign oil in the politically unstable middle east, as early as 1973. In some areas of government, we knew it as early as 1953 (Operation AJAX). We probably had an idea much earlier than that: after watching the Japanese and German empires implode on themselves due to lack of easy access to readily available petroleum resources during WWII; when the US and Britain embargoed them. (This is why Germany took over Norway, and attacked Britain. This was way Japan attacked the US - the US was the world's largest exporter of petroleum at the time. Our embargo of Japan was ILLEGAL. But moral, and correct, considering what Japan was doing in China, the Phillipines, and Korea. )

In 2001, we were 28 years past our peak production, into deep dependence on Saudi oil. And 19 Saudi hijackers struck at the very heart of Financial America.

If you think your typical American Voter's cowardice of terrorism had much to do with setting USA policy, you are hugely mistaken. They don't set policy. Those people are just stupid, angry sheep. The financiers on Wall Street, who took a multi billion dollar shot in the shorts on 9/11 set policy. They run our economy, they run the CIA, (check out where every single head of the CIA over the past 40+ years comes from - CEO's and board members of major banks) - and they tell the government what to do.

Re:and the saddest thing

[Magius_AR]

Does that mean we have the right to call Germany "the Great Satan" for trying to take over the world 60 fucking years ago? Get over it and grow up.

Re:and the saddest thing

[Magius_AR]

In fairness, I don't exactly see "Rapture Ready" members blowing themselves up and flying planes into buildings. Misguided words is one thing. Misguided wanton murder and destruction is something entirely different.

Re:and the saddest thing

[Anonymous Coward]

The Germans have apologized. I'm waiting for the U.S. to even acknowledge the evil we did (and still do). As you and Onigocella amply prove, most prefer to lie to themselves instead, and agressivly attack anyone who reminds us of our shame.

Re:and the saddest thing

[ultranova]

The Constitution did not have to be trashed to go after OBL.

But you did anyway.

For instance the terrorists were neither protected by the Geneva Convention, nor the Constitution.

The former is true, the latter is not. For example, why wouldn't someone accused of terrorism have a right to a speedy trial? I'm referring to Guantanamo Bay, of course.

Re:and the saddest thing

[RebelWithoutAClue]

Yes, I agree that's not a good thing. On what basis would you give un-uniformed enemy combatants habeas corpus rights? Jose Padilla was a corner case, and handled badly I agree.

Nice summary, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

I try to remember the thousands upon thousands of civillians in the Middle East who have perished, as well as the poor souls in America.

I'm sick of that aspect being completely ignored so often by Western Media.

My hat is off, hand on heart - to all of the victims of the event, and the consequences.

Would love to be able to fly without being treated like a criminal though.

Re:Nice summary, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, wait, wait - the parent points out that there are thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians who have been killed or injured by US forces and he's modded "Troll"?!

Why?

And when you think that the US' invasion of Iraq that was justified for different reasons at different times which lead me to believe that the invasion was for bogus reasons to begin with, I can't help thinking that 9/11 was used for an excuse to invade for reasons completely unrelated to 9/11 - *cough* oil *cough*

And there's the innocents in Afghanistan. Their lives are just as important as the Wall Street traders and bankers who were killed in the Twin Tower attacks.

Re:Nice summary, but...

[Nerdfest]

True. Of course, I also remember Palestinians cheering in the streets after the attack. Almost everyone in the world could be better behaved and more humane.

Re:Nice summary, but...

[Dolphinzilla]

that's a fact, but in reality it is human nature to not be humane - we've been killing each of for thousands of years for land, riches, over religious ideologies, or just for power.... The first Empires in the true definition were Middle Eastern and North African, its kind of ironic in my opinion - I don't think humans will ever have the utopian Star Trek world, but it would be nice....

Re:Nice summary, but...

[poity]

We hardly ever remember the millions of Middle Eastern civilians who died in the past century at the hands of European countries. Why make an exception now?

Re:Nice summary, but...

[tqk]

Wait, wait, wait - the parent points out that there are thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians who have been killed or injured by US forces and he's modded "Troll"?!

Yeah, and you get -1 for questioning them. Huh. There's a lot of "Dumbth" in this thread so far, and I've only seen a third of the posts. "America, right or wrong!"

I do think hundreds of thousands of innocent casualties are far worse than a few thousand Wall Street Banksters (but I'll admit, I've developed a prejudice against the latter in recent years).

I'm not sure I'd blame the Iraq war on "*cough* oil *cough*", though. I blame it on Bush's arrogance, narcissism and naivete. That, and wanting to finish the job to make his pop proud of him.

OBL was a sh*thead, just as are all those who followed him (ask any *real* devout Muslim). That said, the US believing that ~3000 innocent (US based) civilians easily justifies hundreds of thousands of atrocities committed elsewhere is horrifying, to say the least.

Re:Nice summary, but...

[SlovakWakko]

True. Of course, I also remember Palestinians cheering in the streets after the attack. Almost everyone in the world could be better behaved and more humane.

I remember that one too. I also remember that it was a fake, footage taken from some different event.

Re:Nice summary, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

You should read more about it (use your google-fu) and maybe you'll change your mind. The cheerings palestinians scene was filmed long before 9/11.
And anyway the US never went bombing Palestine, but Afghanistan and Iraq... So your sentence is pretty stupid methink.

Re:Nice summary, but...

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

> Would love to be able to fly without being treated like a criminal though.

If they get CNN in Hell, watching Americans getting bad-touched is making Osama bin Laden laugh.

Re:Nice summary, but...

[sgt scrub]

hmm. It looks like some right wingers have the mod points today.

Re:Nice summary, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you blame Palestinians?
The US is the main reason why Israel is like it is today. Palestinians are getting fucked over every day and the US is keeping an eye out for Israel to be like it is today, especially since the US has a veto right in tons of organisations, it makes it so the Israeli can do whatever they want with the Palestinians.

I too would welcome and applaud every terrorist attack against the US if that would be what is going on in my country.
Given what the US does at times, I kinda applaud it already.

Re:Nice summary, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

True. Of course, I also remember Palestinians cheering in the streets after the attack.

Was just reading about that episode from John Simpson's book:

"The great majority of Palestinians I knew were stunned by the news of the attack, and realised immediately that it would do their cause nothing but harm"

"But the pictures of eight or so Palestinians rejoicing went around the world. I must have seen them repeated a dozen times over the next few days. The human mind has a remarkable tendancy to generalise from particular cases."

  - News From No Man's Land, p171

Re:Nice summary, but...

[chrb]

And some New Yorkers remember seeing Israelis dancing and cheering in the streets of New York after the attack... "I was in tears. These guys were joking and that bothered me." These guys were like, "Now America knows what we go through."... And some Iranians held candlelit remembrance vigils... The world is a big place, and acts of compassion and lack of compassion cross the boundaries of nationality.

Re:Nice summary, but...

[lavagolemking]

You mean like those riots we did right after Osama bin Laden died?

Re:Nice summary, but...

[Darinbob]

I remember Yasser Arafat condemning the attacks and donating blood.

After the attacks the US had immense political capital, everyone was on our side, everyone was grieving with us, there were only a few trivial exceptions. We went into Afghanistan with the full world's support and routed the Taliban. Then we screwed it all up. We opened a second war in Iraq for no good reason, we pulled most troops out of Afghanistan at the wrong time, we kept trying to be unilateral about everything (partners were ok but only if they did what we told them to), we lied to the world about WMDs, and we put an idiot in charge of rebuilding Iraq. All that political capital wasted; like spending the inheritance on a fast car.

Re:Nice summary, but...

[Cow Jones]

True. Of course, I also remember Palestinians cheering in the streets after the attack. Almost everyone in the world could be better behaved and more humane.

Not a nice image, to be sure. But being nice and "well behaved" is comparatively low on the order of priorities in an oppressed country. The situation in Palestine is (and has been for well over 20 years) almost unbearable. Many of the Palestinians live in abject poverty - their land and their property have been confiscated, they live under constant pressure from the Israeli occupators. And they know (as we all do) that Israel could never keep it up without the flow of money and ammunition from the US. If I had to live like that, I might well be cheering, too, when big Goliath gets hit by a stone.

Morale of the story: if you want people to sympathize with you, don't fund oppressive regimes. Which most definitely includes Israel.

CJ

Re:Nice summary, but...

[bryanp]

I remember that one too. I also remember that it was a fake, footage taken from some different event.

You remember incorrectly.

Re:Nice summary, but...

[JCCyC]

Let's also remember the WTC terrorists weren't the first 9/11 terrorists. This guy was.

Re:Nice summary, but...

[tompaulco]

the parent points out that there are thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians who have been killed or injured by US forces and he's modded "Troll"?!
Well, I would be interested to know where the documentation of these deaths are. I went and looked up deaths in iraq and found this convenient site called "iraqbodycount.org", which from their about page, seems to be pretty anti-US, and yet, all of the incidents that I looked through sounded like Iraqi on Iraqi crime. I didn't find any that said "A US soldier came up and shot somebody." They are all roadside bombs, officials being assassinated by insurgents and whatnot. I'm sure if the U.S. had not toppled Saddam and established democracy there, a lot of these deaths of important officials would not have happened, and of course, they wouldn't be allowed to report about all of the unimportant peasants that he would still be killing.

Re:Nice summary, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

> I remember that one too. I also remember that it was a fake, footage taken from some different event.

I remember muslims in indonesia parading and their women ululating with joy in the streets on 9/12 and they were holding up pictures of the twin towers burning.

I remember very, many, people, indeed, in indonesia as i walked past them, making hand gestures of planes flying into buildings and then laughing, as I walked by.

Those particular muslims, and they were assuredly muslims, absolutely were enjoying sticking it to the USA and the west in general.

Their true feelings were on display, and I will never trust another muslim as long as I live, and I will not change my mind.

Re:Nice summary, but...

[goobenet]

Take out a village, we take a city, take out a bus, we take out an airport. It's simply scale. We have to do some dick-swinging to prove that we ARE a global power, otherwise we might as well be, erm, Greece, only bigger.

Re:Nice summary, but...

[ttong]

You are just as ignorant as the next American. The US is really doing their damnest not to get any sympathy from Islamic countries. Hell if my country just got bombed by the US, I'd be among the cheering crowd myself that day. No human being on the planet is born with hatred towards any tribe anywhere in the world, you have to really invest in it.

Don't be so quick to judge anyone without knowing their background.

Re:Nice summary, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Jerry Falwell said that 9/11 was America's punishment for allowing gays, lesbians, abortions, and feminism. I can only assume this is the official Christian position and I will never trust another Christian with anything, including but not limited to taking out my garbage. Good day.

Re:Nice summary, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what you remember, but that's not what happened...

The "cheering Palestinians" footage shown at the time was from a separate incident which had happened three months previously, and had nothing to do with the Twin Towers attacks. It was shameless, lying propaganda (which you now remember as the truth) like the horror stories of looted incubators in Kuwaiti hospitals a decade or so before.

See? That's how the world works.

Captcha: "couched"

Re:Nice summary, but...

[publicworker]

But, but, the Wikipedia article also mentions (credible) claims that it was staged. So not a different event, but fake nonetheless.

Re:Nice summary, but...

[Rakshasa-sensei]

Yes, it is horrible that they should celebrate the death of 3,000 Americans when only 500,000 got killed in an US backed anti-communist purge.

Re:Nice summary, but...

[bryanp]

More accurately, it can be said there were celebrations. That may have been influenced or staged has been claimed, but nobody will ever know for sure. Those claims of staging could also be BS from people who realize how bad it made the Palestinians look.

Re:Nice summary, but...

[janimal]

The same article says that the cheering "crowd" was offered cake and did not know the intention of the celebration of which they were part. This is nitpicking.

Re:Nice summary, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Palestinian people celebrating on CNN, was old footage from a town celebration. Or they just gave some toys or free food to people to look happy. Life and perspective in that part of the world is so different. I bet that this footage is the only reason you believe going to war was the best call.

Ten Years Ago...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hard to believe ten years have passed. I truly believe that through the chaos that was probably Slashdot's finest moment - as everything else on the web crashed under the load. Myself I couldn't believe the news when some cafeteria workers in one of the college dining establishments were talking about it - I thought they were joking until I tried to get into the building for my class shortly after.

Thanks for posting the story the way you have - I think it was the most fitting way you could do it.

Re:Ten Years Ago...

[five18pm]

Came here to say this. And your experience pretty much mirrors my experience. I was just getting ready to go to college when the news came through. At the time I started checking CNN site was melting while Slashdot was still up and running providing news and help. It was indeed one of the finest hours of Slashdot.

My thoughts are with everyone who lost anyone

[G3ckoG33k]

Actually I was reading /. when I heard about it.

My thoughts are with everyone who lost friends and family members in the attack.

Fuck religion! This is what happens, over and over.

Re:My thoughts are with everyone who lost anyone

[Anonymous Coward]

All of this has happened before, and all of this will happen again.

Re:My thoughts are with everyone who lost anyone

[betterunixthanunix]

Blaming the attacks on religion is a bit misguided. The attackers were trying to fight against US foreign policies and globalization -- look at their choice of targets (a major global financial center, the US military headquarters, and various US government targets that were thankfully missed). Religion may have been played a small part in convincing the attackers to commit suicide, but the motivation for the attacks themselves was political.

Re:My thoughts are with everyone who lost anyone

[G3ckoG33k]

"Religion may have been played a small part in convincing the attackers to commit suicide, but the motivation for the attacks themselves was political."

That "small part" is lethal.

Re:My thoughts are with everyone who lost anyone

[TheRaven64]

Not really. People have been going on suicide missions for thousands of years without religious motivation. Protecting their tribe and their tribe's way of life has always been enough to convince some subset of the population to die, and there's a good evolutionary reason for this, particularly for if the individuals in question have already passed on their genes. Religion is a convenient excuse to behave like an asshat, but if you take it away then people just find other excuses (national exceptionalism, for example).

Re:My thoughts are with everyone who lost anyone

[mcgrew]

Religion doesn't cause war, but is used by people who aren't religious but pretend to be. All wars are for power and wealth, started and waged by sociopaths.

Re:My thoughts are with everyone who lost anyone

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not religion related this is the result of your external policy...

They only use religion to mobilize the people... like your "One nation under god" and "in god we trust" then all the sheeps join the fight..

Re:My thoughts are with everyone who lost anyone

[syockit]

You mean like how they'd blow themselves up together with the plane? I'd say it's still a small part. Non-religious terrorists would still blow up the place with some other method.

Re:My thoughts are with everyone who lost anyone

[Anonymous Coward]

Religion is a powerful force that can be used for either good or evil. You should make an effort to distinguish, instead of making sweeping generalizations.

Re:My thoughts are with everyone who lost anyone

[betterunixthanunix]

Except that there is no reason to think that in the absence of religion, the attackers would not have been willing to commit suicide. When I said "small part," I meant that it may have been part of the reason the attackers committed suicide, not that it was the only reason. The fighter pilot sent after United 93 was also instructed to commit suicide, without any religious motivation.

Re:My thoughts are with everyone who lost anyone

[North Korea]

You can see the Norway shootings for example. The guy didn't commit suicide in the end, but killed ~90 people and he might just as well have suicided himself after that. It wasn't related to religion in any way, it was politics - right vs. left, and more capitalism ideas against socialism. He took it to extremes, but religion wasn't part of that. I suspect this also was much more about politics than anything religion related.

Re:My thoughts are with everyone who lost anyone

[PyroMosh]

I agree it's wrong to blame religion in general for this, But the attacks were religiously motivated.

They were conducted by a religious fanatical group, al-Qaeda.

The stated reasons from al-Qaeda for the attacks were threefold:

1) U.S Support of Israel
          This could be religious or non-religious, but for al-Qaeda it was probably a religious reason)
2) U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia
          This was definitely a religious motivation. al-Qaeda believs that the Koran forbids a long term presence by non-Muslims so close to Mecca.
3) U.S. / Western sanctions against Iraq.
          While al-Qaeda had no love for Saddam Hussein, they still listed this as a reason. I've never heard an explanation for why this is a reason, but I presume it's because they perceived the sanctions as harming Muslims living in Iraq.

So religion played more than a small role in the motivations. These statements were made before the attacks (years before) and after.

That said, as an atheist, I still can't make such a sweeping statement that religion is *always* bad, or that it causes things like this. It can motivate people both ways, like politics and lots of other things.

Re:My thoughts are with everyone who lost anyone

[supersloshy]

Yes, because non-religious people are completely pacifist...

Re:My thoughts are with everyone who lost anyone

[bhartman34]

Suicide attacks are always about religion, in some form. A person who doesn't believe in an afterlife finds ways to fight that don't involve his own death.

Re:My thoughts are with everyone who lost anyone

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that what japanese kamikazi pilots had in mind? Plunging their airplanes towards US carriers in the name of Buddhism?

Religion was just a convenient tool. Politics was the real underlying reason.

Re:My thoughts are with everyone who lost anyone

[PyroMosh]

I called the grandparent post out on his statement that religion always causes wars as bullshit.

Your statement that it doesn't is just as much bullshit.

Just because you are religious and you wouldn't start a war over religion, doesn't mean you can say "theirs isn't really religion" any more than those who would use violence can say yours isn't "real religion" because you won't turn to violence over it.

Osama Bin Laden was religious. His motivations for attacking the west were religiously motivated. Guess what, not all religions are the same. Not all people's interpretation of the SAME religion is the same, as demonstrated by peaceful Muslims you can contrast against Jihadists, or the folks like Eric Prince at Blackwater who contrast peaceful Christians.

You can't just wave your hands and call their religion "fake" because you don't like that some religious people do disgusting things. If you can do that, I can do the same to you.

Re:My thoughts are with everyone who lost anyone

[PyroMosh]

The two are not mutually exclusive. It was about foreign policy, yes.

But al-Qaeda (a religious extremist group,first of all) objected to three foreign policy points on religious grounds.

http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2422714&cid=37367802

They weren't upset about general foreign policy points like trade policy or environments policy, or monetary policy. They were upset over things that they perceived to violate tenants of Islam.

You can make secular arguments for all three of their main stated reasons. But that isn't the route they took. Their reasons were explicitly religious.

Re:My thoughts are with everyone who lost anyone

[betterunixthanunix]

Well, I did say that the attacks targeted US foreign policy and globalization. All of the things you listed fit that mold -- Israel is the closest thing to a religious motivation, but Al Qaeda did not crash planes into Israeli buildings, crash a boat into an Israeli warship, or bomb Israeli embassies, nor did they attack specifically Jewish targets (they could have hijacked a small plane to crash into a famous synagogue in the US, it would not be hard -- the Truro synagogue is pretty close to LGA). It is not hard to understand why Iraq was included on their list -- Iraq never attacked the United States, but we invaded that nation and enforced sanctions that have been extremely harmful to its citizens, and on top of all of that, the same sort of things that we did to Osama bin Laden's group in Afghanistan were done to Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq: we give them weapons and training to fight our enemies, and then fail to provide them with assistance afterwards (or in the case of Iraq, when they use their weapons in was we do not agree with, we bomb them). Again, examine the choice of targets -- the World Trade Center (a symbol of globalization), the Pentagon (our military headquarters and a symbol of US military power), and the Capitol building (thankfully, this failed, but this is a symbol of US political power), as well as possible other non-religious targets.

Yes, it is easy to blame religion for these attacks, but looking at the two decades that led up to the attacks tells a different story. What did the US embassy in Kenya (where most citizens are Christian) have to do with Islamic law? All of the attacks attributed to Al Qaeda have, at least by all appearances, been political in nature, with religion playing a possible role in motivating suicide as part of the attack (yet I would not dismiss the idea that suicidal attacks may just be a facet of middle eastern culture, and I do not see a reason to believe that in the absence of religion, the attackers would not have been willing to commit suicide).

Re:My thoughts are with everyone who lost anyone

[betterunixthanunix]

What about someone who sacrifices their own life to save the lives of their children? What about soldiers who sacrifice their lives to save the lives of their unit? The promise of the afterlife may provide some comfort to someone who knows what they do will cost them their life, but it is not the only comfort or motivation for carrying out such a mission.

Re:My thoughts are with everyone who lost anyone

[Anonymous Coward]

I also got the first news from /. while I was at work:

“World Trade Towers Attacked By 2 Planes
Posted by CmdrTaco on Tuesday September 11, @08:12AM from the you-can't-make-this-stuff-up dept.

CNN is down. MSNBC is performing badly. And this is being submitted a lot. The World Trade Towers in new york were crashed into by 2 planes, one on each tower, 18 minutes apart. Nobody really knows who did it, but the planes were big ones. Normally I wouldn't consider posting this on Slashdot, but I'm making an exception this time because I can't get news through any of the conventional websites, and I assume I'm not alone.”

At that time I still wanted to think that this was kind of an accident, as improbable as it sounds. I had to visit a client shortly later, and they had their TV on, so I saw the first pictures of what happened. Then I went home and turned TV on, and kept watching until I couldn't stand the views any longer.

Re:My thoughts are with everyone who lost anyone

[MightyMartian]

The guy believed himself a Knight Templar and wanted Catholicism restored in Europe, not to mention getting rid of Muslims in Europe. I think religion was very much a part of his ideology.

Re:My thoughts are with everyone who lost anyone

[drinkypoo]

I ain't dick-ridin' but I agree with Bill Maher on this one. Religion is bad because it leads to bad, bullshit thinking that poisons all your thought processes. When you accept that in some situations that you can just wave your hands and chalk something up to faith, you run the risk of applying it to the wrong situations. There are, however, no situations to which the scientific method does not apply, only those to which it does not produce immediate rewards.

Re:My thoughts are with everyone who lost anyone

[MightyMartian]

I don't exactly see a lot of atheists planning on burning Qur'ans. Can't say the same for some Christians.

Re:My thoughts are with everyone who lost anyone

[MightyMartian]

I think that's probably a little too convenient. I'd rather state that because religion is one of the major tribal markers, it is a powerful tool and motivation for going to war. Whether those instigating the wars are being sincere or not is another question. Take the Crusades. While there's no doubt that all those Christian Princes wanted to gain access to trade routes that went through the Holy Land, and the Papacy wanted to get a leg up on the Orthodox Church, I still think you'll find until the later crusades that there was sincere belief on all counts that the Christians of the Byzantine Empire needed to be saved.

Re:My thoughts are with everyone who lost anyone

[MightyMartian]

But there was still a political component to it. Bin Laden and his ilk hoped to build a new Caliphate, to restore the early unity of Islam. It may have been an improbable ideal, but never imagine for a moment that Al Qaeda was purely religious in its motives.

Re:My thoughts are with everyone who lost anyone

[suomynonAyletamitlU]

If you can't think of something you'd willingly die for, even without an afterlife, then you need more life experiences.

Here's a tip: If you have ever lived comfortably, especially if you've never really tasted the hard side of life, the side of life you can never escape because society doesn't give a crap about you, then you aren't on the suicide bomber recruitment list. There are people in your country, no matter what country you're in, that have no future, and perhaps never will--and who know in their hearts that the same will be true of their children, grandchildren, and on and on forever.

If you think that's a joke, ask yourself if the people who are poor now come from bloodlines that were once rich, or if they've been poor for dozens or hundreds of generations. It will be the same dozens of generations from now, for most of them. Not that there won't be offshoots of those family trees that break out, and that's wonderful, but those are unfortunately the exception.

If you want to mobilize those people into an army, you need to motivate them with the concept that their kids, their grandkids, their future is secure, even if they die. This has been used time and time again when people are mobilized for war, including by first-world nation militaries. These people are not "Defending" the way the US Army sees itself. They are fighting to create a future that we, the "defenders", seem to be preventing them from having.

But what's that, you say? We're not actually preventing them from having those futures? Well then maybe we should mobilize negotiators, builders, and grief councilors instead of soldiers. Just a thought.

Re:My thoughts are with everyone who lost anyone

[Opyros]

Shinto, not Buddhism. They literally worshiped the Emperor, and you can't draw a clear distinction between religion and patriotism in their case.

Re:My thoughts are with everyone who lost anyone

[Dynedain]

Think about it again. The people who planned and approved the attacks were doing it as a political move. They manipulated the religious convictions of the "boots on the ground" to execute them.

Re:My thoughts are with everyone who lost anyone

[kitsunewarlock]

The Shinto faith that lead on the Kamikaze doesn't belief in a positive afterlife for anyone but the emperor. That death was about honor and duty in this world--the afterlife in Shinto for any but the direct descendants of Amaterasu was considered a bleak world of grays where soul's stand around forever basically doing nothing. It was meant to encourage one to live a more glorious life: this is what we got; love it while you can. Or at least modern theologians believe. That's one major reason Buddism was so readily integrated into the faith--it gave people hope for an afterlife. But the 1940s Shinto attempted to remove the Buddhist influence and become "pure Japanese".

Re:My thoughts are with everyone who lost anyone

[PyroMosh]

Your understanding of certain critical elements is flawed.

We didn't invade Iraq unprovoked (the first time). If you're referring to the second time, yes, that invasion was unprovoked, but that occurred years after 9/11, so it couldn't have been a motive.

In fact, when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, we had the entire world on our side. We were virtually unopposed in the campaign to grow a coalition within the U.N.

Also, what fewer people realize: Bin Laden offered his help to Saudi Arabia at the time.

Bin Laden didn't want Infidels in the Kingdom. He realized a war against Iraq to liberate Kuwait and defend Saudi Arabia would have to be based out of Saudi Arabia. So he asked the Saudi royals to let his forces defend the Kingdom rather than allowing foreigners onto holy ground.

The Saudi royalty, seeing the Kuwaiti royalty now living in the Saudi royalty's hotels after narrowly escaping from Kuwait, decided that perhaps they'd rather have real armies to defend them instead of a group of poorly armed rebel freedom fighters.

Wise choice or not, it pissed off Bin Laden. He used to be close with the Saudi royal family, and apparently this created a permanent rift between him and the royals. That Infidels would be stationed on holy land was insult to injury to him. That they would stay after Kuwait was liberated was intolerable.

Why Bin Laden never chose to strike Israel directly, I can't say. But their motives were most definitely religious. Political too to be sure, but unquestionably religious.

Again, it wasn't target selection that was religiously motivated. It was the motives of the war to begin with.

We went to war with Japan because they bombed Pearl Harbor. We didn't only attack targets that were related to Pearl Harbor. That's not how war works.

Re:My thoughts are with everyone who lost anyone

[PyroMosh]

Absolutely there were political components too! But I was responding to the idea that religion didn't play a part in al-Qaeda's motivation for war on the United States.

Re:My thoughts are with everyone who lost anyone

[IICV]

Question: what, exactly, would lead you to actually blame an attack on religion? I mean, if a bunch of dudes doing it because they believe they are guaranteed something good after they die doesn't do it, what exactly would?

Re:My thoughts are with everyone who lost anyone

[Anonymous Coward]

Blaming religion is so 2007.

Re:My thoughts are with everyone who lost anyone

[Anonymous Coward]

Way to single out "Christians". They weren't burning Qur'ans in China, they were killing each other. Do you know how many died in China during the Cultural Revolution? Estimates are at 40-70 million and these were not religiously motivated attacks.

Re:My thoughts are with everyone who lost anyone

[Cederic]

You'd have more credibility if suicide bombers didn't come from middle-class backgrounds.

They often do.

Re:My thoughts are with everyone who lost anyone

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the good kind:
http://www.azcentral.com/12news/news/articles/2011/09/07/20110907phoenix-goddess-temple-investigation-abrk.html

Fluffy

Re:My thoughts are with everyone who lost anyone

[Risen888]

Religion? Don't be ridiculous. We occupied their countries, didn't let them import medicine, bombed their factories, and killed their children for decades. Then they came and blew our buildings up, like they told us they were gonna if we didn't leave. And you want to talk about religion?

Stupid fucking militant atheists. It's always religion with you, just like it's always race with the racists. Shut the fuck up.

Re:My thoughts are with everyone who lost anyone

[Risen888]

History fail.

Re:My thoughts are with everyone who lost anyone

[MightyMartian]

There's not enough distance between what guys like Mao and Stalin turned Communism in their countries into and religion to safely take a piss. It had everything; cult of personality, orthodoxy and ritual-like observances. You might almost call them atheist religions. Certainly that's what the Kims in North Korea did.

I doubt you'll find any atheist humanist suggesting we copy what Mao did. What Mao ultimately did was to duplicate the emperor cult.

Re:My thoughts are with everyone who lost anyone

[vbraga]

The Saudi royalty, seeing the Kuwaiti royalty now living in the Saudi royalty's hotels after narrowly escaping from Kuwait, decided that perhaps they'd rather have real armies to defend them instead of a group of poorly armed rebel freedom fighters.

Since I'm not American I'd normally refrain from making political commentaries on a 9-11 story but just for the sake of correctness I'd like to point out that the American presence in Saudi Arabia is far older than the Gulf War. From the beginning of oil exploration in KSA the Americans have run the show, Aramco used to be exclusively run and manned by Americans. It's employees used to live in enclaves modeled after American suburbs. The company was later nationalized (it became the Saudi Aramco) and the "Sauditization" of management began. It still hires a lot of expats, including Americans, but the Saudi run the show now. This fact, that the major oil company was manned by foreigners, was a really complicated issue for the Saudi and probably was a source for trouble.

The American influence used to be way greater in the Kingdom many decades ago than now. Western way of dressing was more common, for example. Popular protests against the Western influence in 1979 and 1980 made the government adopt a more religious conservative instance. One of the most important was the seizure of the Grand Mosque. There's some talks that the Bin Laden family incentived and sponsored the protests. For more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Mosque_Seizure

Re:My thoughts are with everyone who lost anyone

[martyros]

So religion played more than a small role in the motivations.

That's absolutely true. But it's not taking into account that religions really are different. It's pretty hard to imagine a Buddhist group doing something like this, for example. But saying "Fuck Islam" would have been pretty politically incorrect, not to mention potentially dangerous...

Re:My thoughts are with everyone who lost anyone

[fnj]

BULLSHIT. The daft warped twits who did, and continue to, blow up themselves, innocent people, and forces defending civilization are not screaming "end imperialism." They are screaming ALLAHU AKBAR, or whatever the transliteration of the day is for "God is great." Same with the cattle in the street of Islamic lands who, on cue, foam and call the US the GREAT SATAN, not "the imperialist bastard."

Re:My thoughts are with everyone who lost anyone

[camperdave]

A bullet is a small part that does the actual killing, it is the person pulling the trigger who has the motives.

Re:My thoughts are with everyone who lost anyone

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/f-16-pilot-was-ready-to-give-her-life-on-sept-11/2011/09/06/gIQAMpcODK_story.html?sub=AR

Late in the morning of the Tuesday that changed everything, Lt. Heather “Lucky” Penney was on a runway at Andrews Air Force Base and ready to fly. She had her hand on the throttle of an F-16 and she had her orders: Bring down United Airlines Flight 93. The day’s fourth hijacked airliner seemed to be hurtling toward Washington. Penney, one of the first two combat pilots in the air that morning, was told to stop it.

The one thing she didn’t have as she roared into the crystalline sky was live ammunition. Or missiles. Or anything at all to throw at a hostile aircraft.

Except her own plane. So that was the plan.

Because the surprise attacks were unfolding, in that innocent age, faster than they could arm war planes, Penney and her commanding officer went up to fly their jets straight into a Boeing 757.

“We wouldn’t be shooting it down. We’d be ramming the aircraft,” Penney recalls of her charge that day. “I would essentially be a kamikaze pilot.”

Re:My thoughts are with everyone who lost anyone

[shutdown -p now]

I think religion was very much a part of his ideology.

If you've read his "manifesto", Breivik actually calls himself a "cultural Christian" - not really believing in Jesus, but considering the values associated with European Christianity, as it evolved up until somewhere before WW2 (basically, before multiculturalism), inherently valuable. His objection to Islam is political in nature, not religious.

Re:My thoughts are with everyone who lost anyone

[roman_mir]

As an atheist, I am with you on one thing: fuck religion.

But also:

Yeah! Fuck religion of starting unconstitutional wars, building an unconstitutional empire, unconstitutionally taking down democratic governments, engaging in entangling alliances, spending money on all sides, using the pretense of "fighting for freedoms", while actually stealing money in all sorts of wars, conflicts and redistributing the wealth from citizens of all countries towards some chosen military/para military and other monopolies.

Fuck that religion.

Re:My thoughts are with everyone who lost anyone

[monkyyy]

shame i dont have mod points

Re:My thoughts are with everyone who lost anyone

[Anonymous Coward]

Religion doesn't cause war, but is used by people who aren't religious but pretend to be. All wars are for power and wealth, started and waged by sociopaths.

I agree. No true Scotsman would cause war. Only those that "pretend".

Re:My thoughts are with everyone who lost anyone

[PyroMosh]

It is hard to imagine a Buddhist group doing anything like this. That said, they seem to be a major exception where their teachings are about non-violence first.

All the other religions I've studied are a mix of "turn the other cheek" and "an eye for an eye" and other violent principals. This is inviting different people to interpret things differently. So you get Christians who run soup kitchens who would never hurt a fly, and other people who are Christians who bomb clinics that perform abortions or attack people because they are Muslims.

Buddhism (from what I know of it) doesn't have these inconsistencies in its teachings, so you get less wild swing in interpretation on this issue as people cherry pick ideas from the teachings.

But even being more consistent, there are *still* some examples of Buddhists turning to violence. Largely in self defense, but the examples are out there.

Here's an interesting piece that examines the issue:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/buddhism/buddhistethics/war.shtml

Re:My thoughts are with everyone who lost anyone

[Anonymous Coward]

All wars are for power and wealth, started and waged by sociopaths.

Religions exist for the power and wealth of the clergy.

The US has started more wars in the last 100 years than the entire rest of the world combined.

Re:My thoughts are with everyone who lost anyone

[HopefulIntern]

This is a good point. For years the media and so called experts tried to explain why suicide bombers do what they do, why they are so "full of hate" and so "religiously motivated" and the explanation always came back to the fact they were poor and lived in squalid surroundings. But as you say, many of these young recruits are in fact from wealthy families, often living in the West already.
For example, the "underpants bomber" or whatever he is referred to as, who was studying in London and whose father was very wealthy. I would hazard a guess that these people have a life too comfortable, and search for meaning. Meaning that they find in radical beliefs/religion. Much the same phenomenon happens in the West, wealthy suburbanite children who grow up into activists/extremists.

Re:My thoughts are with everyone who lost anyone

[White Flame]

It is blind zealotry that commits these sorts of things. Take religion out of the picture, and you have people killing each other over sociopolitical differences, land & resource disputes, racism/xenophobia, plain ol' feuds, etc, all in the same brain-off mob-like mentality.

Humans act like this in general, regardless of which banner they choose to use to claim solidarity and justification. Beliefs about society or humanity, whether they be political, cultural, ideological, religious, etc, are not necessarily problems in and of themselves. But any time there is a social gathering around such a belief, there is opportunity for it to be used as a rallying movement. Religion is a peer in this; you can't really say religion should not exist without also saying that ANY beliefs (social, political, etc) also shouldn't exist, since they have the same effect. (See, for example, the USA's response in heralding a banner of "security" to distort itself after 9/11.)

Re:My thoughts are with everyone who lost anyone

[bhartman34]

What about someone who sacrifices their own life to save the lives of their children? What about soldiers who sacrifice their lives to save the lives of their unit? The promise of the afterlife may provide some comfort to someone who knows what they do will cost them their life, but it is not the only comfort or motivation for carrying out such a mission.

I'm not saying it's the only comfort. I'm saying it's part of the comfort. It's very difficult to picture a psychology that can envision a good outcome without being there to see that outcome in some sense. Human beings are like that. We want to have some way of knowing we did the thing we set out to do, even if it costs us our lives.

It was pretty cool seeing though...

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm...well..you have to admit that the Towers coming down was cool......kinda like seeing the entire Mexican airforce crash into an oil refinery!

Seriously.....for the other 95% of the worlds population while we all go "Oh wow, that's terrible.."...under our breath we also say '...but amazingly fucking cool too!"..

Come on....the towers collapsing live on TV was like the biggest Michael Bray movie ever!

Re:It was pretty cool seeing though...

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, no we don't.
I am very disappointed that the USA never mention the innocent civilians who died in Iraq, I'm disappointed that they expect sympathy today when they never extend that sympathy to the victims of their war, I in fact wrote a harsh post about this somewhere above, but I do not think the towers falling is cool. And I have never met anyone in Europe who thinks it is cool, even among the most anti-American people I know.

Don't take your case for a generality.

Re:It was pretty cool seeing though...

[Mindcontrolled]

Give me a moral relativist any day instead of some fuck who thinks he owns the "one and true morals". Those are the guys committing genocide.

Re:It was pretty cool seeing though...

[Pino Grigio]

Oh sure. But you support the Freedom Fighters in Libya, and the protesters in Syria, don't you? If you do, you're expressing a position . If you don't because you prefer the moral relativism expressed by the regimes there, and in places like North Korea, then you should fucking go and live there.

Re:It was pretty cool seeing though...

[Mindcontrolled]

Since when does the statement that there is no philosophical basis for an absolute moral code translate into nihilism? Of course I do express a position. I just don't have the bloody hubris to claim that it is the one and only.

Re:It was pretty cool seeing though...

[Pino Grigio]

Of course there is. You could start with the concept of Human Rights, based on the capacity to suffer; something that we ALL have in common, wherever we live. If you can't build a principled stand on any issue based on that, then you are simply dishonest.

Re:It was pretty cool seeing though...

[Mindcontrolled]

Get off that black and white thinking. There is a continuum - yes, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights sets a pretty agreeable basis for ethics. From a purely philosophical point of view, it is just axiomatic, though. Therefor, not absolute.

Re:It was pretty cool seeing though...

[The Creator]

And I have never met anyone in Europe who thinks it is cool, even among the most anti-American people I know.

For the same reason you never meet anyone who pees in the shower either.

Re:It was pretty cool seeing though...

[Anonymous Coward]

seeing the entire Mexican airforce crash into an oil refinery

Don't steal PJ O'Rourke's lines.

Re:It was pretty cool seeing though...

[Cederic]

The live footage from that day remains some of most remarkable television in history.

It was evocative, visually rich and had an impact far beyond a mere 3000 deaths.

I did think the second aircraft hitting was cooler than the towers collapsing though.

Re:It was pretty cool seeing though...

[cheekyjohnson]

moral relativist

What does that have to do with anything?

Re:It was pretty cool seeing though...

[cheekyjohnson]

You're completely wrong. Absolute morals exist because the magical moral fairy exists (which is who told me that it is my morals that are the absolute ones).

Re:It was pretty cool seeing though...

[Falconhell]

I thnk the 100,000 dead Iraqis might not shre your view of the benefits of being invaded by the US. Iraq will end up worse than before thanks to your uneduacted meddling. How anyone can try and put a positive spin on a war conducted due to a lie that was well known to be such at the time is stunningly stupid. Thoughyou are obviously a right winger, so common sense is a major shortcoming for you.

That's not the first memorable 09-11

[Anonymous Coward]

In 1714, the Spanish army crushed the Catalan resistance and imposed their barbarian culture upon them. A whole nation obliterated.
In 1973, the US-backed Pinochet overthrew the democratic government of Chile. At least 3,197 died.

Re:That's not the first memorable 09-11

[gomiam]

Ok, let's flame on. Catalonia wasn't a nation then and it had never been, since it had belonged to the crown of Aragon. Sorry to burst your bubble.

At least you talked about a real coup d'etat on Chile's case.

Re:That's not the first memorable 09-11

[Anonymous Coward]

I really hope your point is that "people didn't die in Catalonia" because if it isn't you are a complete moron.

Re:That's not the first memorable 09-11

[mike1210]

In 1973, the US-backed Pinochet overthrew the democratic government of Chile. At least 3,197 died.

Salvador Allende was "democratically elected", but then, so was Hitler. Before Pinochet forcibly removed him from power, Allende had destroyed democracy in Chile by imposing socialism in violation of Chilean law.

No, the CIA was not involved in the coup.

Re:That's not the first memorable 09-11

[Anonymous Coward]

Salvador Allende was "democratically elected", but then, so was Hitler.

OMG! So was Bush!!!! And Obama!!!! What does this mean?!

Allende had destroyed democracy in Chile by imposing socialism in violation of Chilean law.

Yes, it's illegal for a democratically-elected government to perform its governmental functions if you can slap a label of "socialist" on it. Only neo-liberal policies that screw over the country (like under Pinochet) are legal.

No, the CIA was not involved in the coup.

And Bill Clinton did not have sex with that woman.

Re:That's not the first memorable 09-11

[Anonymous Coward]

20,000 American's murder each other every year. Where's the hoopla about that?

Re:That's not the first memorable 09-11

[gomiam]

Please save the insults for someone who cares.

Fact: there was a war of sucession, in war people die. So I can hardly make the point that people didn't die in Catalonia during the Sucession War.

Fact: Catalonia wasn't a nation then (otherwise they wouldn't have taken part in the war to choose Spain's next king, would they?) nor was it in any other point of time before (it was a conglomerate of counties which came to be under the crown of Aragon). Even then Constitutions of 1535? (this picture carries the caption 1535 but the Roman numerals look like 1585) are sanctioned by the then king of Spain Philip (which, according to the dates, means it is most certainly Philip II and that the Constitutions belong to 1585). Feel free to point _any_ time of history before 1714 when Catalonia was an unified entity not under a "foreign" power (Rome, France, Aragon, Spain...).

Re:That's not the first memorable 09-11

[maxwell demon]

Few of them do it on September 11.

Re:That's not the first memorable 09-11

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, let's flame on. Catalonia wasn't a nation then and it had never been, since it had belonged to the crown of Aragon. Sorry to burst your bubble.

And what if the Catalonians wanted to be a nation? What if they didn't want to "belong" to the crown anymore? As a people and culture, do they have a right to do that? (I'm not really arguing for or against a particular view in this situation, but just curious about the larger principle of nations being able to fight "treason" and secession versus individual/group rights to "self-determination" and democracy/etc.)

Re:That's not the first memorable 09-11

[Anonymous Coward]

Over the years I've learned to ignore these kind of so-called historical facts that use judgement adjectives.

Re:That's not the first memorable 09-11

[gomiam]

The Catalonians at the time didn't seem to want to be a nation. They wanted to have a different king in Spain than the one that finally won. It was a sucession war, not a secession war.

Re:That's not the first memorable 09-11

[shutdown -p now]

Catalonia wasn't a nation then and it had never been, since it had belonged to the crown of Aragon.

Since when does "belonging to someone" define whether some people are or are not a nation?

Re:That's not the first memorable 09-11

[shutdown -p now]

There's no need to focus only on the grim side, either. How about September 11, 1683 - the Battle of Vienna - one of the most important milestones in the history of Western civilization?

Re:That's not the first memorable 09-11

[MightyMartian]

He was elected by the Chilean people. It was their desire for him to do what he promised. And yes, the United States gave Pinochet the thumbs up to stage the coupe.

Re:That's not the first memorable 09-11

[mike1210]

Yes, it's illegal for a democratically-elected government to perform its governmental functions if you can slap a label of "socialist" on it.

Allende was exercising powers the legislature did not grant him in order to implement collectivization and totalitarianism. This prompted a majority of the legislature to call for a military coup.

Re:That's not the first memorable 09-11

[gomiam]

In this case, since many Catalonian nationalists invented the concept of Catalonian countries in order to shroud their reivindications with "history&quot (for some values of history). The post I answered to belonged to this current and I simply denied that basic premise. If you have any more questions you should ask the one that set the premise.

To be clear, while I may understand the nationalist desire, I may also not share it and I may also reject bringing up bogus arguments to support it. In this case I don't share it and I reject bogus arguments. They aren't needed, anyway: nationalists will be nationalists, and they will be someone to pay attention when they get a majority of the people's vote. And by a majority I mean a majority of over half the whole voting age population. Considering abstention rates it seems difficult, though.

Re:That's not the first memorable 09-11

[RespekMyAthorati]

In 1714, the Spanish army crushed the Catalan resistance and imposed their barbarian culture upon them

They weren't expecting the Spanish army.

Re:That's not the first memorable 09-11

[Anonymous Coward]

In 1714, the Spanish army crushed the Catalan resistance and imposed their barbarian culture upon them. A whole nation obliterated.
In 1973, the US-backed Pinochet overthrew the democratic government of Chile. At least 3,197 died.

Or, for that matter, in 1922 the British mandate of Palestine began.

Re:That's not the first memorable 09-11

[Anonymous Coward]

Both on 9/11?

And also, the body count 3.197, if you if you rearrange the numbers, it's exactly 1973. What a coincidence.

I bet in the first case, the body count could be 4.711, or 7.141, or something.

Re:That's not the first memorable 09-11

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the CIA was not involved in the coup.

If true, it makes this an even bigger blunder than 9/11/01: they tried everything for years to keep then remove Allende from power, they financed democratic and anti-democratic forces, they had tons of spies in Chile, they supported the Junta after the coup - but the one day the actual coup happens, they are absolutely oblivious, nobody told them about, not their friends, not their spies, completely dumbfounded.

Re:That's not the first memorable 09-11

[Mostly a lurker]

I am not a history buff, but even my hazy recollections were enough to know that your post contains some pretty dubious thinking

Catalonia wasn't a nation then (otherwise they wouldn't have taken part in the war to choose Spain's next king, would they?)

Based on this logic, Great Britain, the Dutch Republic, Portugal and the Holy Roman Empire would not have been nations either, since they most definitely took part in the war. Nevertheless, I would tend to accept that Catalonia's independence by that point in its history was questionable.

Feel free to point _any_ time of history before 1714 when Catalonia was an unified entity

The same Wikipedia article you researched contains these quotes:

... after the defeat of Emir Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqiwas's troops at Tours in 732 local Visigoths regained autonomy , though they voluntarily made themselves tributary to the emerging Frankish kingdom, [emphasis mine]

and

As part of the Crown of Aragon — most historians would say the dominant part — the Catalans became a maritime power, expanding by trade and conquest into Valencia, the Balearic Islands, and even Sardinia and Sicily.

This second quote suggests to me that, at a certain point of time, the Crown of Aragon amounted to a Catalonian empire. As with all empires, it eventually collapsed, but Catalonia has arguably as much right to a claim of nationhood as England, (previously the centre of the British Empire, and now a constituent part of the United Kingdom)

Re:That's not the first memorable 09-11

[Anonymous Coward]

the spaniards killed 4171, right?

Re:That's not the first memorable 09-11

[gomiam]

Based on this logic, Great Britain, the Dutch Republic, Portugal and the Holy Roman Empire would not have been nations either, since they most definitely took part in the war.

I didn't know any of those hadn't been an independent country before and belonged to Spain at the time ;) I repeat: Catalonia didn't move to achieve independency from the Spanish crown but to put in place a king to their liking.

... after the defeat of Emir Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqiwas's troops at Tours in 732 local Visigoths regained autonomy , though they voluntarily made themselves tributary to the emerging Frankish kingdom, [emphasis mine]

That doesn't prove they were an unified entity: they actually didn't spend much time before turning in a set of counties. I admit though this point would require more investigation.

This second quote suggests to me that, at a certain point of time, the Crown of Aragon amounted to a Catalonian empire. As with all empires, it eventually collapsed, but Catalonia has arguably as much right to a claim of nationhood as England...

Catalonia doesn't show as a capital of the kingdom: economically it was Naples, politically it was Zaragoza where the kings were crowned. And may I remark (again?) that the Count of Barcelona dropped his family title when he entered the royal family of Aragon.

Great.

[knuthin]

Out of all the things, I surely expected a guy on Slashdot to link to "The Origins of Linux" in times of national crisis.
On a much serious note: remembering all the innocent lives lost.

Re:Great.

[maxwell demon]

Out of all the things, I surely expected a guy on Slashdot to link to "The Origins of Linux" in times of national crisis.

On a much serious note: remembering all the innocent lives lost.

What was the time of that story?
At what time did the attack start?

The terrorists won, beyond their wildest dreams

[Anonymous Coward]

They got us good. They caused the equivalent of a cytokine storm, a massive autoimmune response. We lost important freedoms, likely for good, and bankrupted ourselves financially and otherwise. The world hates us, our economy is in the toilet, the government is hopelessly corrupt, and we STILL haven't won, because no one really wins asymmetric warfare short of turning the insurgents and their country into a smoking glass crater. They did to us what we did to the Soviets not 20 years ago, and we fell for it.

Re:The terrorists won, beyond their wildest dreams

[taiwanjohn]

Nailed it.

Re:The terrorists won, beyond their wildest dreams

[RebelWithoutAClue]

Nah, the terrorists didn't win, they got smashed in large numbers, by a completely disproportionate but necessary response.

Re:The terrorists won, beyond their wildest dreams

[Anonymous Coward]

Americans had been lulled with a false sense of security because of the lack of homeland attacks from foreign governments since WW II. Generations of Americans had forgotten that the world is a dangerous place, and not just while travelling overseas on vacation packages. The 9/11 attacks were a wake-up call, of the magnitude required to get people's attention; the earlier USS Cole and Black Hawk Down incidents hardly even got the attention of the US government. Bush's national security advisor Condaleeza Rice was dismissive of the threat of Bin Laden and Al Qaida before 9/11 (look it up).

Iraq was a big victory for Bin Laden, that was a huge blunder by the American government, in part induced by the adrenaline of 9/11. But as time went on, Bin Laden wasn't able to capitalize, and Arab Spring went the other way - all those monarchies that he wanted to overthrow and replace with his Islamic caliphate started falling to rebellions triggered by youngsters who wanted Western freedoms and democracy, not Sharia law.

Re:The terrorists won, beyond their wildest dreams

[Anonymous Coward]

And what about the blow-back? We've killed thousands of civilians, no doubt many of them unimpeachably innocent of anything other than being born in a country were decided to invade, yet so many refuse to acknowledge that fact. If someone came to the US, hunting for a group that I had nothing to do with, and killed a love one as a result, I know what I would do. What would you? But more importantly, what will they?

Sadly, when it all comes back to haunt us, maybe it'll be me that ends up part of the "collateral damage." Even sadder, I couldn't even blame them. Proud to be an American!

Re:The terrorists won, beyond their wildest dreams

[tverbeek]

The Onion has an article joking that Americans enjoy remembering 9/11 more than we enjoy remembering the 10 years since. It's true, and you can hardly blame us. On 9/11, despite the pain and fear, we saw scenes from around the world of people weeping along with us, or standing firmly in solidarity with us, because they saw this attack on the US as an attack on civilized people everywhere. Sure, there were some assholes cheering here and there, but there was also the Queen of England having "The Star Spangled Banner" played at Buckingham Palace, and countless makeshift US flags and signs saying things like "we are all Americans today" being waved at vigils in the streets around the world.

Then George W. Bush – with the support of the American people – pissed all over that goodwill, to the point that the Nobel committee eagerly handed the Peace Prize to the new guy when "regime change" finally happened.

I wrote this on 9/12/2001. I sent it in to the local newspaper, and they ran it on the front page of the Opinion section the following Sunday, next to a big picture of Osama Bin Laden and an article about what America would do in response. As my words were being read, they were already being ignored. Fear and Hatred won.

Re:The terrorists won, beyond their wildest dreams

[stringman5]

Nah, the terrorists didn't win, they got smashed in large numbers, by a completely disproportionate but necessary response.

By that reasoning, the USA must've won in Vietnam because Vietnamese casualties dwarfed US casualties. Asymmetric warfare isn't about who loses the most troop, it's far more complicated than that.

Re:The terrorists won, beyond their wildest dreams

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they lost. Their aim was to overthrow the Arab dictatorships and replace them with Taliban-style dispotisms. Instead, the Arab world's revolution for democracy has passed them by.

Re:The terrorists won, beyond their wildest dreams

[RebelWithoutAClue]

Well, the goals of Afghanistan are different than Vietnam. Killing terrorists/taliban was indeed the goal of Afghanistan.

Re:The terrorists won, beyond their wildest dreams

[Anonymous Coward]

So, are we also going to blame 9/11 for the economic problems experienced in Europe (by the countries own mismanagement, ex, Greece)? There might have been a lot of money spent by the US on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the whole world is crumbling economically. To blame 9/11 for the downfall of the economy is idiotic, the world was coming to this, as it was in the Great Depression.. by humanity's greed.

Re:The terrorists won, beyond their wildest dreams

[Risen888]

"The terrorists" isn't an army, or a country which can be defeated.

Re:The terrorists won, beyond their wildest dreams

[unitron]

When the Supreme Court handed Bush the 2000 election, The Onion ran a story entitled "Our Long National Nightmare of Peace and Prosperity Is Finally Over".

Look it up and read it. It's chillingly prescient.

P.S. Congrats on a very good 9/12/01 column

Re:The terrorists won, beyond their wildest dreams

[Anonymous Coward]

The Supreme Court didn't hand Bush the 2000 election. At no time did Gore ever have more votes than Bush, so the Supreme Court's action didn't tilt the election.

Re:The terrorists won, beyond their wildest dreams

[RebelWithoutAClue]

"The terrorists" appear human and can certainly die the same way.

Re:The terrorists won, beyond their wildest dreams

[jc42]

Nah, the terrorists didn't win, they got smashed in large numbers, by a completely disproportionate but necessary response.

So it's like most wars: Everyone lost; some just lost more than others.

Re:The terrorists won, beyond their wildest dreams

[Risen888]

How many? And at what cost?

Re:The terrorists won, beyond their wildest dreams

[ttong]

The utter disrespect of foreign-to-you nations sits in yourself as well, not just your previous and present presidents. But what can one honestly expect when you and your fellow Americans are living in a fascist society, fostered by a nation so bolstered with greed and corruption that it wreaks havoc on humanity all around the globe.

Those who you belittle as "assholes" had witnessed their country being bombed by the US. Ask an Arab if they care about the 3000 deaths that day and he won't care at all, the US continuously gives them every reason not to. In the name of what, "War on Terror"? That slogan when uttered by any American media is more insulting then 10 Jesuses fucking Christ on a stick of Jew gold. "In God we trust"? Well then God and Allah are exactly the same deities.

And it's not just bombs, the US is also directly funding just about every oppressing regime with a pumpjack in the world. Yet at the same time can hardly manage to finance their own executive branch or a decent health care system for starters.

"Land of the free" really means "Land of the freedom to carry a gun", which is probably the most useless civil right in the history of mankind.

Re:The terrorists won, beyond their wildest dreams

[Anonymous Coward]

Whether their decision was correct or not, the Supreme Court certainly did "hand Bush the election".

Re:The terrorists won, beyond their wildest dreams

[Anonymous Coward]

Well. Thanks for showing us that there are hateful racist cunts on both sides of the issue.

The original thread

[fadeaway]

I remember the madness of trying to get details on that day. One of the things that stuck with me is that most of the major media websites were completely overwhelmed. One of the primary methods of gathering information was through comments on aggregation sites like fark and slashdot: http://slashdot.org/story/01/09/11/1314258/World-Trade-Towers-and-Pentagon-Attacked We all leaned very heavily on the internet on that day, and discovered what a blessing (and/or curse) social media can be.

Re:The original thread

[Anonymous Coward]

Those news sites would have held up better if they had been using MongoDB as the database and Node.js as the backend server.

Re:The original thread

[Anonymous Coward]

iirc,irc ftw

10 years later

[dlt074]

I sure didn't think i'd be spending the ten year anniversary of 9/11 in Afghanistan... but here I am. strange how life works out. i remember on that day, i wanted nothing more then to find the people who'd done it and make them pay... i wasn't in the military back then.

now, i'm here, they know they've won, we've announced our intentions to leave(surrender) and they attack almost daily. their(Islamists) resolve is stronger then ever. ours(average US citizen) is pathetically weak and short sighted. though, it's not like we have any direction or a plan to get behind.

nope, never thought ten years later, this would be happening.

Re:10 years later

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope you realize that little statement you made is a UCMJ chargeable offense.

Re:10 years later

[copponex]

First, thank you for your service to our country.

Second, fuck you for joining out of bloodlust. Service is a duty, not an excuse to become a heathen. Our military doesn't exist to settle feuds. It exists to uphold principles and rules of law, and to protect our nation from existential threats. Do you honestly think terrorist attacks from a landlocked nation that hasn't had a stable central government in three decades is capable of destroying our national sovereignty? Our failure to use restraint and common sense has cost this country its principles, the lives of your fellow soldiers, and trillions of dollars, all without making the world any safer from terrorism.

In short, your ignorance is more dangerous and has done more damage to this country than fundamentalist Islam.

As a citizen who is paying your salary, I wish I could fire you. You don't represent me or my values.

Re:10 years later

[anagama]

Maybe he'll come back with some humanitarian understanding, as Mike Prysner. This is, or should be, an iconic speech:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akm3nYN8aG8

Re:10 years later

[kevinbr]

Thank you, well said. I myself went to Afghanistan in 2003 but to help not to kill. Since the CIA created and funded Osama, would it not have been cheaper to bomb CIA headquarters? 99% of Afghans want help from anywhere - they will accept the Taliban ( as they did ) to get minimal security. The Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11. The ongoing struggle between Pashtun and Northern Alliance has nothing to do with us. Osama was our chicken coming home to roost.

Re:10 years later

[Xacid]

For some reason it always surprises me how people on the internet will still go for the low blows even in the face of another's humility...

Re:10 years later

[Anonymous Coward]

Congrats. You've sure helped made hundreds of thousands of innocent farmers and sheepherders "pay". And how about murdering children execution-style. Commit any other good war crimes lately?

Re:10 years later

[Anonymous Coward]

Service. The first function of a soldier is to gain territory, goods for their country. Always has been.

Re:10 years later

[Anonymous Coward]

I appreciate what you did and your intentions, and didn't join because I was in high school. Fuck the guys screaming at you, and I'll be praying you come back safe.

Re:10 years later

[copponex]

Homophobia and senseless violence? You should see if the Taliban is still hiring.

Re:10 years later

[TheRaven64]

That speech was from 2009, and that was the first time I'd seen it. Did it get better coverage in the USA? Interestingly, a number of the points he raises directly mirror the writings of people returning from the First World War. A century later, it's depressing how little social progress we've made.

Re:10 years later

[anagama]

Yeah -- it's already two years old but I never saw it till last night. I suspect there are others who haven't seen it but really should.

Re:10 years later

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting video.
Even more interesting is the fact that it is blocked here in Germany.
I have no idea why. It's obviously not because of some music rights.
Thankfully there are enough Swedish elite proxies.

Re:10 years later

[Anonymous Coward]

Screw you.
I have two friends that worked in the Twin Towers, they both survived by pure chance.
If someone had given me a rifle and I believed the people telling me 'Those are the assholes who tried to kill your friends' I would have killed them without hesitation. While bloodlust isn't a good thing, are you trying to say the world isn't a better place without those assholes?

Re:10 years later

[Anonymous Coward]

are you trying to say the world isn't a better place without those assholes?

The world is a better place without those assholes and also without people like you.

Re:10 years later

[copponex]

How many of the hundreds of thousands who have died were involved in the planning of 9/11?

It was bloodlust that changed our goal from finding out who committed these atrocities and punishing them to starting a larger war that caused more innocent bloodshed that the crime we wanted justice for.

If someone had given me a rifle and I believed the people telling me 'Those are the assholes who tried to kill your friends' I would have killed them without hesitation.

So some people told you that Americans in the Twin Towers were responsible for some tragedy in your life, you'd sign up in a heartbeat, huh?

You've got a fucking brain. Please use it.

Re:10 years later

[Anonymous Coward]

You are human garbage. Eat a fat sack and choke on the pubes.

Re:10 years later

[Anonymous Coward]

Making mock of uniforms that guard you while you sleep...

Re:10 years later

[Edgester]

What should the US be doing instead? I'm being serious.

Re:10 years later

[elsurexiste]

It is all too easy to judge in retrospective, isn't it?.

Your views, and his/her views, have changed. It's been 10 years after all. Maybe GP was 16 years old, without full use of reason (which would explain the bloodlust), and feels regret since 2005, you wouldn't tell from his few lines... or maybe is just an asshole, who knows. But hey, let's judge and insult GP, it's easier than thinking.

This you can say: GP is better than a lot of braindeads that say spilling a single drop of American blood requires victory or death, no matter what.

Re:10 years later

[Anonymous Coward]

My experience as a US Marine is that about 20% of us know it was a false flag.

Re:10 years later

[jdavidb]

Service is a duty

Likewise, fuck you for promoting slavery. People died to prevent us from having to give forced "service" as a "duty."

Re:10 years later

[jdavidb]

they know they've won, we've announced our intentions to leave(surrender) and they attack almost daily

I vote for leaving. I don't care if it's a loss or not. I vote for leaving. I don't care if they think they've won or not. I vote for leaving.

Re:10 years later

[penguinbrat]

I was woken up by my Mom calling me in a hotel room, flown in for an interview in Corpus Christi from LA. When the second plane was confirmed and the 3rd plane hit the the pentagon I was with an apartment recruiter looking for a place to live.

FUCK YOU! for telling our men and women off who are going into harms way for us, when everything went down I was of same mind set and I wanted to kick some shit. You sound like someone who would have tossed sand bags and maybe handed out food supplies, but still complained at the end of the day about a soar back or a broken finger nail.

You fail to forget that our military is NOT civilian based - in that you have no choice to ignore the law, you have ORDERS TO FOLLOW - those orders ultimately come from the President and the Pentagon - if THEY are misguided and corrupt thats a different story all together, it does NOT change the bravery and heroism of OUR men and women! It takes fight, courage and discipline to go into these war zones and come out still being able to shit - courage and discipline will only get you so far in a war zone, the 'fight' will get you the rest of way..

You can win a damn chess game from a freak'n pawn - do you blame the pawn or those who moved the pawn into place?

Re:10 years later

[Old Wolf]

What should the US be doing instead? I'm being serious.

STOP INVADING FOREIGN COUNTRIES

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_invasions

Re:10 years later

[Anonymous Coward]

If someone had given me a rifle and I believed the people telling me 'Those are the assholes who tried to kill your friends' I would have killed them without hesitation.

Without hesitation, and without making sure that the people telling you this are telling the truth, I assume? See the war in Iraq.

Re:10 years later

[Anonymous Coward]

Uniforms don't guard me while I sleep. My watchdog guards me while I sleep, just enough to wake me up so I can guard myself. Fuck uniforms.

Re:10 years later

[Anonymous Coward]

Whew. Thank you for posting this without getting caught in the irrational political correctness nonsense that's become a part of our culture. I really hope GP and others like him are able to see through themselves.

Re:10 years later

[Anonymous Coward]

And now you know your cause wasn't just

Re:10 years later

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope you realize that little statement you made is a UCMJ chargeable offense.

Not even close. What a stupid comment.

Re:10 years later

[Anonymous Coward]

They do have that power. Many people see them as a poor, decrepit country with no power. But the people of the country are willing to fight for what they believe (i.e. the collapse of western society). Just because you and your pig headed-ness believe they can't do shit to us, doesn't make it true.

My thoughts are with...

[jampola]

...the families of EVERYONE who lost their lives as a result as a result... Iraqis, Afghans, Americans, EVERYBODY. I may be a little drunk right now but I am completely perplexed as to why everywhere and everybody's thoughts are focused on the people who lost their lives on that day, not the amount of lives that have been lost on the ensuing 3650 days since 2001. My thoughts are with all families of all nationalities who have lost their lives as a result, whether it be an Australian soldier, Iraqi family or an American who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. My thoughts are with you all.

Re:My thoughts are with...

[Anonymous Coward]

I am completely perplexed as to why everywhere and everybody's thoughts are focused on the people who lost their lives on that day, not the amount of lives that have been lost on the ensuing 3650 days since 2001.

You pretend to be so inclusive about it but your bias against those who died on 29 February 2004 and 2008 is despicable. They deserve a bit of respect too.

Re:My thoughts are with...

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing that really is sad, is that more people freaking died in Katrina.

Are we talking about that? No. Does anyone care? No.

Why?

Because 9-11 makes the government look good.
Katrina on the other hand had *more* people die as a direct result of our governments incompetence.

That's what is really sad. We cherry pick things that we care about. So directly and obviously propaganda but the sheep just keep eating it up.

Re:My thoughts are with...

[tendrousbeastie]

I hate to ruin the poignancy of your thought, but there would have been 2 leap years in the decade passed. (3652)

The sad thing is

[Anonymous Coward]

that the terrorists have won.

Rerun

[mcgrew]

I had an FPS site then. My journal today is a rerun of what I posted on that day.

I was reading slashdot that morning...

[savi]

For some reason, this is the only place that it doesn't bother me to see the 10-year anniversary stuff. I can very clearly remember reading slashdot in an office when news of this began to spread.

What a terrible tragedy the event was.

And what a terrible tragedy the last ten years of response to it has been.

Nailed it but still got modded down to hell

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess people can't stand looking at the harsh reality.

Huh? What? "Reexamination"?

[Jane Q. Public]

The only politician in the public eye who has been "reexamining" US policy has been Ron Paul... and more recently the other politicos who have been following in his footsteps.

But keep in mind that unlike the others, Paul as ALWAYS been saying these things, for 30 years, while those others are just trying to get your vote, then will do whatever the hell they want if they get in office. Kind of like Obama.

Re:Huh? What? "Reexamination"?

[Xacid]

While he wasn't my first choice when there was "change you can believe in" Ron Paul is starting to look pretty good for precisely what you mention. Seems like the only few politicians who give a shit about the constitution and ensuring our freedoms our protected. You know - all the things that were supposed to make America great.

Re:Huh? What? "Reexamination"?

[Anonymous Coward]

There were other politicians doing re-examining after 9/11. But then they all got killed by U.S. Military anthrax. How terribly unfortunate.

Re:Huh? What? "Reexamination"?

[Anonymous Coward]

so Paul repeating the same thing he's always been saying counts as a "reexamination"? How is that doing any different than what everyone else is doing? Just because he's out in the fringe doesn't make him automatically right.

Re:Huh? What? "Reexamination"?

[Kiuas]

There seems to be a strange cult of personality surrounding Ron Paul and a lot of people who see him as a huge revolutionarist and something completely new. Well, here are some reasons why I'd never vote for Paul:

1) Paul claims to be a constioutionalist and a libertarian but he opposes the seperation of church and state, apparently wishing to emphasize that america is a christian nation. He is also claming that the constitution is ""replete with references to God.", which is false.

2) He is a creationist who says that evolution is "just a theory". Now, I'm not sure whether or not he actively seeks to increase the teaching of creationism in schools (I think not) but this is an important point because the man is a doctor and calls himself "a scientist" while evidently he does not have a firm grip of either the definition of a scientific theory or genetics, which is something that modern medicine is heavily reliant on and which could not function without evolution. Paul should, as a doctor, have a far better understanding of these mechanisms than a layperson, yet he chooses to ignore the reality and put his own religious views ahead of it while still having the guts to call himself a "scienticst". This point alone demonstrates such levels of cognitive dissonance that I have a hard time understanding how anyone on Slashdot could actually vote for this guy.

3) He wants abortion to be banned on a federal level because in his words "If you can't protect life then how can you protect liberty?". There are several problems with this proposition. Now, I am pro-choice, but I have no problem as such with presidential candidates being against abortion. What I do have a poroblem with is when they seek to legislate their own ethics with no consideration of the consequences. Paul is a doctor, he should be more than aware that there are several means to abort the pregnancy other than the medical procedure, all of them (such as drinking excessive amounts of alcohol) are widely known and all of them are far more dangerous to the mother than an abortion performed by medical professionals. Now, Paul seems to think that banning abortions will end them, which is not true. Making abortions illegal will perhaps make some women reconsider it but it will also cause signifficant harm to a lot of women who end up choosing a back-alley abortion.

In addition, it's inconsistent with his stance on death penalty. According to Paul, the states should be allowed to decide whether or not to use the death penalty but the states should not be allowed to decide whether to alllow abortion. Not only is this stance ass-backwards (IMO the death penalty shopuld be banned on federal level and abortion allowed), it's also a conflicting position. According to him it seems, it should never be allowed to end the "life" of a couople weeks old fetus but it's alright for the state to terminate living adults if they so choose.

4) Paul claims to oppose "congressional overspenfdng" and claims that the goverment should not interfere in business at all, yet for example in 2007 he requested about 400 million dollars in earmarks, including 8 million dollars for the marketing of american shrimp. (source yes, I know, Fox News as a source is stupid but the figures come from the wall street journal)

5) He does not suppor equal rights for minorities, wishing to repeal affirmative action kee the IRS from investigating whether private schools used race as factor in denying entrance,

6) His enviromental policies would cause even more strain to the enviroment than the current ones. Among other things he supports off shore drilling, building more oil refineries, mining on federal lands, no taxes on the production of fuel, and would stop conservation efforts that could be a "Federal obstacle" to building and maintaining refineries. He has also sought to amend the Clean Air Act, repeal the Soil and Water Conservation Act of 1977, and to amend the F

Re:Huh? What? "Reexamination"?

[Magius_AR]

1) Paul claims to be a constioutionalist and a libertarian but he opposes the seperation of church and state

You want to prove that? I've never seen him vote in favor of religion over constitution. Or are you one of those people that believes that any attempt to push power from federal to state level (ala repealing Roe v Wade) is an automatic "desire to create a state theocracy"?

2) He is a creationist who says that evolution is "just a theory". Now, I'm not sure whether or not he actively seeks to increase the teaching of creationism in schools (I think not)

If it doesn't affect how he's voting, why do you give a damn what he thinks? Perhaps that's the difference between you and I -- I'd sooner vote for a person saying one crazy thing while voting completely logically than I would a person telling me exactly what I want to hear and then doing whatever he damn well pleases (such as our current president)..

3) He wants abortion to be banned on a federal level because in his words "If you can't protect life then how can you protect liberty?".

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:gHN7G1IRrLwJ:www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php%3F24933-Question-about-ron-paul-s-abortion-stance+&cd=11&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

It's a conflict, but an explained one. He doesn't want a federal ban, he wants the states to decide. Granted the imperfect world we have where the courts have made it legal everywhere, the partial abortion ban was a regreattable alternative (in essence a flawed response to a flawed law).

4) Paul claims to oppose "congressional overspenfdng" and claims that the goverment should not interfere in business at all, yet for example in 2007 he requested about 400 million dollars in earmarks

Now I know you're trolling...Ron Paul's stance on earmarks is well known. With even the barest minimum of googling: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:wCNIYPY5mgcJ:www.ronpaul.com/2009-03-11/ron-paul-on-earmarks/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a Regardless, he has a duty to his constituents to ensure that federal money that has been taken from them will at least in _some_ way help them. Earmarks are issued for money that was going to be spent anyway . Fucking over his constituents in the name of believing in reduced spending while the rest of the country taxes his state and continues its spending binge doesn't exactly make sense to me. Earmarks are good for transparency, accountability, and responsible spending.

5) He does not suppor equal rights for minorities

He is right in choosing his stance (affirmative action isn't "Equal rights", it's preferred treatment): https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:kcHqTL_FhcQJ:answers.yahoo.com/question/index%3Fqid%3D20071210131825AA7jyoP+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

6) His enviromental policies would cause even more strain to the enviroment than the current ones

Agreed not the best record on the environment, but consistent with his constitutional beliefs.

7) He wishes to withdraw the us form the United Nation

...which coincides with his isolationist we-shouldn't-police-the-world views. I'm not a huge fan of this either, but as with most of his other more extreme ideas, they would never actually occur,

Comment on slashdot on that day

[Anonymous Coward]

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=21541&cid=2277493

Day of Mourning

[roman_mir]

This should be a day of mourning, not just because of the people who died (one of my managers at the time, Vladimir Tomasevic, I am lucky not to have been there too), but it's a day of mourning for the liberties and freedoms lost across USA but also across the entire freaking world. The entire world today looks more and more like a crazy toon town, with cops with machine guns everywhere, insane laws, TSA, just general loss of privacy, liberty, decency, everything, and this should also include the economic calamity that obviously worsened due to the insane response to the events.

This kind of response is not about fighting crime, which terrorism basically is. This kind of response is about destroying the human rights and freedoms, if that still means anything to anybody.

I wish to see return to normalcy and government non-intervention, so I think voting for Ron Paul is the obvious good first step. If the man understands one thing - it's liberty and the other thing is economy.

Also, WTF, USA? Where are 10 towers in place of those 2, 10 that are 5 times as tall?

Re:Day of Mourning

[Ihmhi]

That was something that always bothered me. You get popped in the nose by a bully, you get right back up and sock him in the face. Building anything less magnificent than what was already there is like crawling away crying while the bully kicks you.

Redesigned towers? Sure. But there should have been two of them, and they should have been bigger and better.

Re:Day of Mourning

[Anonymous Coward]

No it should be a day of celebration.
It's my cousins birthday after all. Sad enough that birthday got canceled because everyone was watching cnn 10 years ago.

Re:Day of Mourning

[Xacid]

Also, WTF, USA? Where are 10 towers in place of those 2, 10 that are 5 times as tall?

Hah - this made me chuckle a little. Thanks. :)

I really don't know what happened. I'm not terribly old but this isn't the America I always heard about. Despite us slinging bullets in what feels like every direction I still feel like our nation is weaker than ever. There doesn't appear to be much focus. No exact mission. And our country is divided in some of the strangest ways (tea party anyone?).

Re:Day of Mourning

[dontbgay]

Sorry, bro. We spent all of our cash on bombs, bribes, and bullets. :T

Re:Day of Mourning

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, WTF, USA? Where are 10 towers in place of those 2, 10 that are 5 times as tall?

Well, at least the memorials are pretty well-hardened against terrorist attack. It's pretty hard to knock over a hole in the ground.

Re:Day of Mourning

[Anonymous Coward]

Mourn for your country, most of the rest of the western world is still a decent place.

Re:Day of Mourning

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi!

I'd like to point out that 'normalcy' still isn't a word. Never has been, never will be.

Otherwise I'll start making up my own words. Like 'flibberism.'

Re:Day of Mourning

[roman_mir]

As I go through Heathrow, and see the blokes casually holding Heckler & Koch G36 with fingertips on the triggers, in Zurich I notice security with MP5s and in Frankfurt and Karlsruhe I see cops with Heckler & Koch 9 mm, and I have to take the shoes off, be searched, my luggage not only x-rayed, but also dusted for explosives, and then I see cops with AK47 all over Pulkovo, I will try to remember your comments here, thinking that maybe this does constitute a 'decent place', but it does make me quite uncomfortable, because they are all armed at all those places and I am not allowed.

Re:Day of Mourning

[unitron]

Umm, sorry, Ron Paul says interesting things sometimes, and maybe even insightful things occasionally, but so did Ross Perot, and the two of them could have a crazy-off.

You've probably seen some of the post-Irene, "we didn't need FEMA in 1900 and we don't need it now" video on the news, but most shows are leaving out the part where he said government wasn't obligated to protect us, that's what the 2nd Amendment is for.

Unfortunately footage of him explaining exactly which part of the hurricane you fill with hot lead from your AK to get it to turn back out to sea doesn't seem to be available.

Re:Day of Mourning

[roman_mir]

Government isn't there to protect you against other citizens.

Federal government has a mandate - border protection and protection of liberties and property and enforcement of contract.

All other functions are your local issues.

FEMA is correctly identified as an inefficient moral hazard, and it should be disbanded, and to pay for all sorts of disaster the States should have their own money left to them, and not stolen by the federal system, and then crumbs redistributed back, after most of it goes towards wars and government preferred monopolies and banks.

Some recollections

[macwhizkid]

I was in 10th grade German class when we got the announcement. I remember not grasping the significance of the news until I saw the look of fear on my teacher's face. I hopped on the school network to try to get updates. I was moderately successful... most sites were down, CNN was a 50/50 shot, and so much of my news that day came in through reading updates and comments on Slashdot, at least until we were allowed to go to the library (the one place in our school that had cable TV).

I'm fearful that we've squandered quite a bit of the opportunity (not the right word, I know) that the tragedy bought us in the following months and years. Instead of making amends with the world, I fear we've gotten involved in three endless wars and brought our country to the brink of bankruptcy, both fiscally and morally.

As one commenter put it, in perhaps the most chillingly precognitive Slashdot comment of all time: "The biggest casualty will probably be our Constitution. Whenever a tragedy likes this occurs, the government always announces a get tough on terrorists policy that will have no effect on the psychopaths who do this, but will severely limit our rights.

"The huge loss of life is bad enough. The subsequent loss of what truly represents what this country stands for will be intolerable."

Re:Some recollections

[Anonymous Coward]

10 years later, and here we are holding a wake. it's not for dead men, but dead principles.

Re:Some recollections

[APLowman]

I was in 11th grade German at the time. We were in the middle of a party enjoying a delicious Schwarzwälder Kirschtorte (Black forest Cherry Cake). Kinda changed the mood dramatically since we were 40 minutes from DC (central Maryland) in an area where almost everybody works in DC or in other federal government jobs in the area. The place I currently work at had a crew onsite at the Pentagon and was working on installing a new library (which was destroyed by the crash). Fortunately, everybody was at the loading dock waiting on supplies at the time and nobody was hurt. Kinda of weird how small the world can be at times.

That said.... It is a shame how we have let this tragedy push us further down the slippery slope that our nation (and most other 1st world countries) has been sliding down for decades. We are the least free that we've ever been, and it's getting worse daily. America is, and has been, in a position to move the world in any direction it wants (whether the rest of the world likes it or not) and it's a shame that we can't leverage that position to do some real good. America does many good things, but it also does some high profile dickish things; and those are what we are remembered for.

I know it's naive and unreasonably optimistic, but if we could collectively grow up and work together on building the culture that we so proudly proclaim we already have: A culture that values liberty, freedom, and all the other values we claim to have; then, maybe we could actually make the world a better place, starting with right here. It's a fools errand to work to that end though, it goes against human nature to actually care about others. It's much easier to pretend to, all the while thinking about yourself or maybe a select group you are attached to.

It doesn't matter if the American dream ever existed; we can still make it exist today if we all (including those at the top) want it to.

Re:Some recollections

[digsbo]

Baloney. Written with the insight of someone who's not completely taken in by the nationalist BS.

Re:Some recollections

[antdude]

During that day, I just woke up (IIRC, 8/9 AM PDT since I was unemployed from the dotcom bust) and came to my Windows computer with Internet. I saw my friends chatting in an IRC room something about a plane crash. I thought it was an accident, then I noticed terrorism, WTC, etc. Then, my "queen ant" told me about it briefly in person. I decided to turn on my 20" CRT TV (still have it today and it was from 1996!) and saw all the local news stations (rabbit ears) on this. I saw the replays of an airplane crashing to a tower. :( Such a bad day for everyone.

Xsleepingxgiantx's Reddit comment mentioned a dark/heavy documentary titled "102 Minutes That Changed America". Top Documentary Films have the almost two hours YouTube video. It has pure raw footages from various people. It is very difficult to watch (couldn't watch the whole thing and your overlord couldn't sleep well after watching most of the first half). :~(

On a bright side, there was one survivor from Ground Zero but it was an office plant: http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/09/10/new.york.911.plant/index.html ...

102 Minutes that Changed America

[Mike Mentalist]

Fascinating documentary on the History channel at the moment in the UK.

It's just non-stop amateur footage (no narrators or anything like that at all) all shown in chronological order. It's almost like being back there on the day and watching it with the benefit of hindsight.

The terrorists lost

[betterunixthanunix]

The terrorists wanted to strike US foreign policy and globalization. The policies the terrorists were trying to strike back against have been make even more aggressive following the attacks, and the US is continuing to push the globalization agenda. Claiming that the terrorists attacked us because of our freedoms is complete nonsense -- they would have attacked us just the same if we had been the USSR (in fact, Osama bin Laden had once fought against the USSR in Afghanistan, an episode that may have had something to do with his hatred for the USA).

Re:The terrorists lost

[taiwanjohn]

They wanted to goad America into war, in order to bankrupt the country (just like they did with the USSR). Bush gave them all that plus an extra "bonus" war for good measure.

Re:The terrorists lost

[Yvanhoe]

The terrorists did not have real plans, were not well organized, their movement was not coherent. They wanted to kill Americans and make some ruckus. We answered by wanting to kill terrorist and make some ruckus.

Many security experts have proved, and the Oslo shooting case is another proof of this, that the counter-terrorism measures that have been taken are just ridiculous and would not stand in the way of a serious, motivated and well funded enemy. Most graduate students today could come up with a plan to kill 100+ americans in an attack. It has taken an incredible incompetence from the US administration for 9/11 to happen.

Re:The terrorists lost

[anagama]

And Obama is just expanding what Bush started. You can't blame this on one party or the other -- it is the fault of BOTH.

Re:The terrorists lost

[taiwanjohn]

Fair enough, but I can still blame Bush for ignoring his counter-terrorism team (eg: Richard Clark) practically screaming at him to take notice of Al Qaeda before the 9/11 attacks. And I can blame Bush (and particularly Cheney) for railroading the country into a second, unnecessary war in Iraq, based on false information (eg: Downing Street memo). There's plenty more to mention, but you get the idea.

Yes, I also blame the Dems for going along with it. But there's no denying it was pushed by the neo-cons from the beginning.

Re:The terrorists lost

[Risen888]

The terrorists wanted to strike US foreign policy and globalization.

Yes, and their stated strategy in this, which they announced years in advance, was to draw us into an endless, unwinnable war.

Re:The terrorists lost

[Anonymous Coward]

And Obama is just expanding what Bush started. You can't blame this on one party or the other -- it is the fault of BOTH.

Oh, come on. You just did blame it on a party. Somehow you've twisted leaving Iraq and finally having a credible timetable for leaving Afghanistan as "expanding" those wars?

Re:The terrorists lost

[Anonymous Coward]

But Al Qaeda, as a serious threat, goes back long before Bush (W). Half-hearted responses to the USS Cole and Somalia got us nothing but emboldened terrorists who decried the US as "paper tigers". I think you could just as well blame the Clinton administration along with the others for downplaying the threat of AQ, even so far as cutting back on the military during the very decade in which AQ was growing as a threat. Everyone knows that the planning of the 9-11 attacks were begun years, not months, beforehand. The intelligence we had shortly beforehand was not specific enough to be useful, and communications between agencies had been neutered during the 90s.

Re:The terrorists lost

[MightyMartian]

I still can't figure out where Iraq ever fit into this. All it did is remove one of Al Qaeda's most vicious opponents and give them a whole new arena of operation.

Re:The terrorists lost

[Jawnn]

I still can't figure out where Iraq ever fit into this. All it did is remove one of Al Qaeda's most vicious opponents and give them a whole new arena of operation.

It never did. That anyone, ANYONE, believes that it did is clear testament to the neocons' diligence at spinning it that way. Iraq was about money - obscenely profitable contracts for cronies and control of one of the world's largest petroleum reserves. No, we didn't go in to "steal" that oil. It would have been cheaper to buy it. It was important, to western petrol companies, to make sure that that oil was sold for the right price and distributed at the right rate. And if a few Haliburtons and Blackwaters made a few friends into new billionaires and millionaires along the way, that's just gravy.

My remembrance of the day

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm writing and drawing an adults-only autobiographic novel, which includes events from around September 2001. There were two tragedies that week. The first was on 9/11 when 3000 people were killed. The second was on 9/12 when America responded. Some of that response was good, but mostly it turned its back on the things that make it a great country. These two pages from my GN are about that: NSFW, partial male nudity

Keep Calm and Carry On

[bobbinspenguin]

When I was a kid you'd turn the telly on and see another news report about the IRA blowing up a school or setting off a nail bomb in Soho. It happened too often to stop the country though and America didn't give two shits so the rest of the world didn't say anything. You just got on with it. This country's took a lot from terrorist attacks over the years but September 11th was the first proper kick in the teeth for the previously untouchable Americans who're brainwashed from birth to believe they're the greatest country in the world. That was probably a bigger shock than the lives lost - the fact that someone got to them. This really isn't flamebait so don't consider it as such please. Spare a thought for the lives lost in the attacks yes, but do these people ever spare a thought for the lives lost elsewhere. Those places not in the centre of the universe. http://www.amazon.com/Keep-Calm-Carry-T-Shirt-Red/dp/B004IC0WMM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1315749737&sr=8-1

Re:Keep Calm and Carry On

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Is that a referrer link? Are you really trying to make a quick buck off 9-11?

Re:Keep Calm and Carry On

[bobbinspenguin]

If I had the money I'd be handing them out mate

Re:Keep Calm and Carry On

[Anonymous Coward]

"Nobody cares about me, so I don't care about anybody". Good idea, and that is the kind of thinking that will make this a wonderful place to live in!

Re:Keep Calm and Carry On

[Ashe Tyrael]

What was also interesting about the IRA thing was just how much funding from various irish interest groups in the US basically dried up after 9/11, as people in said interest groups suddenly had it brought home to them just what the money that was "supporting the cause" was going towards. To be blunt about it, the message that "Terrorism is not big and clever, it's unpleasant and nastyt" was beaten into the US in the worst possible fashion. The fact that all those new laws about funding terror and so forth also covered the relevant groups only helped hasten that drying up. All of a sudden, passing the hat round in the bar to "help our boys win the struggle" was not only in exceedingly poor taste, it was also on the list of things they'd stick you in Guantanamo for.

That said, in terms of the anniversary, I have only one thing to say, as spoken by those two wise prophets, Bill S. Preston, Esquire, and Ted "Theodore" Logan. Words, that if you strip out the comic hyperbole, make a huge amount of sense.

"Be excellent to each other."

Re:Keep Calm and Carry On

[Simon Rowe]

America didn't give two shits so the rest of the world didn't say anything.

Oh they did, who do you think paid for all the explosives?

Re:Keep Calm and Carry On

[Cederic]

It's also why I lacked sympathy for America at the time - and since.

New York was a major source of funding for terrorists, so it was somewhat fitting that they became a target too.

Re:Keep Calm and Carry On

[Anonymous Coward]

there is a bit of difference

your IRA problem was just a bunch of drunk assholes from within your own country, for fucks sake Ireland didnt seem to give 2 shits, why should we

Re:Keep Calm and Carry On

[identity0]

I think it's wrong to equate the war with the IRA or 'the Blitz' with what the US experienced in 9/11 or Pearl Harbor.

The slow buildup of years of violence(for the IRA) or a declaration of war followed by weeks of overseas combat(Nazis) is not the same as living in a peacetime situation and suddenly having planes bombing you without warning.

Other nations in WWII had time to prepare themselves mentally, the US did not(though arguably they should have known it was coming). The most similar parallels would be what happened to Poland or the Soviets when they were taken by surprise, although they were invaded on land as well, which did not happen in the US.

It's true

[Anonymous Coward]

A nation that things it owns the whole world, can torture other country's ppls, can force them to act in ways it wants, and that is in everyone else's face.

What you say is actually true. The United States of America is the mightiest, richest, dominant and most influential country in the world. So whatever we say or do, the rest of the world bends to our will. That's just the way it is now, sorry if that offends you but its true.

Oh and for a nation so hated by the rest of the world, don't you think its odd more people are immigrating here than in any other country still? Yeah that's what I thought.

I just completely destroyed you. I win.

Re:It's true

[alantus]

A nation that things it owns the whole world, can torture other country's ppls, can force them to act in ways it wants, and that is in everyone else's face.

What you say is actually true. The United States of America is the mightiest, richest, dominant and most influential country in the world. So whatever we say or do, the rest of the world bends to our will. That's just the way it is now, sorry if that offends you but its true.

Oh and for a nation so hated by the rest of the world, don't you think its odd more people are immigrating here than in any other country still? Yeah that's what I thought.

I just completely destroyed you. I win.

You are just saying random things with no proof to back it up.

While "mightiest", "dominant" and "influential" are all subjective indicators, richness and immigration rates are not.

Qatar, Luxembourg, Singapore, Norway, Brunei, United Arab Emirates are all richer than the US, as they have higher PPP:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

Canada is the country with most immigration when in gross figures. By migrants per 1000 population USA is ranked number 16 worldwide:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_migration_rate

The initial bulletins.

[88NoSoup4U88]

I quite liked this ten minute clip of the initial news bulletins after the first attack.
R.I.P. for the people that died that day... and the thousands more that had to die in other countries that were since then invaded by the US...

Edit

[bhartman34]

I should've said "necessarily". You certainly don't have to believe in an afterlife to be willing to die, but you certainly do to throw your life away.

Re:Edit

[Pstrobus]

Which explains the Soviet soldiers who strapped on satchel charges and threw themselves under German tanks during the fighting in Crimea. Communism is explicitly atheist and by extension a "no afterlife" group.

One could argue that patriotism is religion (they were defending their country from invasion after all) but claiming equivalence between religion and patriotism does make one look a bit of a prat.

Re:Edit

[MightyMartian]

During the War, Stalin essentially ignored the previous decades of Communism and invoked Russian nationalism (hence it being called the Great Patriotic War in Russia). Beyond that, while the Russian Orthodox Church did at various times face persecution, sometimes extreme persecution, at the hands of the Soviet authorities, in the end it basically aligned itself with the Soviet government and remained a large influence on Russian society.

Re:Edit

[shutdown -p now]

During the War, Stalin essentially ignored the previous decades of Communism and invoked Russian nationalism (hence it being called the Great Patriotic War in Russia). Beyond that, while the Russian Orthodox Church did at various times face persecution, sometimes extreme persecution, at the hands of the Soviet authorities, in the end it basically aligned itself with the Soviet government

It's all true, but most Soviet soldiers did not sacrifice themselves in suicide missions "for God". They died "for Stalin and motherland".

Though cult of personality is also very much like a religion in practice...

Re:Edit

[bhartman34]

It's all true, but most Soviet soldiers did not sacrifice themselves in suicide missions "for God". They died "for Stalin and motherland".

Though cult of personality is also very much like a religion in practice...

There wasn't any real difference between the two. The state became God. If someone knows they're committing suicide, they need an afterlife to fall back on.

Re:Edit

[shutdown -p now]

The state became God. If someone knows they're committing suicide, they need an afterlife to fall back on.

Even if you consider Soviet stalinism a religion, one thing it most certainly did not have was any notion of afterlife.

What it did have was the notion of "eternal memory" - death is death, but heroes are to be remembered and venerated (in fact, specifically in connection with WW2, this persists in Russia to this day).

Re:Edit

[bhartman34]

The state became God. If someone knows they're committing suicide, they need an afterlife to fall back on.

Even if you consider Soviet stalinism a religion, one thing it most certainly did not have was any notion of afterlife.

What it did have was the notion of "eternal memory" - death is death, but heroes are to be remembered and venerated (in fact, specifically in connection with WW2, this persists in Russia to this day).

That's a form of immortality, though. The point is, if someone thinks that death snuffs out their existence entirely, he/she isn't going to throw his/her life away. It's one thing to risk your life. It's quite another thing to toss it.

wow, on the oklahoma city bombing day

[decora]

who did you want to invade and kill?

Re:wow, on the oklahoma city bombing day

[Anonymous Coward]

The perpetrator of that mass murder was quickly captured, tried, and executed. His accomplice will die in prison.

We do all this for 3,000 dead

[whoda]

Yet we still allow 18,000 or so people to be killed each year by domestic drunk drivers and don't really do anything about it.

Re:We do all this for 3,000 dead

[Xacid]

What do you propose we do about said drunk drivers? It's not like it's legal to do so. Should be try prohibition again?

I don't disagree that drunk drivers are assholes but it's an entirely separate matter here.

Also, the events on 9/11 occurred with determination to take as many lives possible. Drunk drivers are typically just trying to get to point A to point B. Comparing the two is just asinine.

Re:We do all this for 3,000 dead

[Anonymous Coward]

"and don't do anything about it."

I don't know how old you are, but when I was young drunk driving was a joke. Now its treated seriously - both from a law enforcement perspective and a social pressure perspective. There isn't much more that can be done in a free country (although we've already got Soviet style checkpoints in many areas on weekends/special occasions). If you are over ~35 or 40 you can see a complete sea change in how drunk driving is treated.

Re:We do all this for 3,000 dead

[jafiwam]

Did I click on the wrong link? Is this the "Every faggot with a whiny attitude thread post some whiny shit thread?"

Re:We do all this for 3,000 dead

[Zaphod-AVA]

The Supreme Court has created an exception to my 4th amendment rights to stop every vehicle on a road to check for drunk drivers. You call that doing nothing? I call it doing too much.

Re:We do all this for 3,000 dead

[AchilleTalon]

What's the political threat here? Car makers are plotting to destroy America?

Re:We do all this for 3,000 dead

[Risen888]

The fuck are you on about? We live in a society where you can be arrested for drunk driving while sitting on the hood of your parked car in your driveway with your keys in your pocket, and we "don't really do anything about it?"

Re:We do all this for 3,000 dead

[Boronx]

How about they actually enforce drunk driving laws? If they arrested every drunk driver in my town we'd lose 20% of the adult population each Friday and Saturday night to prisons.

Re:We do all this for 3,000 dead

[Xacid]

So mandatory DUI checkpoints at all intersections? Breathalyzers on cars?

I've got to ask - how many times have you seen a drunk driver pulled over who was allowed back on the road? What you're implying is borderline absurd.

Re:We do all this for 3,000 dead

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't do anything about it? They've been going down (with minor statistical setbacks) for nearly 30 years, so either they're going down on their own, or we've been doing something. Frankly, if we "haven't been doing anything" and they've been going down on their own, we shouldn't suddenly start doing something, or we're likely to mess up a good trend!

There were a million better examples out there, how about medical mistakes?

What about all the people USA has slaughtered

[sakari]

Yeah, you don't remember those here, do you. Every month USA seems to kill more innocent people abroad, in Libya, Iraq, Iran, you name it.

Why not remember those ? Because it's the uncomfortable truth that nobody wants to think about. Everyday more money and resources are spent on military forces that could be used to educate children and help those who suffer, right in your own country. But this is not newsworthy stuff, and the big media is owned by the same people who control the military, so this is not something they want to talk about.

And terrorist attacks ? The facts point more to the fact that the terrorist, the same people who infringe on our human rights more and more every day, scanning our bodies at airports, spreading misinformation and lies and hogging resources that could be spreaded equally to actually create something great, are actually the US government and the people behind them.

Think for yourself, the mainstream media is bullshit and owned by the big money who also are dependent on the oil markets. Throw away your TV, it is the most powerful hypnotic spreader of lies ever inventend. Dismiss Hollywood, as their only task is only to make fiction out of our reality and make people believe that "that only happens in the movies".

THINK FOR YOURSELF. I would have thought Slashdot would even take into account all the controversy regarding 911 and stop just spreading the propaganda that we have been forcefed through all the mainstream sources.

I feel for those who lost loved ones during the attacks. But I have no sympathy for the real culprits behind this occultic mass murder.

Re:What about all the people USA has slaughtered

[Doc Ruby]

Who are the innocent people the US is killing in Iran?

Re:What about all the people USA has slaughtered

[SteelAngel]

"THINK FOR YOURSELF. I would have thought Slashdot would even take into account all the controversy regarding 911 and stop just spreading the propaganda that we have been forcefed through all the mainstream sources."

Oddly enough I can think for myself and my conclusion is exactly opposite of yours, because I can contextualize things as separate events, not as one grand conspiracy.

Perhaps you should too.

Re:What about all the people USA has slaughtered

[Anonymous Coward]

The "big media" does report on deaths of non combatants. For example when drone attacks kill someone besides militants it is reported. But at least the US military does target only combatants, collateral damage is unavoidable in war. The world trade center incident was a deliberate targeting of non combatants. As for the US killing innocent people in Iran the only folks I've seen killed in Iran lately are Iranian protesters, but I'm guessing you're pro Khomenei and that's ok with you.

First found out on Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

My father had passed after a battle with cancer about 25 days before 9/11/01 and the week prior we had just interred him at Arlington National Cemetery. The plane that hit the Pentagon flew right over his headstone.
I found out about 9/11 on Slashdot. I lived in DC and slept in for the first morning in a long time. I woke at 10:30am, opened my laptop and checked Slashdot as was and still is my habit. I read about the trade center on fire and collapsing and honestly I thought it was some sort of inside reference to some geek pop culture that I was not privy too. About that time my ICQ fired up and I had several messages come in almost instantly asking if I was ok.
I got moving and was on the road out of DC in short order to my late father's house in Annapolis that we had not sold yet. Several things I remember from that drive.
First, I saw the smoke from the Pentagon in the rear view mirror. Driving through some rough neighborhoods I felt very dang safe. If Red Dawn was starting then I was in a well armed neighborhood and these tough folks where on my side today. Every car on the road had their windows down with WTOP 1500 AM turned up loud so people on the street could hear. Traffic was very heavy, but very polite. It is amazing, but people do know how to do a zipper merge when they are in the right frame of mind.
When I was about into Maryland at 11:30 or so, I noticed a few fighter jets in the air, flying very seriously. I did not know if that was ours, and that made me a bit afraid.
On RT 50 East bound I saw a military convoy going towards DC of 20 - 30 vehicles.
I finally arrived at Dads house, and my brother was already there. We decided to fill up all the cars (including Dad's that we still had) with gas. Then around 2 or 3pm we went to Georges Restaurant in Arnold, the closest thing we had to extended family near by, and watched the news with them for a while.

On September 13th I went to my computer support client at 1801 Pennsylvania Avenue, Hearst Newspapers. I was in the room waiting for instructions from my point of contact when she received a phone call confirming that one of her former regular coworkers from when she was a flight attendant two years previous had perished on flight 77.

I was using Yahoo! News at the time.

[pecosdave]

The first I heard about this was a news article that simply said "Plane hits World Trade Center."

The first thing that went through my mind was "some dumbass in a Cesna" I didn't know for another hour or two that it serious. An hour or two after that they were evacuating down-town Houston, the buses to the park and ride were so full I took the local Greenspoint Bus instead since it went to Greenspoint mall which wasn't far from my intended stop, even if it did take a lot longer to get there.

Security down town got stupid strong after that. I had to show my ID to simply use the ATM in the tunnel system across the street from the building I worked in. They locked down most of the stairwells in most of the down town buildings, you could only go downstairs, not up, if you could even do that after the attacks. So much for that stay healthy method.

It still saddens me to think back to that day. I don't think W. did the right thing, but for the life of me I don't know what the right thing was. Everyone cheered him on at first and supported the whole open up a can of whoop-ass idea, but when we didn't know where to stop they pointed the finger at him without actually offering a good what solution as to what we should do next. Even Obama is still doing what Bush started, Nobel Peace prize in hand. I think it's time to stop and completely leave the Middle East. We have plenty of oil here we're not allowed to get and we're rapidly developing technology to reduce our need for it. Get the government out of the way and we can cut our demand to quarter of it's current amount in the foreseeable future. I think Ron Paul is right, leave them alone and they'll leave us alone. We made our point, leave with a note saying "do it again and we'll be back" and GTFO out of their affairs. The key to prevention is to get out of everyone else's business and fix our own affairs.

Re:I was using Yahoo! News at the time.

[Doc Ruby]

We have plenty of oil here we're not allowed to get

No we don't.

and we're rapidly developing technology to reduce our need for it.

Yes we are.

Get the government out of the way and we can cut our demand to quarter of it's current amount in the foreseeable future.

No we can't. I run the tech for an energy management equipment/network/software/support company in NYC that cuts energy consumption an average of 20%, mostly in heating oil/gas. The notoriously greedy building owners never pay the upfront costs, even when it pays back in under a year - that's close to 100% ROI, and rising with energy costs. The only way they do it is when there's government money and/or requirements to do it. Until NYC's law kicked in this year, building owners refused to even measure their energy consumption, let alone reduce it. This is the reality, not the "Mayor of Sim City" Ron Paul LARPing Ayn Rand.

The right thing would have been an "Apollo programme" for energy efficiency/alternatives to get our money, and the troops that always follow it, out of the Mideast. By now, a decade later, we could have cut our energy consumption by at least 30%, maybe more, and set trade policies to get all of our oil/gas from our biggest sources: Mexico, Canada and the Caribbean (and some gas from the Pacific). Instead we invaded Iraq, sending oil to $100:bbl for most of a decade, while promoting SUVs and even Hummers that get 1/3 the mileage we should require from cars. We could have interconnected regional and commuter rail, built more cargo and passenger interlinks. The $3 TRILLION we spent in Iraq so far could have bought us an energy, transit and building infrastructure that got the Mideast and much of the global corruption out of our hair permanently. Instead we spent the time, money and lives making things worse.

We don't need to do wild science fiction to solve our core economic/political problems. We need to do straightforward science and engineering. Which should be the easiest politics of all. Instead, we wanted a flight suit, a megaphone, and blood. We sure got it.

Re:I was using Yahoo! News at the time.

[Xacid]

Dang.

You nailed some very good points there. This one particularly stuck out " I don't think W. did the right thing, but for the life of me I don't know what the right thing was."

How do you approach the next evolution of war? It reminds me of the transition of formal warfare into guerrilla warfare. Those who don't get a clue and adopt similar styles typically end up defeated.

What's interesting is that with every new stage of warfare we take one step further of removing the "humanity" from it. Like the step from knives to guns, now guns to IEDs with our countermeasure being fighting a lot of it remotely with drones - removing the human all but entirely.

So yeah - how on earth do you approach such an animal?

Re:I was using Yahoo! News at the time.

[pecosdave]

Listen, three generations back my family was in the oil business and they passed the torch down the line. I'm the first in succession since then to not go into oil, and my dad is still in it. If he tells me there's plenty of oil here, his brother backs it up, and all the oil field workers I know personally, including the ones I've worked with through my technology jobs at various oil companies here in Houston (hint, more than three) tell me there's plenty here on U.S. soil for us we're not allowed to get I believe them.

I agree, attacking our current infrastructure is the best way to lessen our petrochemical dependence.

Stop catering to the trucker and airline unions and actually allow a good useful train system, preferably one that lets you pack your own vehicle with you on the journey, be built and that would handle a lot of automotive issues to start with. Cities like Houston, where I live, that are so horribly constructed on a civil level that riding a bike is a death wish and there's an intentionally poor public transit system to keep the local oil corporation happy could start with some retouches to the human power and public transit position. The trolley systems that popped up all over the nation at the beginning of the 20th century that GM bought out and shut down had the right idea in mind. Maybe we could build some new ones?

Stop regulating property owners with so many regulations, fees, and laws that they are afraid to upgrade their buildings and maybe we can start refitting some old infrastructure. Motivation by threat and regulation is not the best motivation. Federal Government money is rarely the answer for anything, involving federal level government guarantees poor implementation of less than the best technology provided cronies who can afford to buy the politician, not the best option. The best option is actually a huge mix of every conceivable energy reduction method we can come up with and let the developers slowly determine ways to streamline and improve the tech as we implement it. Not the government standing there forcing one of a selection of part numbers. The best way to get building owners to switch is likely something akin to a cellphone contract. Figure out what they're spending on heating, offer to heat their building for 90% of the current cost for five years if you allow them to install the upgraded infrastructure and hold them to the contract. When you leave you made more money than you would have otherwise and the owner thinks they got a sweet deal. If we attack it from every angle eventually something akin to Darwinism will favor the best combination of price and efficiency.

Capitalist who are not in the energy business love energy efficiency. "Going green" makes sense as a capitalist. If I can put out a windmill and solar panels and not have to pay for electricity I am saving money. When windmills and solar panels become affordable (hint, priced by manufacturing cost, supply/demand, not how much energy you expect to get out of them in a product life time) capitalist will snatch them up. Grey water reclamation is picking up steam, not as quickly as it should, but if you can water your lawn without having to pay for extra water it makes sense. On that note in the early 80's my grandmother let her clothes washer drain into her garden and the small town I grew up in many people had wells for their lawns. Saving energy isn't something "greedy people" are against. To the contrary greedy people love green, the money kind, and if the other kind of green can save the first one they're all over it out of principal, not principle.

On the Apollo Program note - I work at NASA, I know about the "use this part number" approach. If we have to run a blue Plenum Ethernet cable from one floor to the next we can have spools of the stuff stacked to the ceiling and not have any to run because the stupid government approach to doing things requires a part number, not a standard. We can't say "run blue plenum Ethernet" we have to say run "Acme ETH-0

Re:I was using Yahoo! News at the time.

[Doc Ruby]

The trucker union, the Teamsters, has some power, but it's not even enough to protect their pensions - let alone force the US to choose roads and airports over rails. The power is in the vehicle makers: car and truck makers, airplane makers. And of course the oil corps. Those corporations have been calling the shots since Henry Ford, and are the ones who tore up America's rail to replace with roads and cars. Those are the orgs that set up Houston, Oil City, the way you hate - not the unions.

You can tell me about how your family oil business knows there's so much oil left to drill, yet despite getting royalty-free drilling land practically wherever they ask, their industry doesn't drill. Except maybe when getting Federal money from the rest of us to multiply their profits. The actual unlimited supply is self-serving lies about where oil is or isn't coming from oil companies with agendas to maximize profit by increasing demand and decreasing supply. I know they're your family, but if they're like mine or any other family I know, they'll tell you the same lies they tell themselves that protect what they do that they know is wrong.

I can tell you from direct experience that NYC building owners don't invest in their operating capital even when the ROI is, as I told you, close to 100% or better, except when the government both forces them and pays them to do it. It doesn't make sense. But that's because economics is not like electronics, where consistency and actual value rule the actors. Economics is a measure of people's exchanges of value with each other and their environment. Which means it's governed by human social psychology, not primarily by the potential and limits of the material being exchanged. Despite their deserved reputation of being the worlds most determined capitalists, NYC building owners refuse to make rational investment decisions all the time. It's not because of property/zoning laws/regulations. It's because they are used to increasing profits only by cutting immediate costs (like cheaper maintenance workers) or by reducing the supply of real estate against the constantly increasing demand for it. Purely rational people would change despite what they're used to when there's double or triple digit ROIs from investing in necessary costs they have to pay anyway (boiler upgrades and fuel). Building owners don't change, because they wait for everyone around them to change, or to be forced to change, or to be paid to change - or all of them usually.

Again, this is not some kind of guess at what might happen. Also, your statement that the rich in NYC are taxed so much that they flee to other states is just a lie. Except for the extremely rich who move across the state line to Connecticut. It's not that they're taxed so much in NYC, but that they're taxed so little in CT. So when rivers overflow in predictable storms, they're surrounded by a moat their private airlifts have to get across with food and diesel for their generators. Because without taxes and working government their infrastructure, like roads, powerlines and drainage, can't withstand the changes their businesses are making. They are the tiny minority. NYC is full of the richest people in the world, not despite the taxation but because of the services it pays for. And every day more rich people come here, to pay the taxes and consume the services.

FYI, NASA is not a good example to contest government leading energy efficiency, because building efficiency is not rocket science. NASA as run by either a Republican president or Congress or both for the past couple of generations is like any other large government procurement system: corporate welfare for those who sell by the part# through their DC lobbyists. NYC law, like practically all energy efficiency regulations these days, requires only performance standards and energy improvement results (or just standardized reporting in physical units).

I'm always fascinated by the people whose entire career

Re:I was using Yahoo! News at the time.

[pecosdave]

The supply of oil is not unlimited, however we have more at home than certain people want the public to know. It's enough to sustain until it doesn't matter if we get on the ball about making it not matter. In many ways trying to motivate everyone to use less oil is shooting myself in the foot through the extension of my family and those who have paid my checks in the past and often still pay my checks when I do my own side work either directly or through supporting the businesses that pay me. The cost of drilling locally far exceeds the cost of drilling somewhere else and bringing it here. That's why we do it. Guess why it costs so much to drill here?

Your statement "I'm always fascinated by the people whose entire careers are dependent on the government, who hate it - when they think private enterprise is better." fails to impress me. Yes I have been on a government contract for a little over five years, for the seven years preceding that I worked for big oil through IT contracts and less oil centric technology contracts. The year preceding that I worked for a company that produced equipment for the USPS, you can pass judgment on that being government or not. I don't really see the difference. I work on a government contract they regulate the way I do things and take taxes out of my check to pay my check and the regulators who control the way I do things. I work for a decidedly not government contract the government regulates the way I do things and takes taxes out of my check to pay the guy doing my old job and the regulators who control the way I do things. I went where the money was, and five years ago when I took this job there wasn't a lot of options in the IT field. Come to think of it my options are rather limited right now. Were my job (and many others like it) not available through federal channels there would not be a lack of jobs assuming the government weren't still charging everyone for them. There would be private industry jobs due to lack of the government redistributing everyones wealth through the channels through which I am now employed. Jobs are exported due to the cost of doing business here, and it's not supply and demand keeping that cost high.

You are correct about the human psychology aspect. "That's not the way we did it before" kills a lot of things, and the government is slower to adopt new ways of doing things than private industry (ever deal with the court system?).

You are absolutely right about the government being the people to provide certain types of infrastructure. The federal level is not the level that should be involved with most of it, due to reasons cited above. The toll road system here in Houston is self funding and producing so much money they've found ways to keep it from paying itself off so they can continue to collect money from it against the promises made to the tax payers about making it free once it's paid off so they can use those funds to build more toll roads and more poorly designed infrastructure they in turn intend to collect tolls and taxes on. See? Corrupt local governments can actually turn a profit on their corruption better than a corrupt federal government can deliver a return on investment.

I have to go, this post is unfinished and in need of editing and correction, screw it, I'll be back in a few hours.

Re:I was using Yahoo! News at the time.

[Doc Ruby]

It costs so much to drill here primarily because labor and environment are more protected than in foreign deserts, jungles and seafloors. When drillers cut costs, we get BP's Macondo blowout. Secondarily because the easiest oil to reach has already been pumped out of here. The places where it's cheaper to drill have by far the more controlling, corrupt and wasteful governments.

The people and orgs that employ IT workers aren't failing to hire because the government taxes them and gives the money to others, either for them to do IT or for any other purpose. Indeed, I don't know what you're referring to about a lack of IT job options in 2006. Or how a NASA job is a "decidedly not government contract". The IT industry has had a synthetic brain drain into finance for the past 10-15 years, because deregulation made stealing money through fraud and market manipulation more profitable than anything else. I know: I helped automate the insurance industry (bringing OOP to MONY and The Guardian to the Internet) in the late 1990s, when "integrated financial services" eliminated the 1934 regulations preventing "another Great Depression" so they could sell Credit Default Swaps and other derivatives - that created the Great Depression. I also worked in 2009-2010 programming for some of the 10 biggest hedge funds, cleaning up their trading apps and DBs as they moved from the Bubble risk models to the new scams designed around the bailouts and more diversified robbery targets. My job was to delete the old stuff without breaking their $BILLION-daily businesses, not create the new criminal businesses replacing it, so my conscience is pretty clear. But I moved into energy management (and a pay cut) because I prefer to help solve the problem rather than help create it. During Bush/Cheney, 40% of the US GDP growth was in purely finance property: mostly a fraud, as the equities market it underwrote lost an eerily similar 40% of its value when they ran out of suckers and the vultures came home to roost with the ARMs finally rising to high contracted interest rates. There's only so many trillions around to work, and working them in finance that mostly adds no value (but does largely destroy value) did divert investment that in the 1990s built actual wealth by creating telecom systems people actually used to do real things beyond pure property trades.

I also don't know how you're comparing Houston's tolls to the Federal projects that built them (with the nation's taxes). Sure, when you've got bottlenecked road systems, it's trivial to make money tolling them, especially when you've conned the users into paying high starting tolls on promises of ending them promptly. But the Federal government's original construction of them, without tolls, wasn't planned to turn a profit, nor should it. The national public good of Houston's vehicles moving around for business and personal transit, and the military propaganda required in the 1950s to get Americans to invest in infrastructure, was worth the expense without direct use fees that didn't reflect the widespread national benefit. That Houston has taken to exploiting the infrastructure and its users for profit can't be compared to the Federal construction and operations that didn't work that way.

I'm reminded of Texas governor and presidential nomination candidate Rick Perry's claims to Texan job creation. Which turn out to be government jobs paid by Federal programs funded by national taxes. All while Perry rails against the Big Government that provided it, even threatening to secede from the nation when his cronies aren't in power (and while insisting he loves that nation from which he wants to secede). I understand that's the Texan way, now a permanent feature after Perry and Bush (and really forever, including Democratic governors/senators, including those who became president). But it still doesn't add up. Unless you're a crony. And I'm not.

Re:I was using Yahoo! News at the time.

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet the official seal of Houston is a train engine!

The only [way] anything can get done in this country is in spite of the government.

Oh come on now... so you NASA folks are just a gang of self-funded rugged individualists who dared to dream, and you got you your tin cans up there by dodging sinister inspectors and regulators at every turn? Well of course not. Some challenges are big enough that we as a country have a better shot if we approach them collectively.
(Not to say that NASA hasn't been basically stabbed in the back and left in the gutter, at this point. Some bitterness there is certainly warranted.)

Re:I was using Yahoo! News at the time.

[pecosdave]

Sorry, as I mentioned, didn't get to finish, had things to do, back for a bit but will have to leave again. The statement you nailed me on should have read "when I work on a decidedly not government contract", but I did leave a disclaimer, I have one of those issues where the brain to finger buffer overflows and I do have to proof read, it was really bad back when I used to have to use a pen and paper in school.

In the time around 2006 local companies did massive IT layoffs, Compaq/HP dumped many many workers back into the "need a job" field, Shell implemented their "GI" project which is ultimately what cost me my job, as well as many other techs, Exxon/Mobile actually consulted with Shell on their GI project and implemented something very similar and I had a personal/legal issue which kept me from leaving the area. Houston was not the place to look for an IT job during the 2006 time frame.

The bubbles and criminal enterprises you mentioned are made possible with the FED and the market manipulation from it. Greenspan did a wonderful job making sure the bubbles were really huge before they got to the bursting point.

I was looking to jump to energy management myself, I was gearing up to jump on board with the Pickens Plan, I really wanted to do some off-shore work here in the Gulf. That sort of bombed. One of the biggest problems was the need to appeal to the federal government, which sucks for the Libertarian reasons I believe in, but since they regulate everything I don't see where it's avoidable.

The Beltway here in Houston was NOT an Interstate/Federal highway project. It's home grown, paid for by the tolls it collects. I'm not saying there weren't some federal funds in there, the feds have a way of just handing out money to everyone who ask at the expense of those who don't, but buy and large it's local. I'm 100% against tolls on any part of the Interstate Highway system since we already paid for it and continue to pay for it through fuel (and other) taxes.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Rick Perry is an ass-hat, the worst kind of politician, and I hope he doesn't get even the vice presidential nomination.

I really would like more agencies like Powerball. Powerball is NOT a federal agency, yet it's an interstate government agency in the sense it's run by various state governments. We need more things like Powerball. The Interstate Highway commission, the FDA, the Public Utilities Commission, all things I would love to see modeled after Powerball, non-participation is even an option!

I think you and I have the same goals in mind, we just see different ways to get them. I like bottom-up methods, from local reaching to less local methods instead of an across the board downward mandate. The federal government originally wasn't supposed to be seen as a top level government, but more of referee between the states and a single point of reference for dealing with non-union states. I think it actually worked better when that was the case and could work that way again.

Turn people lose with a goal in mind and it's bound to happen. Regulation prevents things from happening more than it fosters things happening, at least in our corrupt system. When things do happen with regulation they're generally broken by design.

Re:I was using Yahoo! News at the time.

[Anonymous Coward]

Drop it with the anti-Texas ranting already; it's starting to sound like unbecoming regionalism from an otherwise well-attuned mind. Party bosses will spend a lot of money installing presidential-looking governors in states with a lot of electoral votes. That's just part of the game. The Bushes aren't even from Texas, fer crissake! It was a con, and the Texas voters bought it, but so did the rest of the U.S.A. when the time came and the right money was spent in the right places.

Re:I was using Yahoo! News at the time.

[goobenet]

My Dodge Durango with a Hemi in it gets the same gas mileage as a Ford Fusion. Next excuse please. The gas mileage vehicles get has NOT gone up, it's just leveled out across the board. A Honda civic gets the same gas mileage as a Hundai Santa Fe. Size doesn't matter, or so it seems.

It's really amazing when people do the math. 70MP/H in my durango is 1500 RPM, 70MP/H in my wife's Fusion is 2100 RPM. The problem isn't the engines, it's the transmissions and the lack of "deep cruising" gears.

Re:I was using Yahoo! News at the time.

[pecosdave]

I'm going to argue it's gone down. My 95 1/2 Tacoma got about 34 MPG and my 01 Celica got 33. They went down after that in mileage and are just now catching up again. I don't know how much of that is engineering changes to the vehicle and how much is Ethanol related losses, but I do know even back in 95 the Tacoma was rated to take on more Ethanol that American vehicles of the same era (still not quite rated for E85 or anything).

I'm not a big time truck fan. I know, native Texan and all, but I will say I think Toyota made mistakes in the truck department. The Tacoma was small and popular, the T100 was less popular but it was around, they scrubbed the T100, introduced the Tundra, and made the Tacoma the size of the T100. What? Seems to me if the Tacoma was selling they should have left it small and introduced the Tundra and maybe kept the T100 or not, but seriously, the modern Tacoma should be relabeled T100 and the 34 MPG Tacoma should return! I honestly think all three would sell well enough to justify their existence in Texas and probably the rest of the South, probably the Mid West, not sure about elsewhere.

Also, I went American. My 05 Saturn Vue decided to start having one system at a time go completely out or wear out around 90,000 miles. THIS IS WHY PEOPLE ARE BUYING JAPANESE. Rumor has it the policy of 100,000 mile vehicles the big four sort of agreed to under the table in the 70's is going away now that people aren't buying American anymore, but that doesn't fix the 05 I suddenly had to start dumping large quantities of money into all of the sudden.

Re:I was using Yahoo! News at the time.

[Yunzil]

If he tells me there's plenty of oil here, his brother backs it up, and all the oil field workers I know personally, including the ones I've worked with through my technology jobs at various oil companies here in Houston (hint, more than three) tell me there's plenty here on U.S. soil for us we're not allowed to get I believe them.

Or, they could all be wrong, and they are. We have oil here, yes. It's not nearly enough to meet our needs.

Stop catering to the trucker and airline unions and actually allow a good useful train system,

So wait, you want the government to get out the way, but you want the government to build a train system?

Do you honestly think we build inefficient cities and suburban sprawl because of government interference? Do you really think that people are going to just voluntarily give up their SUVs and their lawns and move to a denser urban area because it's the right thing to do? If so, I have a bridge in Brooklyn going cheap.

Re:I was using Yahoo! News at the time.

[pecosdave]

I wish I could mod this one up.

I personally think Perry is an ass-hat, but you can get those from anywhere, you're right about the Bush's not being native Texans. The guy I most want to win the presidential bid is not a native Texan, but a Congressman from my district in Galveston County all the same. Go Ron Paul, I don't mind you aren't native, you made your way here anyways and that what counts!

Religion

[Anonymous Coward]

Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.

Probably most people

[Anonymous Coward]

have a differing memory to this day, as I heard on the radio a few days ago. Oh dear, what a shock!

cb

Time to move on.

[linebackn]

I respect that for certain people that were directly affected by this event that this is something that will be with them for the rest of their lives.

But with all the fear and paranoia that has grown in the public since then, I think it is way past time for the rest of us to move on. But every day I hear the powerful voices in news proclaiming this that and the other that we should be afraid of. Too often invoking the name of 9/11, categorizing any little thing as terroristic, and growing the wave of fear that started that day.

BTW, thanks Slashdot for not running a thousand sensationalist stories about it. Like most media out there you know it would bring in the advertising dollars if you did. (Well, I guess there is still plenty of time for an unintentional dupe to show up)

Nearly 3,000 people killed.....

[Anonymous Coward]

I always forget the number of people who died. I always assume it's more people because of all the power and policy changes it has affected.

It's a terrible event, but I think we should start putting that number of deaths in perspective and get some sanity back into the US society. There are a lot of things we could go nuts on and solve a lot more deaths. Cell phones while driving, seat belts, drunk driving, unsafe intersections, not signaling when turning, obesity, lack of exercise, health care coverage, etc.

There are people out there who are TERRIFIED of terrorists. They go all vigilante on people who do things that are "terrorist like". Hell people with brown skin and facial hair were getting assaulted near the local university up to a year after 9-11, at least what was reported. Who knows how many since. And that stuff is starting up again with all this new coverage.

It was a terrible event, but revisiting it and covering it over and over and over is just making it to where the nutjobs can't let it go or can use it as an excuse when they do something asinine. And a whole lot of people are more than happy to let it slide by because it was done in the name of 9-11, or the guy claims he was just looking out for his fellow Americans by taking a bat to people who do things he doesn't like the looks of.

I think more or less now...the vast majority of politicians and news stations are giving it lip service because it gets them something they want. It's not to remember or honor the people who tried to help on that day, I mean hell they were denying health coverage to first responders who developed illnesses related to it. It's a convenient horse to drag out and beat some more to get people to do what they want, and it's a rather disgusting thing that seems to keep happening despite how much it's pointed out.

Sanity is lost when 9-11 is brought up and I think it's a disservice to everyone that died that day and who has died since in fighting wars related to that day, just more and more negative actions/feelings/memories to pile on top of it all.

Short sighted?

[Anonymous Coward]

ours(average US citizen) is pathetically weak and short sighted. though, it's not like we have any direction or a plan to get behind.

Short sighted, eh?

Have you thought of the long term ramifications our invasions? And it's not just the emptying of our coffers (wars are extremely expensive) but it's also the chain reaction over the decades with regards to our foreign policy, economic health, and the liberties of our country.

And the pathetically weak part there .... I have a problem with you and other young people being over there and risking your lives for the stupidity of our elected officials. You may not have a problem with it, but I see it as a horrible waste of talent and life.

Was still in college, had just woken up

[KDingo]

I remember that morning. The first thing I did after waking up was get on my computer. Usually checked the normal stuff like email but also my friends' AIM messages before going out and getting breakfast at the main campus cafeteria. (USC, SC)

Nearly all my friends used AIM, and a good number actually updated their away messages. Personally I put favorite bash.org quotes in mine. One away message was particularly curious though, coming from a girl that doesn't usually put urgent-looking messages, but all it said was Turn on the news, now. And I went to turn on the small TV in my small one-room dormroom.

By that time that morning, the first plane had struck. I know I watched the news for a good while before my roommate came in after his classes. I think I even kept up on Slashdot, too. I had to eat before going to mine, so I left the news to my him.

The awkward feeling that I distinctly remember though, is the scene walking on campus that morning watching people going to class and other things, that may, or may not have heard the news. It looked like any other morning.

Still at War in Iraq

[Doc Ruby]

We've often discussed the consequences of the attack

The main consequence of the attack was that Bush/Cheney invaded Iraq. It's now over 8 years later, and we're still at war in Iraq. No WMD, no Binladen connection, or any of Bush/Cheney's other lies were ever proven anything but lies. Like "the war will pay for itself". The Iraq War has cost us well over $3 TRILLION. It has cost us almost 5000 dead Americans, over 100,000 wounded Americans, and hundreds of thousands of dead and wounded Iraqis. Not to mention the severe costs of Americans torturing so many people.

We'll memorialize 9/11/2001 for a long time. But 3/19/03? What's that? It's the date the US invaded Iraq. Nobody wants to talk about that, so the war never ends.

Ralph Nader

[betterunixthanunix]

Ralph Nader has also question US domestic and foreign policy, but the Democrats did a bang-up job of ruining his reputation, so I suppose "in the public eye" is a stretch. Still, it is telling that two people who are at supposedly opposite ends of the spectrum are among the few who have the courage to stand up and say that our policies are not working and that we need reform (even if they disagree on what those reforms should be).

He just made one mistake

[SmallFurryCreature]

The Russians had publicity in the west against them so they pulled out of a war that was nothing but negative press to them.

The US was making that bad press and funding the war against the russians.

The Russians may be laughing their ass of at the mess the US has gotten itself into BUT they are not going to aid the taliban just to piss of the Americans.

The US may not be winning the war but they sure as hell are thinning out the Taliban. There is reason the Taliban is using more and more terror tactics in Afghanistan, they are running out of capable recruits.

What you may not have heard is that just after 9/11 the Taliban fielded a fairly capable army and was using traditional war strategies against the Afghani government. They are no longer capable of it. That is not to say the war has been won but you got to have a LOT of hatred to join up for what is practically a suicide mission. Suicide bombers you say? Count them. They have a horrific impact but are totally incapable of being used in any sensible military tactics. Post 9/11 people feared an uprising, the beginning of a new war... but where is the hatred? Just recently Libyan's were shown kissing the US flag for the aid in helping liberate their country. Oh, the US involvement there is far from clean BUT Osama cried for Muslims around the world to rally to a common cause and for 9 years, the answer was silence. There are plenty of individuals with enough hatred but terrorism is hardly new. IRA, Basks, German radicals. There are always going to be people who want to force their minority opinion through violence.

The western world has payed dearly for the war but the price payed on the side of the extremists is far far higher. Their leadership is in ruins, new plots are half-assed and stopped routinely and worsed off all. When the uprising finally started, it was peaceful and directed against Muslim rulers with so far precious little input from extreme Islam. This is not what Osama was dreaming off.

And those who cry about how the west is fighting itself... metal detectors? They have been at airports for decades. Just because the US allowed internal flights to be boarded from the runway by anybody taking anything they wanted doesn't mean that this is the norm. I was search 30 years ago on a boat trip to the UK for crying out load. Maybe the US just needed a wake-up call in general.

As for hatred against the US? There seems to be more hatred amongst rich white boys from the American suburbs then say in Egypt or Tunisia or Libya. Remember the protests in Iran. The ones happening in Syria? Against the evil imparislists! Oh, wait no... they are protesting against their own leaders, leaders who try to use the US as the great Satan and their people are rejecting it.

No, 9/11 saw big changes in the world but I doubt Osama is very pleased with them... even if he was still alive.

But kiddies like you wish to see the world burn and use their own fears to put hatred into other peoples mind, even if those other people got far more important things to worry about. Read the real news for a change, not Fox or the BBC, both are extremists wishing to color the news to suit their agenda but the real news. What real people living real life are thinking.

Re:He just made one mistake

[sydneyfong]

On these subjects, if you read "news", or even *real* news , you're probably already unknowingly subject to various propaganda campaigns, unless you read a *really* wide range of news from various agencies and countries, in different languages.

The picture painted (for example) in the news in the Muslim world is not as rosy for the US as the whatever news you read.

Re:He just made one mistake

[MightyMartian]

Thinning out the Taliban? What are you talking about? The pourose border with Pakistan means the Taliban can move with relative ease to escape NATO forces. What's more they're receiving aid from Pakistani security services, so it's not like they don't have important allies.

The minute NATO leaves, the government will be overrun, collapse and everyone will be back where they started.

Re:He just made one mistake

[chrb]

The US may not be winning the war but they sure as hell are thinning out the Taliban.

Evidence, and over what time period? In 2009 it was reported that "Taliban-led forces fighting US and Nato troops in Afghanistan have increased nearly fourfold since 2006, according to a US intelligence estimate". In the last few years the Taliban have managed to spread their influence (or, at least, philosophy) to largely destabilise the tribal regions of north west Pakistan, suggesting that their power over the last 5 years has increased rather than decreased. This graph of coalition casualties in Afghanistan shows that most deaths have occurred in the last two years, further suggesting that Taliban power isn't waning.

Re:He just made one mistake

[Oligonicella]

Well writ.

Re:He just made one mistake

[Anonymous Coward]

It's Basques, and the fighters are Basque separatists. I know a couple of Basques, and they're wonderful people. Putting "Basques" next to "IRA" is as offensive as putting "Irish" next to "al Qaeda". They're not ideologues, just people.

Re:He just made one mistake

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

The Russians may be laughing their ass of at the mess the US has gotten itself into BUT they are not going to aid the taliban just to piss of the Americans.

...

What you may not have heard is that just after 9/11 the Taliban fielded a fairly capable army and was using traditional war strategies against the Afghani government. They are no longer capable of it.

Mind asking why you had to put these incredible stupid things into your post? Who ever claimed the Russians were behind the Taliban? And which Afghani government are you talking about? The thing remotely coming closest to an Afghani government in 2001 were the Taliban.

I wouldn't know if you have more humdingers in your post, but I stopped after that. Congratulations for getting modded up.

Re:He just made one mistake

[phantomfive]

Heh, you really think the border is only porous to the Taliban? We've been crossing that border and killing them there for a while now.

Re:He just made one mistake

[Anonymous Coward]

Get a Nintendo Wii and read the news channel. It's far more informative than the BBC (you get more world coverage).

Re:He just made one mistake

[MightyMartian]

They've done targeted attacks. The US is not fighting a mass ground war in Pakistan. The US has little hope of ever meaningfully damaging the Taliban in Pakistan.

Re:He just made one mistake

[Anonymous Coward]

Al Jazeera is more unreliable than the American media. Find an independent source, or better yet, the actual US intelligence estimate. Seriously, they're the propaganda wing of the Arab world. Suggest all you want, but don't couch it as if it were based in fact.

Re:He just made one mistake

[pcolaman]

Thinning out the Taliban? What are you talking about? The pourose border with Pakistan means the Taliban can move with relative ease to escape NATO forces. What's more they're receiving aid from Pakistani security services, so it's not like they don't have important allies.

The minute NATO leaves, the government will be overrun, collapse and everyone will be back where they started.

Yeah and that porous border is what helped Seal Team Six sneak into Pakistan and put one into Osama's skull and then get back out before the Pakistani's even knew we had knocked on the door. While a situation like what currently exists in Afghanistan and Pakistan is not ideal for regular troops, it's a dream come true for Special Forces. For every operation like the one to get Osama, there are a dozen or more other operations that never make the news, or get explained away simply as random drone attacks that are put together by the likes of the Seals, Special Ops, and Delta Force. In this day and age, some of the best military actions are coming from the special forces community, not your line soldiers.

Re:He just made one mistake

[Anonymous Coward]

metal detectors

Yeah that's exactly what is happening in our airports.

But hey, keep telling yourself what you need so you can sleep at night.

Re:He just made one mistake

[jrumney]

What you may not have heard is that just after 9/11 the Taliban fielded a fairly capable army and was using traditional war strategies against the Afghani government.

I don't know where you are getting your information, but for the record, just after 9/11, the Taliban was the Afghani government.

Re:He just made one mistake

[Zancarius]

On these subjects, if you read "news", or even *real* news , you're probably already unknowingly subject to various propaganda campaigns, unless you read a *really* wide range of news from various agencies and countries, in different languages.

The picture painted (for example) in the news in the Muslim world is not as rosy for the US as the whatever news you read.

I'm going to be the buzzkill and point out the obvious: Everyone is given to some degree of bias and no one is completely impartial no matter how many sources they read, not even you. Why? Because we each tend to believe or prefer news that fits into our worldview; this isn't a surprise, it isn't necessarily evil, it's simply a matter of being human.

It's unfortunate that it results in derogatory remarks made on both sides. Right now, however, anti-American sentiment is high and--justified or not--it is something dangerous. We like to believe here that we're not prone to the same sorts of behavior as the mouth-breathers who sit in front of the telly and soak up whatever rhetoric they're fed, but are we really?

If Sept. 11th, 2011 has shown me anything, it's that we're growing increasingly more hostile to each other; the West against itself, but predominantly the Americans and their allies against the Americans. This trend will continue, and if it does, it may escalate to the point of war. I'm cynical today, and it's certainly not helped by the fact that the rhetoric here and elsewhere goes against my country. Certainly America has made some bad choices, but it's an even worse choice for those here who have not bit their tongues and kept their criticisms for tomorrow. Today was to commemorate those who died on US soil; you can have tomorrow to remember everyone else.

Re:He just made one mistake

[euroq]

I see your point, but I disagree... maybe it's just semantics, and I apologize if so, but I still think it's worth stating.

The US has dealt critical blows to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and has utterly destroyed the organization which existed in 2001 as Al-Qaeda. Don't get me wrong, the Taliban/Al-Qaeda brand is still alive and there are still terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan. But the military organizations that previously existed has been destroyed.

Re:He just made one mistake

[euroq]

Who ever claimed the Russians were behind the Taliban?

The OP never claimed the Russians were behind the Taliban. In fact, the OP was insinuating that the Russians had troubles in Afghanistan (some would say "lost" to the Taliban government), and now they are watching America in troubles in Afghanistan from a distance, and laughing... quite the opposite of being "behind the Taliban".

Re:He just made one mistake

[Anonymous Coward]

Shill or troll I just can't decide? But just in case someone takes your points seriously, I've got to make some sort of response.

The Russians may be laughing their ass of at the mess the US has gotten itself into BUT they are not going to aid the taliban just to piss of the Americans.

Right on the first part. If Russians can make money selling weapons to the Taliban, then somebody is selling them. Just like the US army isn't pulling out the poppie fields in Afghanistan .. time for a reality check.

The US may not be winning the war but they sure as hell are thinning out the Taliban. There is reason the Taliban is using more and more terror tactics in Afghanistan, they are running out of capable recruits.

Then explain how the Taliban is (totally) controlling north west Pakistan? Why are the US forces handing control back to Taliban leaders when they leave? They may have killed a lot of Taliban, but the Taliban have killed far, far more US / British / Pakistani soldiers. And everyone in the firing line now hates the US .. even the supposed US allied Pakistan military will harbor US enemies. There might be a lot of dead US enemies, but there's a lot more new recruits as a result.

They are no longer capable of it. That is not to say the war has been won but you got to have a LOT of hatred to join up for what is practically a suicide mission. Suicide bombers you say? Count them. They have a horrific impact but are totally incapable of being used in any sensible military tactics.

No longer capable? Take a look at north west Pakistan. The Taliban has chosen to fight a guerilla war because it's a war which they'll win, simple. Suicide bombers aren't capable of military tactics because they're untrained ... why would anyone waste time training someone to blow themselves up? Pointless argument.

When the uprising finally started, it was peaceful and directed against Muslim rulers with so far precious little input from extreme Islam. This is not what Osama was dreaming off.

Yep, Osama was dreaming of ruining the global 'clean' reputation of the US. Not only has he managed to accomplish this with extraordinary results, but the US corporations and ultra wealthy have bled the country dry. And now the mis-informed people of the US are rallying behind the same greedy right wing christian fundamentalists who destroyed their economy.

You couldn't write this stuff! If Osama were alive today, he'd be in gales of uproarious laughter. Not only has he destroyed the world opinion of the US, he's bankrupted the economy, outed the ultra-liberal media and exposed the Zionist fundamentalists. No doubt he didn't intend for the Arab uprisings .. and in this whole decade of debacle, that might end up being the only positive outcome.

Oh, wait no... they are protesting against their own leaders, leaders who try to use the US as the great Satan and their people are rejecting it.

Those leaders were openly supported by the US. And they've been using the same minority separation and torture techniques implemented by the Nazi regime back in the 30's. The middle east revolution is happening now because the US is too shredded and strung out to support the friendly middle-eastern dictators. Look at Egypt .. the revolution is STILL continuing with daily protests and a puppet military government. Is the US stepping in to implement democracy?

The right wing extreme christian zionists don't want any Islamic states .. because Israel doesn't want strong Islamic states surrounding it.. and that isn't a criticism.

But kiddies like you wish to see the world burn and use their own fears to put hatred into other peoples mind, even if those other people got far more important things to worry about. Read the real news for a change

Re:He just made one mistake

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a bit inaccurate too simply because you WAAAAYYYYYY dumbed it down to the extent it completely lost the actual meaning. Factually, the majority of Muslims are either indifferent to the US or see the US as an necessary evil. Those who did not have neutral perspective at the start of the way generally continue to hold their anti-American views - or are dead. Those who liked the US or were neutral, generally still do. That's doesn't mean they like everything the US does (even US citizens don't, so hardly surprising), but that's still far from the Muslim world hating the US. Hell, the US actually does a far bit for the Muslim world its just the leadership doesn't allow the fact to be advertised as it means appearing weak by siding with the Great Satan, which in turn can empower the extremists douche bags, which is generally all you hear about.

Iran is a wonderful example. Most Iranians actually like Americans and Western culture. Its the government which hates America and tries to blame everything (generally things they, themselves created or caused) on America. Generally speaking, in places where the people are educated, this attitude permeates the population; in so far that they don't hate the US. And given this is slashdot, do note not hating is not the same thing as being madly in love. Sad that part has to be specified.

Far too many are falsely swayed by bullshit and zealot stories and become confused because people disliking policy is not the same thing as prepared to takes arms against the US, its allies, or its interests. In general, they are worlds apart, contrary to the constant stream of bullshit you generally here; especially from the likes of Fox News and Al Jezeria.

Long story short, the situation is best described as complex whereby your summary is extremely misleading, bordering on inaccurate.

Re:He just made one mistake

[Anonymous Coward]

What you may not have heard is that just after 9/11 the Taliban fielded a fairly capable army and was using traditional war strategies against the Afghani government.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but just after 9/11 the Taliban were the Afghani government. Are you saying the Taliban were fielding an Army against themselves?

Re:He just made one mistake

[Anonymous Coward]

If you read "real news" you would find out the tribes don't want them there in there village. Tribal leaders often work with the U.S. troops to tell them where they are hiding out. Also, We are making there force diminish. That is true. It is slow, but it is still happening.

Re:He just made one mistake

[Anonymous Coward]

sneak into Pakistan and put one into Osama's skull

and nick his porn stash...

Re:He just made one mistake

[MightyMartian]

As I said, there are targeted attacks, but those are not going to solve the larger problem. Killing bin Laden and the odd Taliban leader they can get their hands on is a good thing, it's just not good enough to actually solve the larger problem, which is the fact that the border is utterly meaningless to the Taliban, that Pakistan is incapable of bringing anything approaching law and order to tribal areas like the Swat Valley, let alone actually secure the border, and worst of all that elements of the Pakistani security services and government are making sure the Taliban are equipped.

It's long been observed that if the object is to wipe out Central Asian Islamism, then NATO is fighting the war in the wrong country. No matter how friendly a leadership the US may get in Pakistan, the state itself is so schizophrenic that it's pretty much irrelevant. There's a whole barely-concealed government working against almost every aim of the "real" government.

Re:He just made one mistake

[MightyMartian]

Anyone who thinks the Taliban are incapable of wreaking destruction hasn't been watching what's going on in the Swat Valley. They're biding their time until NATO walks out the door, and then they'll be back. The worthless, corrupt Mayor of Kabul and his cronies that currently make up Afghanistan's "government" will either be caught and literally strung up at that point, or more likely, will have fled the country with briefcases full of American currency.

Until Pakistan can bring order to its tribal regions, and until the Pakistani security services can be cleansed of the Islamists and other clandestine elements, nothing will change permanently.

The world already hated you...

[Anonymous Coward]

As an Argentinian I see things from the outside. What I see is that your foreign policies have been creating hate for a long time before 2001. And what you did after it was running in the same direction. Someone wrote in Slashdot "The subsequent loss of what truly represents what this country stands for will be intolerable". It is evident to me, your country does not stand for the same for you, inside, than for me, from the outside. Ever think about that? Why so many people hate you around the world?

A sad day for many reasons

[MrKaos]

There is no doubt this was a tragedy and a sad day for the American people but from an outsiders perspective (an Australian perspective) this is what we saw happening to you guys.

• You were hurt and wronged, but before any investigation had been conducted fingers were being pointed.
• To this date I know of no forensic investigation being conducted into this act. Why?
• When OBL was killed the victims were granted revenge, a cheap imitation of justice.

Why has no forensic investigation ever been carried out and scrutinised? Why wasn't OBL tried and humiliated, and made to face his worst fear in front of the American public? I strongly feel that Americans have been denied actual justice and have instead been given a serve of McJustice by media/military. The true strength of Western democracies has been that they are countries run BY RULE OF LAW that has been refined over a roughly 800 year period. If we look at it from that perspective the military look like a very blunt tool, by comparison. Yet it was the tool of first resort. What does it say about our democracy that one of the strongest was so easily subverted?

The consequences of not applying those principles have drawn the U.S into an asymmetrical war that has cost trillions, without actually being able to hit a target of any meaning. I believe many forth amendment rights have practically been abandoned, you have a domestic spy policy now and bills introduced to protect the freedoms of everyday people are slowly being whittled down.

To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin "The constitution in it's current form will not save the United States from Despotism". The American people have been lied to and deceived, I'm ashamed to say in part, by an Australian Media mogul who learned how to do what he is doing to America in my homeland.

Justice delayed, Just denied.

The war that was being waged on America began when the Towers were hit but the enemy has attacked in such a way that the freedoms that protected US citizens have been hit far more severely than those Towers. The institution of democracy was weakened from within at one of the modern cradles of it's creation and now I see it more compromised than it has ever been. Human rights, the bedrock of your enviable Bill of Rights, the true strength of your nation were treated as an inconvenience to circumvented. Yet it's the only weapon capable of disarming a martyr.

Know your enemy, Know yourself, and whilst the truth must be painful for you to hear will you bludgeon to death the friend who has the courage to look you in the face and tell it to you? The one who says, "hey mate, yer acting like a dickhead". How can you possibly win in Iraq and Afghanistan when the real war is in the cathedrals of your institutions by an enemy who is manipulating you so skillfully that you dance willingly to the tune. Stop, friend, before you destroy yourself and ask who the real enemy is, what the true theater of this war is and what forces are at play?

How many of Ben Franklins warnings will you ignore? Why do I, an Australian, have to point out the wisdom of your own founding fathers whose words have been paraphrased ad infinitum;

Those who trade an essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither security nor liberty

Then why America why, do you keep doing it?

Re:A sad day for many reasons

[vagn]

* You were hurt and wronged, but before any investigation had been
    conducted fingers were being pointed.

                As if there were other suspects.

* To this date I know of no forensic investigation being conducted into
    this act. Why?

                You're joking, right? As to culpability, OBL is on video
                bragging about his success in knocking down the towers.
                Regarding the who and how of the attack, the persons, training,
                and logistics have been intensly studied. As to the proximate
                cuase of the collapse, it is beleived that each tower was struck
                by an airplane. The ensuing fire softened the metal framework
                of the buildings to the point of structural collapse. /sarc

* When OBL was killed the victims were granted revenge, a cheap imitation
    of justice.

                Hardly. It was a symbolic act in a war where symbols matter.

* The war that was being waged on America began when the Towers were hit

                It began long before that. The earlier attacks occurred mostly
                in africa and the middle east, so the politicians didn't get all
                worked up about it. My personal belief is that there was also
                have been some money changing hands. The people selling rope never
                seem to consider that it might end up around their own necks.

* Know your enemy, Know yourself

                This I agree with. The erosion of liberties and the cynical
                exploitation of the event still needs to be addressed.

Re:A sad day for many reasons

[Anonymous Coward]

How can you possibly win in Iraq and Afghanistan when the real war is in the cathedrals of your institutions by an enemy who is manipulating you so skillfully that you dance willingly to the tune. Stop, friend, before you destroy yourself and ask who the real enemy is, what the true theater of this war is and what forces are at play?

The US Government is not the "enemy". It is a bloated, inefficient bureaucracy full of people whose work-to-pay ratio is out of whack.

Islamic extremists and anyone who denies that they are the Enemy are the Enemy. The theater of this war is in the hearts of humans the world over who prefer civilization to barbarism, who prefer living life without fear that some crazy religious zealot is going to kill you unless you enslave your will to theirs.

People who turn their heads and blame the US (as if imperfections and moral failings equate to the wholesale slaughter of thousands (mentally and physically across the world by Islamic extremism) are no better than the blind, naive fools who willingly walk to their own civilizational decline.

So, in short, my Australian "friend", you keep doing what you're doing, but don't come crying to anyone when your nation internalizes the barbarity of the radicals already in your midst.

Re:A sad day for many reasons

[Anonymous Coward]

Why wasn't OBL tried and humiliated, and made to face his worst fear in front of the American public?

You make a common mistake: attributing qualities to the man that he didn't have. True, I'd rather we had a trial than a covert hit - but then, I'd rather it had happened in 2002 instead of 2011, and, barring that, I'd rather he'd just happened to have been hit by a bomb in tora bora.

Still, let's not pretend he'd be any less of an asshat in a court than he was when he was free. It would have been a long attempt at playing the system and making the trial into a fucking circus, claims of oppression, claims of martyrdom, and so on. (In varying degrees, this is what happens pretty much every time a dictator or cultist or mass murderer gets caught.) There'd be no more or less honestly or closure in this case if it'd ended with a noose or injection than with a bullet. He doesn't have supporters who'd magically change their entire character and respect a US trial verdict instead of continuing to do the same thing they were doing before, the same thing they're doing now after his death.

Re:A sad day for many reasons

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you. Very cogent.

Re:A sad day for many reasons

[Anonymous Coward]

+1

Re:A sad day for many reasons

[MrKaos]

As if there were other suspects.

But of course, how silly of me to believe a Sad Santa was the only one able to attack the most powerful nation in the world with such guile and effectiveness.

You're joking, right?

Oh yes of course I am. ha. ha. ha. ha.

Hardly. It was a symbolic act in a war where symbols matter.

I didn't say not to kill him.But you could have done that after you subjected him to the media circus, questioning trial, imprisonment and then executed him after doing genetic tests to be sure, disassembling his ideals, disarming his followers. Hey you could have even tortured him in gitmo but no some guy that 'oh yeah thats him' was dumped over a ship. He wasn't a former CIA operative was he, and the US government have never lied to US citizens about anything have they?

But you got your symbol, at least.

It began long before that.

back in the 1800's some time I think...

This I agree with. The erosion of liberties and the cynical exploitation of the event still needs to be addressed.

Tewworfiwing when you don't know your enemy isn't it

Non-existent links

[Anonymous Coward]

I've known this happens a lot over time, but after only 10 years on what was a pretty monumental event, I'm amazed at how few of the links in those stories don't work anymore.

Bin Laden said what?

[copponex]

Summarized excerpt from "Al Qeada's Strategy to the Year 2020":

1. Provoke the United States into invading a Muslim country.

2. Incite local resistance to occupying forces.

3. Expand the conflict to neighboring countries, and engage the U.S. in a long war of attrition.

4. Convert al-Qaeda into an ideology and set of operating principles that can be loosely franchised in other countries without requiring direct command and control, and via these franchises incite attacks against countries allied with the U.S. until they withdraw from the conflict, as happened with the 2004 Madrid train bombings, but which did not have the same effect with the July 7, 2005 London bombings.

5. The U.S. economy will finally collapse under the strain of multiple engagements in numerous places, making the worldwide economic system which is dependant on the U.S. also collapse leading to global political instability, which in turn leads to a global jihad led by Al-Qaeda and a Wahhabi Caliphate will then be installed across the world.

bin Laden's stated goal, before and after the terror attacks in Kenya and on the Cole, was to draw the West into an intractable war with the Middle East. He was an evil fuck, but like some evil fucks in the past, he wasn't crazy or stupid. He got the idea from us in the late 80s when the same policy bankrupted the Soviet Union.

"I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life." --October, 2001

"All we have to do is send two mujaheddin... to raise a small piece of cloth on which is written "al-Qaeda" in order to make the generals race there, to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses." --2004

Re:Bin Laden said what?

[bcrowell]

This would be extremely interesting if the strategy document had dated to before 9/11 -- but did it? It was published in 2005. It may just be al Qaeda trying to make itself out to be a bunch of masterminds several years after the fact. Just from browsing though the WP articles on OBL and 9/11, I don't see much to support the idea that such a grand strategy existed before 2001, or even before the Kenya attacks in 1998, as you seem to be claiming. Al Qaeda carried out all kinds of attacks, including attacks that killed Egyptian civilians. It's well documented that their motivation was that they were upset about US troops in Saudi Arabia, US support for Israel, and the sanctions against Iraq. What evidence is there that they had any such grand plan as early as 1998?

Wow /. had some classy commenters back then

[kelarius]

Not having heard /. in 2001 yet, I didnt see any of these then, but i went back and read the comments on the first post made by cmdtaco about the attacks and alot of them are FIRST POST!!! or racist.

Slashdot broke the news to me

[sydsavage]

It was by logging into slashdot as part of my morning routine that I learned of the news that day. As astonishing as the events unfolding, I was also struck by the fact that first word of such a momentous event had come to me via the internet. That in itself seemed to be a turning point in our brave new world.

Toronto Hearings

[C3ntaur]

Check out the ongoing hearings at Ryerson University in Toronto. http://torontohearings.org/

Tune into the live stream at
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/thetorontohearings

9/11, reflecting on Americans acting the Cowards

[Shihar]

The anniversary of 9/11 always pisses me off. No, not because 3000 people died. 3000 people dying was a tragedy to be sure and the relatives of the victims certainly have my condolences. What pisses me off is the cowardly way that we as Americans reacted and how we continue to behave.

After 9/11 we had a decision. We could either have been brave or cowardly. We chose the path of cowardice. Cowardice is submitting to terror by stripping ourselves of civil liberty, creating a department of "homeland security", and installing pr0n scanners in airports. Cowardice is secret no-fly lists and domestic spying. The worst cowardice was Americans mewing to their politicians to strip them of their liberties to save them from the oh-so-scary terrorist. Cowardice is the path we picked. We gave up essential liberties for a trivial amount of security.

The path of bravery would have been to have by clinging to our essential freedoms and liberties. The nation that stood down the fucking USSR, a REAL threat, managed to go half a century without surrendering their freedoms and running away screaming like cowards. Seriously, consider that. 9/11 stripped away freedoms that we had even when the US was facing down a nation armed with a nuclear arsenal big enough to wipe out the world multiple times over. We faced down a world ending threat and didn't balk, but when a couple of sheep herders managed to knock down two buildings in a manner that they can never repeat again, we promptly shit ourselves and surrender those liberties we guarded when facing down the existential threat that was the USSR. Talking about acting the part of the fucking coward. If there was ever a time to piss ourselves and wipe our ass with the constitution, it was during the Cold War.

Just think about it for a moment. In a time when it was our policy the literally destroy the world if our allies were attacked, you could get on an airplane unmolested and the fourth amendment was still actively enforced.

If you are an American, you are going to die by stuffing your face with too much fucking food. Fucking deal with it. You are not going to die in a terrorist attack. The food you stuff into your god damn face is going to be the death of you. That, or your own body is going to murder you with cancer. If you are really lucky, you might die in an exciting car accident. The fucking terrorist are not going to kill you. If you believe so, you are a god damn coward and an idiot.

Look here: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm

Fucking food bacteria kills 10x more people every year than terrorist did in 2001. It kills 300x more people than terrorist have killed Americans in the past decade. Terrorism in 2001 didn't even make it to the top 10 most likely ways to die. It falls well below chocking on your own god damn food over the past decade. That is right, stuffing food into your fat face is literally more likely to kill you than a terrorist.

So what pisses me off about 9/11 is that it is not a time for memorials and what not. What pisses me off is that we sit around circle jerking each other over how scary the terrorist are as we stuff our fat Americans asses with McDonalds food. We mew and bleat to politicians to protect us from one of the most unlikely ways to die imaginable, as we work on scoring a heart attack before the age of 60 by eating ourselves to death.

We could have a 9/11 style attack every single MONTH, and we would still have more people dying to being fat asses. Despite this, I don't see us cowardly begging the government to strip us of our civil liberties to save us from eating ourselves to death.

9/11 pisses me off each and every year because it is a sore reminder that when faced with a minor and petty threat to ourselves, we shit our pants, pissed ourselves, and picked the path of the coward. We gave up our civil liberties and elected asshole politicians who promised to rip apart the constitution. It pains me to think

Eagle tears for all

[Anonymous Coward]

Far
We've been travelling far
Without a home
But not without a star

Free
Only want to be free
We huddle close
Hang on to a dream

On the boats and on the planes
They're coming to America
Never looking back again
They're coming to America

Home, don't it seem so far away
Oh, we're travelling light today
In the eye of the storm
In the eye of the storm

Home, to a new and a shiny place
Make our bed, and we'll say our grace
Freedom's light burning warm
Freedom's light burning warm

Everywhere around the world
They're coming to America
Every time that flag's unfurled
They're coming to America

Got a dream to take them there
They're coming to America
Got a dream they've come to share
They're coming to America

They're coming to America
They're coming to America
They're coming to America
They're coming to America
Today, today, today, today, today

My country 'tis of thee
(Today)
Sweet land of liberty
(today)
Of thee I sing
(today)
Of thee I sing
(today)

(today)

(today)

135 posts so far and none contain "false flag"

[Anonymous Coward]

Painful Questions: http://www.erichufschmid.net/PainfulQuestionsBook.html

Hunter S Thompson on 9/11

[Anonymous Coward]

The best writing I've seen on 9/11 was by Hunter S. Thompson. Hunter knew how the US government worked, and foresaw just about everything that has happened since right from the start:

It was just after dawn in Woody Creek, Colo., when the first plane hit the World Trade Center in New York City on Tuesday morning, and as usual I was writing about sports. But not for long. Football suddenly seemed irrelevant, compared to the scenes of destruction and utter devastation coming out of New York on TV.

Even ESPN was broadcasting war news. It was the worst disaster in the history of the United States, including Pearl Harbor, the San Francisco earthquake and probably the Battle of Antietam in 1862, when 23,000 were slaughtered in one day.

The Battle of the World Trade Center lasted about 99 minutes and cost 20,000 lives in two hours (according to unofficial estimates as of midnight Tuesday). The final numbers, including those from the supposedly impregnable Pentagon, across the Potomac River from Washington, likely will be higher. Anything that kills 300 trained firefighters in two hours is a world-class disaster.

And it was not even Bombs that caused this massive damage. No nuclear missiles were launched from any foreign soil, no enemy bombers flew over New York and Washington to rain death on innocent Americans. No. It was four commercial jetliners.

They were the first flights of the day from American and United Airlines, piloted by skilled and loyal U.S. citizens, and there was nothing suspicious about them when they took off from Newark, N.J., and Dulles in D.C. and Logan in Boston on routine cross-country flights to the West Coast with fully-loaded fuel tanks -- which would soon explode on impact and utterly destroy the world-famous Twin Towers of downtown Manhattan's World Trade Center. Boom! Boom! Just like that.

The towers are gone now, reduced to bloody rubble, along with all hopes for Peace in Our Time, in the United States or any other country. Make no mistake about it: We are At War now -- with somebody -- and we will stay At War with that mysterious Enemy for the rest of our lives.

It will be a Religious War, a sort of Christian Jihad, fueled by religious hatred and led by merciless fanatics on both sides. It will be guerilla warfare on a global scale, with no front lines and no identifiable enemy. Osama bin Laden may be a primitive "figurehead" -- or even dead, for all we know -- but whoever put those All-American jet planes loaded with All-American fuel into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon did it with chilling precision and accuracy. The second one was a dead-on bullseye. Straight into the middle of the skyscraper.

Nothing -- even George Bush's $350 billion "Star Wars" missile defense system -- could have prevented Tuesday's attack, and it cost next to nothing to pull off. Fewer than 20 unarmed Suicide soldiers from some apparently primitive country somewhere on the other side of the world took out the World Trade Center and half the Pentagon with three quick and costless strikes on one day. The efficiency of it was terrifying.

We are going to punish somebody for this attack, but just who or what will be blown to smithereens for it is hard to say. Maybe Afghanistan, maybe Pakistan or Iraq, or possibly all three at once. Who knows? Not even the Generals in what remains of the Pentagon or the New York papers calling for WAR seem to know who did it or where to look for them.

This is going to be a very expensive war, and Victory is not guaranteed -- for anyone, and certainly not for anyone as baffled as George W. Bush. All he knows is that his father started the war a long time ago, and that he, the goofy child-President, has been chosen by Fate and the global Oil industry to finish it Now. He will declare a National Security Emergency and clamp down Hard on Everybody, no matter where they live or why. If the guilty won't hold up their hands and confess, he and the Generals will ferret them out by force.

Good luck. He is in for a pr

Re:Hunter S Thompson on 9/11

[JockTroll]

A Christian Jihad? I would love to see that. When it comes to war, Christians are awesome.

Remember what you did in Japan

[Anonymous Coward]

9/11 is nothing compared to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, yeah it ended the war and you saved some of your soldiers but it isn't much different from what was done by Osama, just much more cruel.

The only people that aren't laughing from US economical crisis are the US citizens and people concerned with losing money due it.

You let Bush do stupid wars for stupid reasons, him going after the guy that kicked his father ass with your money was the most ridiculous thing in the last year. There are a lot of dictators out there, and they are all losing their power due population power to fight against it, a thing that you just don't have as the whole world saw after you let someone with IQ of a monkey like bush to be your president.

Re:Remember what you did in Japan

[Anonymous Coward]

Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn't 'end the war', the Japanese were about to surrender anyway. WHO decided to drop the bombs? Why, our Jewish 'masters', that's who - who had already taken over the American government (having taken over the banking system decades earlier, and hence the entire country).

Only a Jew would drop a nuclear bomb, which is why Israel has over two hundred nuclear warheads...

Re:Mot parent up.

[jafiwam]

Hey! How did you get the combination to my luggage?

Sick

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea, I'm sure this will get modded down by all of the intellectual elitists here who consider themselves morally superior because OMG PEOPLE AT DYING IN AFRICA, or OMG MORE CIVVIES HAVE DIED IN THE MIDDLE EAST! Does that make the tragedy that happened on september 11th any less, that other people have it worse? No. Stop mocking and acting like somehow you are morally superior because you have some puffed up sense of self-importance because you have a bit of knowledge about global events. Just because other places have it worse, doesn't make the things that happen here in the states any less of a tragedy. I get so sick of watching us send billions of dollars through charities and through government subsidies overseas when our own country has people who are homeless, starving, or dying of a horrible illness. But then again, I'm of that unpopular segment who refuses to denigrate one tragedy just to try to make people see other tragedies.

Re:9/11, reflecting on Americans acting the Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

History repeats itself - the pattern of:
    external-threat -> emergency-powers -> those-who-aren't-with-us-are-against-us -> crushing of dissent -> surveillance -> dictatorship
is present from Pompey/Caesar and the Pirates through the Nazis, through to 9/11, through to the plot of Star Wars.

9/11 was tragic, but Bin Laden destroyed so much of the free world, not by his own evil, but by our response to it.

What I will remember most..

[ma1wrbu5tr]

.. is how horrified I was that day

..is how horrified I was when the Bush administration convinced Congress that Iraq was somehow a threat to us.

.. is how ignoble politicians, in collusion with large corporations, proceeded to bankrupt our country declaring "unwinnable" wars so the rich could take the natural resources of middle-eastern countries for themselves.

.. is how ignoble politicians, in collusion with large corporations, have eroded our freedoms and privacy in the name of security.

.. is how ignoble politicians, in collusion with large corporations, patted themselves on the back and declared "Mission Accomplished!" while tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens were still doomed to die in a war they did not start.

.. is how ignoble politicians, in collusion with large corporations, proceeded to bankrupt our country creating large, over-funded, gestapo-ish security agencies that spied on everyday Americans.

.. is how ignoble politicians, so short sighted and full of themselves have still failed to bring our troops home from these illegal wars.

..is how horrified I am today when I think about what my country has become.

Marking 10 years since US Revolution overthrown

[Hazel Bergeron]

I was once attacked by a dog. Since then I have carried around a solid gold tiger. It has made me the object of ridicule, my limbs are aching and I can barely afford to eat. But at least I haven't been attacked by any more dogs.

God bless your betters!

Re:Marking 10 years since US Revolution overthrown

[Evtim]

Spot on!

Since a few weeks BBC wolrd news, the European version broadcasts small clip before its economy news called "America's lost decade" where with few graphs the dire straits of the US economy is revealed.

Coincidence? I think not. The plan of OBL worked like a charm, much to my despair.

I have nothing more to elaborate except to urge you to read on the first documented use of terror tactics in 13 century where a group of people managed to defeat mighty empire with 50 murders in 20 years. The rest of the job was done by the empire's rulers. I read it in Mike Green's 33 laws of strategy for instance.

The million (sorry trillion) dollar question is: why the US happily did exactly the opposite of what it should have done. I refuse to believe that the mightiest military in the world does not know strategy 101.

Not True

[srobert]

Not True. The number of deaths from drunken driving has been steadily reducing for many years. What we've done about it has been very effective. We've treated it as if it were a crime.
How effective do you all suppose it would have been to have declared "WAR" on drunk driving? My guess is that we'd have spent our treasury dry and had to borrow money from China. Probably would have ruined our economy. Sure glad that didn't happen.

Re:Not True

[goobenet]

Stupidity is about as futile of a war as the war on drugs or war on terrorism. There will always be all of these things. Waging wars on these things is just like flushing cash down the toilet. Might i remind you about how much we've spent on the war on drugs? How about the parts of Arizona that are "recommended that US citizens not go into" because the drug cartels are invading and using it for drug routes from Mexico? Seems that war is going great for us too...

Re:Not True

[HopefulIntern]

Not only is it now a fairly serious crime, but it is also socially unacceptable. The latter I think often is even more of an incentive to refrain from doing it. Many people commit crimes on a regular basis (certainly ones that are hard to enforce, like piracy or personal drug use), but they are issues that can be discussed among friends and usually just be laughed about. Nobody will laugh if you tell a humorous story about your drunk driving mishaps. This is a good thing.

On 9/11 the Terrorists Won!

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple as that. We have surrendered so much of our freedoms over this one act. They brought down a great nation. We have become the "Land of the Cowards and the Home of the Slaves". Everyone who voted for or supports the misnamed PATRIOT ACT is a traitor to the nation and not a REAL American! The TSA is illegal. The PATRIOT ACT is illegal. Everyone should collectively refuse to abide by these laws. The only reason we cannot fight it is because the vast majority have become slavish cowards.

Don't forget France, those murderers

[poity]

It seems if we accept that 9/11 occurs every day in Iraq, then we must also accept that 9/11 happens every day in Libya. So, fuck those terrorist countries too for causing civilian deaths in a war zone.

Let's see... fuck Denmark, fuck Italy, fuck Netherlands, fuck Norway, fuck Sweden, fuck Spain, fuck Turkey, fuck Jordan, fuck Qatar, fuck UAE. Fuck them all.

...

Re:Don't forget France, those murderers

[Risen888]

Damn right, fuck them. The idea that it's morally acceptable to attack a country that never engaged in hostilities with yours is abhorrent.

Re:Don't forget France, those murderers

[shutdown -p now]

Given that all those countries done nothing to protect pro-Gaddafi civilians and black Libyans in rebel-controlled areas against persecution - despite their mandate specifically saying that they are there to defend all civilians, not just those of the side they like more - yeah, fuck them all.

Re:Don't forget France, those murderers

[pabras]

>> fuck Netherlands

Did we do something for a change.

Re:Don't forget France, those murderers

[znrt]

Let's see... fuck Denmark, fuck Italy, fuck Netherlands, fuck Norway, fuck Sweden, fuck Spain, fuck Turkey, fuck Jordan, fuck Qatar, fuck UAE. Fuck them all.

yeah, fuck'em all. and can I understand someone with this opinion forgets to put UK on that list but ... how in heaven could you forget France????? you are an antipatriot! :)
your map

Re:Mot parent up.

[Anonymous Coward]

A truly useful international standard (wake up, US!) would be YYYY-MM-DD

Why *would*? That's already a useful international standard, namely ISO 860.

The terrorists won by a a factor of 10,000,000

[Anonymous Coward]

because for every $1 they spent on the atack, the US has spent $10,000,000. And for that we can say we achieved the goal of killing Osama bin Laden while aggravating about a billion muslims.

Meh

[rsmith]

Why is this even news?

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

4 terrorists arrested in Sweden just after midnight 9/11, plotting to blow up a bridge later on the day of 9/11.

The threat is real.

Eliminate the threat.

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering the fiasco the last time the Swedish police claimed to have arrested terrorists in Gothenburg, I'm gonna wait until I see some convictions before I join your "O NO TEH TERRAHRISTS ARE COMING TO GET US" choir.

10 years and we still cant talk about the motive

[Anonymous Coward]

because the media has restricted any mention of the motive of 9/11, excepting a few marginalized journalists and thought leaders, most Americans have learned less than nothing about the causes of the September 11, 2001 attacks. In the wake of that dreadful day, and for years afterward, then-President Bush claimed, almost comically, that they attacked us because they hate our freedoms. President Obama has also remained silent about the truth.

Don't the American people, whose taxes pay for Israel's war crimes, deserve to know that blowback of this support resulted in the loss of U.S. lives?

As the media blathers on about the anniversary, devoid of any mention of U.S. support for Israel, I don't know whether to laugh, cry, or throw a shoe at the television. I remember Larry Derfner's infamous column about the motivations for Palestinian attacks against Israeli civilians. Although some of his word choices, as he later admitted, were quite poor (I don't think any grievance, no matter how legitimate, gives oppressed people a right to attack civilians), his intent to send a wake up call was brave and necessary. Where are the courageous mainstream U.S. journalists who will do the same on today's dreadful anniversary? Prediction: no New York Times or other major outlet oped writer will mention U.S. support for Israel in explaining the attacks –– nor address the fact that so long as U.S. foreign policy enables oppression of Palestinians and other peoples, the U.S. will not be safe from further attacks.
 

Re:9/11, reflecting on Americans acting the Coward

[zawarski]

Brilliant. Thanks for taking the time. RAZ

9/11 made me a Republican

[Anonymous Coward]

I really wish we lived in a world like some here believe, where if we were just nice to everybody then everybody would be nice back to us. Unfortunately, that isn't the way the world works. 9/11 proved that again. No matter what we do, there will always be people who hate us because we are such a large and powerful nation. Just like in World War II, we were attacked by the Japanese--a nation we had done nothing to--we were attacked by terrorist taking safe harbor in Afghanistan, a country we had up to that point supported by helping them be free from the Soviets. Some people will only understand violence and that's why it's so important that we have a powerful military and foreign policy.

Some blame our foreign policy for the 9/11 attacks, but I am proud to live in a country that uses its foreign policy for its own benefit, even if it's to gain more resources for our country. We all benefit from it by being able to have the life style that we have in America. Sure, it might be to the detriment to those in other countries, but if we weren't doing it, then the other superpowers of the world--Russia, China, the European Union, etc--would be doing it in our place. Sure, it's not "fair" if you argue from a philosophical perspective, but it benefits me and my family and I like it that way.

Re:9/11 made me a Republican

[unitron]

So before then you were just an impartial idiot?

Re:9/11 made me a Republican

[Yunzil]

I am proud to live in a country that uses its foreign policy for its own benefit, even if it's to gain more resources for our country.

...and to hell with everyone else.

Also Denis Kucinich

[ink]

Don't forget Kucinich as well. Most of the left of the country oppose the Middle Eastern wars. The reason that Paul stands out is that he is pretty much alone on the right. I remember Richard Gere standing at that New York support event and getting booed off stage for daring to suggest that war wasn't the appropriate response. It was a mini-McCarthy era from 2001 to around 2008 or so -- if you didn't have a yellow ribbon on your car, then you supported the terrorists.

And now the same kind of demagoguing is happening to our monetary system -- popular vitriol is being thrown at the government to ensure that the entire system collapses, putting the crown jewel in to Bin Laden's legacy.

Neo-prohibitionism

[TheTyrannyOfForcedRe]

What do you propose we do about said drunk drivers? It's not like it's legal to do so. Should be try prohibition again?

You joke but that is EXACTLY what a large contingent of anti-drunk driving activists desire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-prohibitionism

Re:9/11, reflecting on Americans acting the Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

People are afraid of terrorists because they fear things they can't control. A good number of the statistically most probable causes of death are preventable by the individual. We have a very strong sense of personal responsibility in the United States, which stems from our capitalist ideals, and people simply aren't afraid of things they cause themselves.

+5

[TheTyrannyOfForcedRe]

Wow, that is probably the best comment I've ever seen on Slashdot, ever.

Media coverage of anniversary.

[Vellmont]

It's shameful that the media coverage is merely a flashback back to 9/11, and I here nothing about the subsequent fear, paranoia, and loss of freedoms that have engulfed the country. It was certainly a horrible day, but the aftermath on our country has been tens of thousands of times worse.

We got into two wars that we're STILL it., We have this lovely patriot act, which continues to be renewed with little debate. We have a continually fearful public, cowed into submission to The Official Reaction. We have ever increasing security theatre at airports. But yet no coverage of any of that. It's all about the day, and nothing about the disaster afterward.

Re:Media coverage of anniversary.

[CaptainLard]

It's shameful that the media coverage is merely a flashback back to 9/11, and I here nothing about the subsequent fear, paranoia, and loss of freedoms that have engulfed the country.

That's because THE 9/11 happened ten years ago TODAY. Of course that's what the major networks are going to focus on. Plus there are huge events full of various dignitaries which need coverage in the election cycle. If you desire, you can find additional objectivity on several NPR pieces that have been running the past few weeks. Watch fox or cnn to see exactly what you'd expect or check out the NPR story on the CTU in the Mall of America (yes, counter terrorism in Minneapolis) if you want to see how everything's gone down the shitter.

Re:Media coverage of anniversary.

[MrKaos]

It's shameful that the media coverage is merely a flashback back to 9/11, and I here nothing about the subsequent fear, paranoia, and loss of freedoms that have engulfed the country. It was certainly a horrible day, but the aftermath on our country has been tens of thousands of times worse.

We got into two wars that we're STILL it., We have this lovely patriot act, which continues to be renewed with little debate. We have a continually fearful public, cowed into submission to The Official Reaction. We have ever increasing security theatre at airports. But yet no coverage of any of that. It's all about the day, and nothing about the disaster afterward.

I guess it's 9/11 24/7 for America now

Re:Media coverage of anniversary.

[KozmoStevnNaut]

Just take a look at how Norway is handling the Oslo bombings and UtÃya shooting.

Not by being paranoid, not by engaging in a ridiculous "war on terror", but by coming together, recognizing that the harsh tone in the political debate and growing split between the left and right wings helped shape Anders Breiviks convictions and fuel his inner thirst for violent action.

The most prominent far-right wing party in Norway is losing voters at an impressive rate. Think about that for a moment. Norway is handling this the correct way, unlike the regrettable way 9/11 was handled.

The Pope isn't Religious?

[TheTyrannyOfForcedRe]

What about all those pesky European wars that the Popes instigated between Catholic and non-Catholic countries? Are you claiming that those Popes were only pretending to be religious?

Re:The Pope isn't Religious?

[mcgrew]

Yes, I am. The popes of the period were after money and power; if they hadn't been there would be no protestants today.

Re:Ten Years of Nonsense

[DaScribbler]

You can't make a call on a cell phone from an airplane.

Since when? You mean that little "policy" of not using cell phones on planes? Somehow I find it hard to believe anybody would follow that policy during a hijacking.

And the Pentagon is the most unusual case with almost no (believable) physical evidence.

Aside from photographs and thousands of witnesses?

Re:Mot parent up.

[dunkelfalke]

Somehow this number reminds me of Fidonet.

The hysterical media

[Pionar]

Looking back at the page on slashdot from that day, What strikes me is how the media got so much stuff wrong - which is very understandable. Ten years later, though, and this still happens constantly. The 24-hour news cycle means that news channels rush stuff on the air without knowing the full story.

Re:Mot parent up.

[Smurf]

A truly useful international standard (wake up, US!) would be YYYY-MM-DD

Why *would*? That's already a useful international standard, namely ISO 860.

I think you mean ISO 8601.

Re:9/11, reflecting on Americans acting the Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm tired of reading and hearing the bogus argument that more Americans are killed by drunk drivers, heart attacks, etc. than terrorist attacks. Of course they are, but that is totally irrelevant. Eating to moderation and getting exercise are personal responsibilities, something that individuals should be able to handle themselves. The government has some responsibility for protecting citizens against drunk drivers and unsafe food and building practices, and that's why we have DWI enforcement, USDA and restaurant inspections, building codes and inspections. The key is that these are localized threats and are well handled by local law enforcement and by the Federal and state government civil bureaucracies.

Terrorism as practiced by groups like Al Qaida is much different. Al Qaida is a military organization with a global reach that has essentially declared war on the United States (as well as dozens of others governments, it seems). One of the core responsibilities of government is to defend its citizenry against military threats. But terrorists don't stop at attacking our military installations; by definition, they aim to kill thousands of civilians at a time as part of a campaign of psychological warfare. To say that we don't need a DHS, greatly increased security at airports and subway stations, etc. is ridiculous. Al Qaida would love it if we went back to our pre-9/11 levels of security (which was mostly aimed at common criminals). They would continue with their 9/11 style attacks on airplanes, the shoe bombing attacks that Richard Reid blew the cover on later, the London subway bombings, the Mumbai hotel massacre, etc, with the goal of getting Americans to believe that government was incapable of protecting them. Like a schoolyard bully, they will continue until they are effectively confronted and stopped.

But wait, some say, that's exactly the behavior the bully was hoping for! That means they won! Well, OK, if "winning" means they got punched in the mouth, I guess they did. Bin Laden can go back to his house in Abbottobad and celebrate.

Lost friends and family members?

[Anonymous Coward]

What about me -- I lost my entire country...

also on sept. 11

[Anonymous Coward]

The first public telephones were opened at Ueno station and Shinbashi station in 1900.

My last day of work at the WTC was 9/10/01

[circletimessquare]

I left work at 5 WTC at 9 PM on Monday 9/10/01. So I had planned to go to work late on Tuesday. I woke up in Midtown to my phone ringing off the hook on 9/11/01.

It was a beautiful evening that Monday. I remember turning around and looking at a lone guitarist in the dark in the plaza, under that Fritz Koenig "Sphere" sculpture. I looked up at the towers, then got in the subway.

Those who were killed were not responsible for foreign policy. If you cannot comment on this event without prattling away about foreign policy, I think you are part of the problem in the world. You don't champion the suffering of some by denigrating the suffering of others, you are simply choose sides in a stupid tribal chest thumping match. If you are truly a person of principles, rather than just another voice in the endless turf war, you will see all suffering as a moment to reach for nobler sentiments than the heartlessness you see in these comments.

Re:My last day of work at the WTC was 9/10/01

[Anonymous Coward]

I was working in SOHO very close with a perfect view of downtown that day. I watched the first one collapse on a roof near by then decided I couldn't bare to see the other one go so I went back inside to help everyone else trying to organize what we needed to do and if everyone working for us was alive. For awhile a couple co-workers even stayed with me for awhile since their homes either didn't exist anymore, or there was no way in hell anyone was letting them in. Lucky nobody I knew died that day.

Though I've worked just a few blocks from downtown for the last 14 years, it took me 6 years before I felt emotionally okay going downtown again. Truly an experience that has changed me deeply in ways I probably can't describe or understand yet but New York has a way of doing that!

That all said it's a perfect time to comment on everything about that day and reflect not just on the innocent people who lost their lives but of the consequences that caused this and all that has changed since then, politics and foreign policy included. I'm not content with just building moments to our looses I need to know the world of tomorrow will be a better, more thoughtful, intelligent and peaceful world. I do not expect perfect but I want to leave my children a better world and ignoring failures and blindly clinging to traditions doesn't fit my picture of that world.

Re:My last day of work at the WTC was 9/10/01

[circletimessquare]

agreed

but in the comments here you don't see a rising above, you see a continuation (inversion of direction of hate is still hate), of the kind of mentality that led to 9/11

Re:My last day of work at the WTC was 9/10/01

[WiiVault]

Well put. 'Nuff said.

Re:My last day of work at the WTC was 9/10/01

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you could make a movie about rising above hate. That would be great.

Re:My last day of work at the WTC was 9/10/01

[blackcreekquinby]

Thanks, circletimessquare. I agree. And it's sad that so many of those above deplore the event and in the same breath virtually applaud the need for 9/11 as just, perverted payback--sad as the deaths and destruction were, they always add--for American sins? As you point out, the victims were not the policy-makers, not the pols making the decisions that would anger someone eno ugh to carry out a 9/11, but of course terror isn't meant to distinguish John Doe citizen from government officials (not that a government official should be fair game in such an atrocity either); I know, I know, our jets don't make any distinctions, but at least we take steps to minimize--what do they call it, 'collateral damage'?--at least that's my hope, whereas killing innocents is just a wonderful bonus, is in fact a stated goal, for terrorists. But then again, it's probably considered terribly naive to see anyone as an innocent these days. Yet as for our reaction immediately following 9/11, what did the world expect us to do, meditate or cry mea culpa, mea culpa? Would Ireland have hoisted the white flag and gone straight into navel-gazing mode? Would Australia have spent untold months or years sifting the debris to find definitive proof of the responsible party rather than acting quickly on good if not perfect evidence? I don't think so. And would, in fact, any nation with the means to strike back and to strike back damned hard have acted any differently? I'm sorry for Ireland's troubles, but how they're dealt with is up to Ireland; and an American citizen has no more control over U.S. government policy than an Irish or Australian citizen has over his government's policies. I challenge the Irish or Australian citizen to rectify any problem, large or small, with his government with the speed he seems to think the average Yank can accomplish with his government. All that either can do is the time consuming, slow process of voting in hopes of electing those who *can* make the changes the voter thinks is necessary. No, only a fool or a terrorist could hallucinate a justification for 9/11, which should be a day of remembrance for Americans (not Europeans, not Asians, not for anyone else unless they feel so inclined); it shouldn't be just another dreary, international occasion for bashing the U.S.; on a day like this, that's just piling on; the victims and their families have already lost too much. Anyone with an axe to grind has the other 364 days of the year to do so.

Re:9/11, reflecting on Americans acting the Coward

[Shihar]

Terrorism as practiced by groups like Al Qaida is much different. Al Qaida is a military organization with a global reach that has essentially declared war on the United States (as well as dozens of others governments, it seems). One of the core responsibilities of government is to defend its citizenry against military threats. But terrorists don't stop at attacking our military installations; by definition, they aim to kill thousands of civilians at a time as part of a campaign of psychological warfare. To say that we don't need a DHS, greatly increased security at airports and subway stations, etc. is ridiculous. Al Qaida would love it if we went back to our pre-9/11 levels of security (which was mostly aimed at common criminals). They would continue with their 9/11 style attacks on airplanes, the shoe bombing attacks that Richard Reid blew the cover on later, the London subway bombings, the Mumbai hotel massacre, etc, with the goal of getting Americans to believe that government was incapable of protecting them. Like a schoolyard bully, they will continue until they are effectively confronted and stopped.

Americans poured out their blood and tears over the past 200+ years to gain essential freedoms and liberties. Ripping up the fourth and fifth amendment because a bunch of sheep herders can on rare occasion kill a few Americans is pure cowardice. We don't respond violently to each and every little trivial threat, and terrorist fall firmly in the 'trivial threat' category. For the same reason why I would HOPE that Americans would be against random warrantless searches of their homes in attempt to capture more normal criminals, I would hope that they can get a handle on their mewing cowardly fright of an extremely rare way to die, and respond in the same way when confront with terrorism.

There are lots of things we could do to marginally increase our safety. We don't do most of them because it isn't worth the cost. A brutal Soviet style police state has less violent crime. We reject that sort of police state because we are willing to tolerate a little more crime in exchange for liberty. Our courts are biased to let guilty people go free because we don't want to jail innocent people. Terrorism is not magically different. Sure, it is the responsibility of the government to make reasonable efforts to stop terrorist. It sure as shit isn't their responsibility to do it at any cost. The amount we pay in terms of money and liberty to defend against terrorism needs to be balanced by the fact that it is an absurdly rare way for anyone to actually die.

The US has a 200+ year history of bleeding to grow and defend its liberties. We faced down the Soviet Union with one hand tied behind our back in terms of counter espionage because we were so insistent about preserving the liberties that we were fighting for. It is sad and pathetic that when faced with fucking sheep herders that are a couple of centuries behind what the USSR was in terms of population, resources, and technological capability, we promptly shit ourselves and couldn't surrender our liberties against a trivial threat fast enough.

If you want to be a coward, fearful of death due to the absurdly rare chance of being struck down by a terrorist (rather than eating yourself to death), do it quietly. Don't mew and bleat for politicians to piss away MY money and liberty because you can't control your bowels. I appreciate the blood and sacrifices that Americans have made over the past 200+ years to grow and defend their liberty. I don't appreciate sniveling cowards rushing to surrender away what other far more deserving men and women have built.

It is not asking much that you honor the blood and sacrifices made by better and braver men and women than you by making your own tiny and nearly effortless sacrifice of not pissing yourself and bleating to politicians to save you on the rare occasion that a terrorist manages to kill a trivial and minuscule portion of the population. If previous Americans co

slurp

[Anonymous Coward]

keep slurping the kool-aid
10 years ago today marked the beginning of the true erosion of civil liberties.

who's THEY ?!

[Anonymous Coward]

who's THEY ?!

Fox News!

[Anonymous Coward]

The US may not be winning the war but they sure as hell are thinning out the Taliban.

Evidence, and over what time period?

Fox News says it, and that's the only evidence I need!

you know, some would say...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.infowars.com/

9-11 was an inside job...

Some black humor

[Anonymous Coward]

"Toy"
http://caricatura.ru/top/best/url/black/korsun/428/

Re:Mot parent up.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody in the US Is confused when someones website or email signature uses, "800.555.1212

It just looks better than, "800-555-1212", which is arbitrary anyways.

don't forget the Mormons

[Anonymous Coward]

September 11th 1857. Biggest peacetime massacre on American soil until 2001, IIRC. The Mormons killed everyone over the age of 8 - the Mormon age of accountability. http://www.amazon.com/Blood-Prophets-Brigham-Massacre-Mountain/dp/0806136391

Perpetuating ghost stories

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for perpetuating the ghost stories that give the spooks ammo. Keep keeping that shit alive, assholes.

War started much earlier than 9/11

[Anonymous Coward]

My coworker was very much pro Bush's responses to 9/11 and called those suicide attackers as terrorists. So, I asked him "when some people bombed your buildings, killed your families and friends, destroyed your life, would you revenge?" He said "yes". I replied, "So, that is what they did". U.S. has attacked others via Israel our CIA for a very long time. They fought back with what had.

Neither he nor I are American. He is Christian and I am atheist. A few years later, I attended an anti-war demonstration in Chicago that was my only politic activity in my life. I thought someone may record the faces of demonstrators and I may get send back to my old country. I thought that is one way to repay all these good years they give to me.

No, screw you

[Anonymous Coward]

If someone had given me a rifle and I believed the people telling me 'Those are the assholes who tried to kill your friends' I would have killed them without hesitation

So how do you feel being exploited that way by our government every time they tell you taking away our freedoms is for our own good, because "it'll stop those assholes who tried to kill your friends"? I think he's trying to say the world would be a better place if EVERYTHING weren't blamed on those assholes just to fuck with our common sense and get us to do things we wouldn't otherwise do.

Big Deal

[Anonymous Coward]

So 3000 people died. So what? 3000 people died just now in Syria, I remember no mourning. Thousands were massacred in Zimbabwe (they tried to oppose), no country in the world gives a shit. Hundreds of people die because of drought, all I see is adverts. But this happening in the US, the worst thing ever.

Fuck the World.

[two.shutta]

I don't think that's a fair thing to say at all, but i don't think you really understand what you're saying either.

The loss of life, as well as the toll on the daily life of the Afghani & Iraqi will be felt for generations... and you can directly attribute that to this attack.

But what are you saying to me? A New Yorker who lost family today? We don't deserve to grieve for our dead?

Well then since you're being political about things, be fair and dig in.


Say the same statement to the Afghani farmer who lost HIS wife and three children when American soldiers were dropped in the middle of his field.

After all, he's Pashtun.

well of course

[circletimessquare]

you realize that your attitude is exactly the same thing you hate

therefore, you are part of the problem

the idea is to rise above the hate, not simply invert the hate, and think that means anything

you've become just another empty pointless node in the endless cycle of tribal turf wars

People shouldn't stay quiet about the causes

[Anonymous Coward]

Firstly, I'm sorry for your loss.

I disagree with what you said about people 'prattling away about foreign policy'. Today should be a day of remembrance and I hope that everyone would be respectful. That being said, the 10th anniversary of the attacks is also an opportunity to look back over the last decade and consider what followed the attacks, whether good choices were made, and what more can be done in future to stop future attacks.

In the past decade there has been so much discussion about taking military and intelligence action and improving security but so little discussion about the US foreign policy which al-Qaeda itself said prompted its actions. There seems to have been a national vow of silence taken in the US, or at least in its media, about the al-Qaeda's stated foreign policy justifications for the attack, it apparently being easier to just repeat that 'they hate our freedom' until it becomes inconceivable that there were - arguably legitimately held, inarguably inexusably expressed - real grievances.

If we're not going to discuss this now, when?

Re:People shouldn't stay quiet about the causes

[circletimessquare]

9/11 is about remembrance of those who died

what you are proposing is like showing up at the funeral and discussing diabetes cause and effects

"If we're not going to discuss this now, when?"

definitely after we mourn the dead, not while we mourn the dead, obviously

Re:People shouldn't stay quiet about the causes

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you could make a movie about diabetic zombies. That would be great.

Re:People shouldn't stay quiet about the causes

[Boronx]

9/11 can be about remembrance of those who died .... for those who remember them. For the vast majority of the rest of us, the meaning of the day is different.

Re:People shouldn't stay quiet about the causes

[circletimessquare]

then why don't you throw a party?

out of respect for those who ARE mourning, you stay silent about tangential agendas. it's not appropriate right now

and if you can't show that simple respect, i have to wonder what else you don't understand

Re:People shouldn't stay quiet about the causes

[Boronx]

If your use of "tangential" was at all accurate, I'd agree with you, but it ain't. There's no time more appropriate than today.

Re:People shouldn't stay quiet about the causes

[circletimessquare]

go ahead, start that lecture about diet and exercise at the next funeral of a relative. your family will love you. no time more appropriate to be a jackass, right?

Re:People shouldn't stay quiet about the causes

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you could make a movie about dieting zombies. That would be great.

Re:People shouldn't stay quiet about the causes

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you could make a movie about misunderstanding zombies. That would be great.

Re:People shouldn't stay quiet about the causes

[Boronx]

September 11 was the opening tragedy that sparked off hundreds more tragedies of equal proportion. It holds just as much significance to millions of people around the globe because of what followed from it as it does to the people directly affected that day.

What you ask is the equivalent of not talking about WWII on Dec 7th. The number of people who lost loved ones because of 9/11 is far greater than the number of people who lost loved ones on 9/11. You should forgive them that their perspective is different and necessarily more political than yours.

Re:People shouldn't stay quiet about the causes

[circletimessquare]

if you don't understand the simple fucking concept of respecting the dead, ANY dead, of ANY conflict, you lack the cognitive faculties to say anything intelligent on the entire subject matter

complete logic fail

[circletimessquare]

"this guy died of snake bite, but those 10 guys died while snorkeling, therefore..."

therefore what?!

false equivalency only makes you look like a fool

Re:complete logic fail

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you could make a movie about foolish zombies. That would be great.

Happy 9/11 Holiday

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's bake cakes!!!

Re:Ten Years of Nonsense

[boudie2]

You can believe what you like and I'll do the same. Let's say that to me it seems very implausible that the cell phone calls in question were made. Given the rural location, speed and altitude, your chances of making a good connection are dubious at best. There are still way more questions than answers. It doesn't surprise me that the people who run things would perpetrate or use this situation like they have, but that people who overwhelmingly state that they don't believe what their elected officials tell them are willing to do so with regards to 2001-09-11. We'll see the reaction when the other shoe drops.

Any architects and engineers care to comment?

[crhylove]

http://ae911truth.org/

I've worked on/in a lot of big steel frame buildings over the last 20 years, and frankly the official explanation never made much sense to me either, but then again I'm not a metallurgical expert like some of the poeple on that site are.

Re:Any architects and engineers care to comment?

[cold fjord]

I've worked on/in a lot of big steel frame buildings over the last 20 years, and frankly the official explanation never made much sense to me either, but then again I'm not a metallurgical expert like some of the poeple on that site are.

If you're looking for facts I would try the sites below. Unlike the "truther" sites the people at the sites below aren't baffled by things that blacksmiths know - that steel loses its structural strength and bends long before it reaches its melting point.

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation (Updated 09/17/2010)

Al Qaeda only had to keep about 30-40 people quiet for a year to pull off their attack. The movements of the people that did it, their pilot training, are all known. Al Qaeda took credit for it.

If you believe the conspiracy theorists called "truthers", you have to be willing to believe that probably several thousand people, at least, had to play a part in staging an attack on their fellow Americans that killed thousands and nothing has slipped out after 10 years - including the alleged missile attack on the Pentagon - and despite the fact that the government leaks like a sieve. Actually more than that since an attack that elaborate would have taken significant time to plan, prepare, and rehearse. (Sneak into buildings and place explosive charges to implode them, fire a missile at the Pentagon (by who? from where? What type? Why didn't it turn up missing?) as well as fake some aspects of the plane attacks (what about the family members? The recovered bodies?). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, something the 9-11 "truther" movement doesn't deliver. All they have are "questions" and crank theories.

People, this guy's name is "North Korea"

[Anonymous Coward]

You're the best gimmick troll ever. All you people modding this guy up for his anti-America posts need to look at his name!

Just get over it ...

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, it was tough and the victims deserve respect, etc ... But shit happens and marking this day as if it had been relevant for life on earth only glorifies the terrorists.
Just get over it America, icompared to other bad things that happen in the world, t"s not even near to the huge disaster you think it is.

I am completely surprised, I tell you!

[bonch]

Someone on Slashdot used 9/11 to make political points? I'm totally surprised at this turn of events. Next you'll tell me people also argued about how the U.S. writes the date and got modded +5 by calling today "Fuck America Day".

Re:Mot parent up.

[Whiternoise]

If it's a phone number, what does it matter? You just dial them all in one go.

and brievik? should we fight "Christianism"?

[decora]

should we have had a "war against Christianism"?

Somewhat true

[Anonymous Coward]

But the bad guys have religion on thier side, not against them.

Religion is bad, the world would be a much better place without it.

As opposed to...

[Anonymous Coward]

As opposed to the oh-so-peaceful Saddam era.

Murika.

[Anonymous Coward]

Murika bombed the United States Federal building the what's-it's-name.

I would've remembered the name of that building, but the pain and sorrow has tarnished my memmory. Ah, I remember: Murrah Building.

I remember the Federal Murrah Building was bombed by the Branch Davidians, because they hate our Freedoms. Glad we took-out that Wacco compound. They think they can pay-off their debts and isolate theirself away from the United States needing help to pay everyone else's debts then they got a thing coming to them. We're in this together: United we stand. Buy my book.

Iraq under Saddam was a hellhole

[Anonymous Coward]

9/11 every day in Iraq

How did this obvious throwaway troll post get "+5 Insightful?" Are the moderators smoking crack?

Iraq under Saddam was a hellhole. If Saddam hadn't been removed, his even crazier son would have eventually taken over, and there'd be even more mass graves than the ones that were found. A major threat was removed in that region. War protesters don't like it because they think resolving conflicts means holding hands and apologizing while enemies stab you in the back, like when Obama travelled the world on his apology tour (a lot of good it did). Every person who bashes the Iraq War is really saying, "I wish Saddam Hussein was back in power."

For most people, 9/11 is a day of remembrance. For liberal moonbats, it's a day to feel really smart for bashing the #1 most powerful and influential country in the world, the United States. All of you have the exact same politics, but you never seem to make that realization or wonder how much it influences your conclusions.

Re:Iraq under Saddam was a hellhole

[Anonymous Coward]

"there'd be even more mass graves than the ones that were found"

What mass graves? We were continually told about all of these atrocities committed by Saddam, and that millions were dead and buried in 'mass graves'.

I've waited for years for evidence of these 'mass graves' in Iraq, but the only times there has ever been mention of them has quietly been followed by a report where the local residents pointed out that it was a cemetery. A cemetery - you know - a place where lots of people are buried? Not really what I would call a 'mass grave'.

So how about linking some actual verified reports on these 'mass graves' in Iraq for us.

Re:Iraq under Saddam was a hellhole

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is a report on the mass graves in Iraq.. (I guess you aren't google enabled?)

Christian Jihad?

[Guppy]

It will be a Religious War, a sort of Christian Jihad

I could not help but notice there already is a term for that -- Crusade.

The reaction to 9/11 is an embarrassment

[thetoadwarrior]

All the cheap tacky shit being sold to commemorate this event and the two wars. I am seriously trying to forget the past 10 years did not happen. We would have won by getting back to our normal lives and showing them we won't live in fear of them. Instead we've completely fucked up everything.

Re:The reaction to 9/11 is an embarrassment

[identity0]

What's the matter, Have you forgotten Sep. 11 2001?

Click the link, I dare you. Buy more stuff! It's patriotic!

Re:The reaction to 9/11 is an embarrassment

[thetoadwarrior]

I think I just found my mother her first xmas present for this year or maybe I'll just get a pair for myself. The twi towers might look better with balls behind them.

Some thoughts on strengthening security post-9/11

[Paul Fernhout]

First, to anyone who lost loved ones in the disaster, you have my condolences, as grief can still be fresh even a decade later, especially if it was a parent's adult child who died. My main point in writing this is to prevent more such disasters.

My wife flew home on 9/10/2001 from Washington, D.C. I can't think what might have happened had it been one day later. She attended a Genoa I workshop to talk on narrative methods and conflict resolution where someone said, "Maybe we should apply some of these ideas to thinking about that Osama bin Laden guy?" But it was too late to prevent what happened.

I agree with other comments here that in some ways 9/11 was Slashdot's finest hour as it kept working when other sites crashed under the load, and it was where I too turned for news updates. We lived near NYC at the time (we could smell the towers burning) and we lost reception on some TV stations with the loss of the towers. When the first tower fell, besides thinking about the sad loss of people, I recalled all the discussions on Slashdot previously on the attempts at encroachment on civil liberties, and thought, with the fall of the tower, so would fall our civil liberties, as those efforts would get the upperhand finally. I'm glad things have been not quite as bad as they could have been domestically, even if the amount of suffering caused abroad (like in Iraq) by the USA as it lashed out in a blind rage has been enormous (and to what end?).

It has been very sad also to see the USA develop some kind of immune disorder as it attacks itself in various ways (same as with asthma or arthritis) like with a war on the "unexpected".
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/11/the_war_on_the.html

In the same way that the sunshine vitamin, vitamin D, can help moderate the human immune system, I can think that some sunshine on global issues will ultimately help heal them. But, as Stephen Zunes, a middle east academic scholar said after he tried to make people aware of what was going on with the Middle East and the USA but was accused of all sorts of things:
http://www.truth-out.org/legacy-911-and-war-intellectuals/1315608304
"Raising such questions was not popular, however. Detectives investigating a crime trying to establish a motive are generally not accused of defending the criminals. Fire inspectors inspecting the ruins of a building for the cause of the blaze are not accused of defending its destruction. Yet I found myself, along with scores of other Middle Eastern scholars, being attacked for supposedly defending terrorism."

Ironically, while many people still believe "they hate us because we are free" and that terrorists abhor our democratic values, the truth is more that "they hate us because we fund their oppressors" and if we had stuck to our democratic values in crafting our foreign policy, we might not have seen so much blowback. Sadly, the invasion of Iraq based on false information and broad misconceptions has likely spawned a whole generation of terrorists. As Smedley Butler, a Major General in the US Marine Corps, said, "War is a racket". So, some have said, Iraq and even Afghanistan were supposed to be quagmires.
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

9/11 has brought the issue of security into the public consciousness in the USA. A big problem is that our mainstream view of collective security is not very advanced. In the same way Stephen Zunes says we need to think more deeply about the Middle East and our foreign policy, I'd suggest we in the USA need to think more deeply about what our notion of participatory democracy and how it could relate to collective security, including, for slashdotters' contemplation, how to prevent a cyber-9/11.

Towards that goal of moving such a dialog forward, here are some l

Cargo cult

[Jaxoreth]

Also, a lot of people like to try to be cool and emulate "internet" practices by showing phone numbers as "999/999/9999", or even worse, "999.999.9999" when in fact that just causes confusion.

I suspect that the same sort of cargo cult mentality is behind the recent "mtn dew" branding. As if abbreviating your product name to resemble a Unix command is going to make it more popular.

Instead, they should make the can look like brushed aluminum, with a large white logo and no text on the front.

My memory of that day...

[damonlab]

My mom woke me up when the first plane hit. I called her a liar and said that I did not believe her and I was going back to sleep. She came in minutes later to say another plane hit the other tower and something was going on with the pentagon. I told her I still did not believe her, but was willing to get up to have a look at the TV to prove her wrong before I went back to bed. I did not go back to bed. The incident forever touched me and changed my life.

The U.S. killed 20 times as many civilians ...

[Anonymous Coward]

on Aug. 6, 1945 in Hiroshima, Japan. I don't hear anyone in the press or politics drawing attention to that act of terror.

The acts taken to secure our borders were justified. There is no justification for playing upon the feelings of ordinary people, whether they be voters or potential victims.

Politicians, do tell: how are you more deserving of my respect than those you label as "terrorists"?

Re:9/11, reflecting on Americans acting the Coward

[russotto]

Fucking food bacteria kills 10x more people every year than terrorist did in 2001.

Nope. Doesn't even make the list you quoted. The actual number is more like 1300, less than half the number of those killed by terrorists in the US in 2001.

al qaeda wasn't big on Israel

[Anonymous Coward]

al qaeda could have been very public about US support of Israel and the Palestinians, compared to other issues, but it wasn't. Support of Israel would have been the only acceptable rational for September 11th. The Saudi govt could have publicly demand the US withdrawal, but didn't. Saddam was a dick.

Re:9/11, reflecting on Americans acting the Coward

[Shihar]

Yeah, I misread the list. I thought Septicemia (number 10 on the list) was food bacteria.

Insha Allah

[Anonymous Coward]

Inshah Allah.

100,000 Iraqi civilians dead (and muslims getting their asses royally kicked repeatedly) should only mean to the faithful that Allah willed it to be so.

What might that suggest, besides the fact that Allah has turned his face away from the faithful and toward the West and their damned humanistic, female-ankle-showing modernism?

I don't really get how utilitarian fatalism works. When you accidentally blow up children in your jihad, that's just as God must've willed it, or in other words "oops, sorry". But the ascendance of the West, the benighted ignorance and backwardness of the muslim world...isn't that ALSO insha Allah? Don't you have to take the bad with the good, if you're just explaining away the uncomfortable bits - or be nothing but a hypocrite?

derkaderkaderka

[Anonymous Coward]

Hate America?
Do something about it.
Oh wait, you live in a broken 3rd world shithole.

And the world carries on, as usual.

Re:Mot parent up.

[euroq]

1. There is already an international standard of that format (YYYY-MM-DD). There's no need for the US to wake up for it.
2. I always put my phone number in my work e-mail signatures as "999.123.4567" because it is more aesthetically pleasing. The reason it is OK to do so is because there is no communication ambiguity... people still know it's a phone number.
3. "wake up, US!" - We have a national standard, which is MM-DD-YYYY. We don't need two national standards. When communicating internationally, people use the appropriate communication methods. I don't ever use MM-DD-YYYY when communicating to the people in Taiwan and South Korea at work, I use plain English such as "September 11th". I presume other Americans don't use MM-DD-YYYY when communicating internationally, at least not twice - especially after encountering an ambiguous communication faux pas.

I think everyone in this thread is confusing the topics. "September 11th" is how we say "September 11th" in (American) English, and everyone knows exactly what it means. There is no ambiguity. When serializing dates programmatically, we probably most use the ISO-8601 standard. When communicating internationally, we (hopefully and usually) use a format that is unambiguous.

TLDR - you're giving a solution to a problem which doesn't exist.

Paul and Kucinich are both patriots

[real gumby]

Dr. Paul and was also suppressed by his own political party for not being jingoistic enough.

There, I fixed that for you. Paul and Kucinich are quite nationalistic. Both are patriotic and concerned for the country. In fact I consider them both more patriotic than the positions of their respective parties in that they both seem far more concerned about the fate of their fellow citizens.

I have to qualify this by saying that I consider them both quite a distance along the path to lunacy, but on patriotism certainly they are far more trustworthy than the party positions or pols.

Weapons on board planes

[Occams]

One of the main lessons of 911 has still not been learned. The passengers on the jet that went down in Pennsylvania were desperate to find a weapon, any kind of weapon, which would let them take on two lightly armed terrorists. The security measures at the airport prevented them from finding such a weapon. The outcome could not have been worse if 9 mm automatic pistols had been handed to each passenger with their boarding cards. Sure, then the terrorists would have had pistols, but they would not have dared to use them. They would have chosen a weaker target. I don't think that guns should be allowed on planes, but simple weapons like pepper spray, ropes and batons could be stored around the plane where stewards or passengers can get them in an emergency. Steel cutlery could be useful. No one would try to hijack an aircraft with weapons like that.

Re:But Writing dates American way and more

[lsatenstein]

Since computers, we programmers or others who write internationally, we use yyyy-mm-dd sometimes mm is written in full.
The French method is day,month year,

Another stupid thing is the USA being out of step with the world, who have progressed passed them in manufacturing, and design.

The world is on the metric system, with metric tons, kilograms, grams, etc. And Litres for gallons quarts pints ounces, etc...

Even England dispensed with the old english measures.

My view is that the IPOD design, as well as most other designs are in metric measures, but for the Americans, are expressed in miles, yards, feet, inches, and fingernails.

Sanctions didn't kill any Iraqi children

[Quila]

Saddam had plenty of cash due to the oil for food program and various illicit deals, but thanks to a corrupt UN it all went to building palaces, equipping his army, and paying for the loyalty of his supporters.

Re:Sanctions didn't kill any Iraqi children

[chrb]

Yes, that is a familiar argument: "The sanctions would have worked if Saddam Hussein was a good man who had the best interests of the Iraqi people at heart." I trust you can see the flaw in that logic. Saddam was not a good man, and he had already ordered the use of chemical weapons against thousands of Iraqi civilians.

911 is a scam

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I'm not saying planes didn't crash, but everything that followed was a big scam. Our politicians just use 9/11 to propagate a whole new line of BS. It's not safe to travel within 50 miles of our southern border, but instead of dealing with the problem in a meaningful way, the government sends the TSA to finger-rape women at the airport. The TSA thugs aren't really meant to be the answer. They are just the low-lifes intended to scare citizen-sheep to using the mega-priced scanners sold by former senators and their friends. Don't want to get too deep into this though. I have to get to work so I can pay taxes to fund another unnecessary war, bail out a bank, and afford the super-rich another tax cut.

"*real* devout Muslims" say "Death to America"

[Quila]

They believe the peaceful Muslims aren't being *real* Muslims because they do not support violent jihad and they make friends with the Great Satan. They believe real Muslims should kill their daughters for becoming too westernized. Real Muslims have a duty to kill the infidel when possible.

You don't get to define who is a real Muslim or not. Millions of Muslims disagree with your view, and there is plenty in the Quran to support their interpretation.

No True Scotsman.

Right back at you....

[elkto]

With all due respect, it is this attitude that supports the use of nuclear arms.

The United States Armed Forces systems bends over backwards to mitigate collateral damage; Despite this goal, the feed back is consistently one where collateral damage reported as a travesty. This makes the goal, one seemly shared by the US alone, as a waste of time and LARGE sums of money.

War is ugly, uglier than anyone wants to admit. Just witness the Taliban, Vietcong, Khmer Rouge, or the freaks who attacked the school in Georgia who go out of their way to inflict civilian damage.

Your picking the wrong side; I am beginning to wish the US was Imperialist pigs we are portrayed as at this point. I hate War, get it done, get it over with.

Saddam's corruption wasn't enough

[Quila]

He needed help from the outside, and the UN was willing to provide it.

Re:Saddam's corruption wasn't enough

[chrb]

So you think that, if the UN Oil For Food programme did not exist, then the people of Iraq would have been provided with adequate food, clean water and medical care, despite the sanctions? How?

You don't seem to know the players

[Quila]

The UN established the sanctions, the UN established the Oil for Food program, the UN's corrupt personnel allowed the money to go for Saddam's personal use, the UN and Saddam are responsible for any deaths.

Yet somehow people blame the US. We were responsible for the no-fly zones.

Re:You don't seem to know the players

[chrb]

There is plenty of blame to go around, but it is naive to claim that the U.S. had no hand in this. The UN Security Council established the sanctions. Is the U.S. not a member of the U.N. Security Council? Did the U.S. push for sanctions, or against them? Did the U.S. military do more to enforce sanctions than just no-fly zones? Wasn't the entire "Multinational Interception Force" organised and led by the U.S., and in fact consisted primarily of U.S. Navy vessels? Did the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control not utilise the legal system to enforce sanctions by blocking trade and exports? Is the U.S. military under the control of the U.N.? If not, then why is the U.N. solely responsible? Isn't the U.S. government, and by extension, the U.S. military, responsible for its own actions? If the U.N. ordered the U.S. military to intervene in an arbitrary conflict, would they obey? If not, then the U.S. military is clearly independent of the U.N., and therefore responsible for its actions, even if they do enforce a resolution by the U.N. Security Council. Also consider your logic applied to other nations: if a U.N. resolution authorized military action against a country, and Russia (or China) carried out the military action, then as nations they hold absolutely no responsibility for their actions, because the U.N. authorized it?!

Re:You don't seem to know the players

[Quila]

I do believe we intercepted some shipments. Those intercepted were either supplies banned by the UN or those shipping it didn't get appropriate permission from the UN.

But that had pretty much nothing to do with any children deaths. That was due to lack of food and cleanliness, both things that Saddam could have rectified had he desired.

Yes, bad things happen when you invade a neighboring country to annex it, threaten the stability of an entire region, and lose.

The sanctions did have the effect of not allowing Saddam to rebuild his army to a level enough to threaten surrounding countries again, and it forced him to abandon his efforts towards WMD production.

Re:You don't seem to know the players

[chrb]

But that had pretty much nothing to do with any children deaths. That was due to lack of food and cleanliness, both things that Saddam could have rectified had he desired.

Exactly: the idea that sanctions could work without hurting the civilian population relied on the assumption that Saddam cared about the civilian population. That was a bad assumption.

nothing is fucked here, dude

[cod3r_]

This is what happens when you fuck a stranger in the ass, larry.

I got the news from /. first

[meheler]

Woke up to get ready for work and, as was my routine at that time, I checked /. before I had even fully left my bed and saw the headline. At that point only Tower 1 had been struck and it wasn't evident yet what size of plane had hit it.

Re:9/11, reflecting on Americans acting the Coward

[arbarbonif]

I think his point is that he loves the United States and he would like to be able to live in it. Not in what it is being turned into because of fear of a statistically tiny threat.

Re:9/11, reflecting on Americans acting the Coward

[Shihar]

No, I love my country. I just hate cowards. Anyone who would despoil the constitution because of a bunch of sheep herders occasionally murder a few people is a fucking coward. Are you a coward? If you are, I would like to encourage you to either remove your cowardly ass from my country, or at least refrain from giving voice to your pathetic craven fears and stay the fuck out of a voting booth. I'm not asking you to storm a beachhead, just try and keep from shitting yourself over a one in a few hundred thousand chance of a terrorist killing you. Be a god damn coward if that pleases you, but don't try and give away my liberties to sooth you sad and pathetic fears.

Terrorism

[vishal dogra]

Mr. Gaddaffi has waged a war by registering terrorists with its group from Arab to counter the western countries. wikipedia domain has complete studies about how he did it. He is ousted but we all are watching what he has started years back.