... I see no bravery by being a cult brainwashed drone intent on killing thousands of innocent civilians, expecting reward from God by givin you 72 virgins and lots of alcohol.
This is like saying that the Columbine mass killers where brave, hey, they took their life to you know.
> A better (as in more freedom) method is to allow civilians to protect themselves by carrying firearms (with appropriate types of ammunition) on flights.
What a horrible solution, now everybody has the power to down the plane.
Not only could a fanatical terrorist do it, but also a suicidal depressed lunatic too.
Could be, but my point is that you still need to protect yourself. Just because you can't prevent this %100, doesn't mean you just give up and don't bother protecting yourself.
However, I think some of these systems claim to be succesful even with simple disguses as those. But I'm not sure about the stats on those, and if they're true.
But your suggestion is good, but oh boy, wait for people here and the paranoid to scream "INVASION OF PRIVACY".
> There is no way to stop a determined terrorist on a suicide mission.
Many have been stopped before, in addition, I believe many measures could make it virtually impossible to repeat using a plane of such size as a weapon.
It's always possible for me to break into your house, even with an alarm, does that mean you won't put a door in your house, not lock it ?
Oh, you mean like Linux? Suppose none of us should pay for a copy of Linux even though it takes money to develop and improve it.
What the heck are you talking about ?
I said, lots of the premium content is freely available in the original sites, which I read frequently so to me it doesn't make sense to pay for something I already read , it's free, and not exclusive.
Feel free to donate money to salon.com, but if you already have a product (article) there's little reason to pay for it.
You are complete and utter TRASH. Crawl back into whatever nasty trailer park whore's womb that you came from.
Did salon.com lay you off or something ? Calm down and be rational.
Yesterday most of their stories were subscriber only, "premium" content.
However, many of these stories are available for free at the author's main sites (which usually are not salon.com).
For example, there was an article by Arianna Huffinton which was marked "premium" , but it's freely available at her site.
http://www.ariannaonline.com/
Same goes for Horowitz articles.
http://www.frontpagemag.com
I think if salon is going to charge for premium content, they should at least bother to pay for some type of exclusivity. It doesn't make any sense to pay for something that is legally free elsewhere.
Next time you're in a plane, and some crazed fanatical "Holy Warrior" threatens you with a box cutter, take out the AOL CDs, distrubute them among the passengers and break them apart.
Voila, now everybody is armed with sharp CD fragments ready to impale the "Holy Warriors".
The CIA didn't train them to be "Islamic extremists", they trained them to be guerrilla warriors.
They were chosen because they opposed the "godless" Russians, which happened to be our enemies too.
> cloak-and-dagger games of subversion and manipulation stop,
LOL. They HAVE stopped, that's why we didn't have "intelligence" on this attack and why we can't infiltrate Bin Laden. Actually, this whole mess is a justification to get back into dirty Cold War era "cloack-and-dagger" tactics.
They just seem to be getting more and more arrogant. Thankfully, I don't use Frontpage, but I've never seen a license for a tool that says you can't criticize the makers of the tool !!!
It's like putting a "license" around the use of a hammer saying you can't build a sign that protests the hammer's maker.
Let's say he wasn't deliberately "lying", but to assume that the footage was wrong just because somebody posted it on indymedia.org who heard a professor said so in Brazil shows a pretty gullible mind.
You can mistrust CNN all you want, heck knows I have problems with them, but they are still a million times more credible than some unkown person posting on the internet offering zero proof.
Of course this is not always true, for either terrorist or/. reader. But if my claim is not entirely accurate, then neither is yours. The difference is you believe in your argument. Instead you should ask yourself: Why do I think terrorists are weak people?
I think they are weak because their suicide "Holy" Warrior culture is a from the Dark Ages and that because slitting throats of women in flights and crashing buildings won't do squat to help them in "whatever cause" they believe.
Even their faith is weak, since they don't do it because they "love" Allah, they do it because of the extra rewards promised to them in "heaven".
I see them as very similar to the frustrated Colombine shooters, who take lives in their own suicidal rages. But feel free to admire these monsters as you will.
There's a documentary film called the Panama Deception you should watch. Essentially, the 'useless Panamanian Army' had captured Noriega and was waiting for promised US assistance (sealing a couple of roads and securing an airfield I think) which never came and they were overrun and killed.
I've seen it, but that is nothing, I lived through this thing. I used to protest while this same army , which YES WAS USELESS, pointed gun at us and the riot police would tear gas us all the time.
Like I said, the original posters position that the US got upset at Noriega because of the Canal is beyond absurd.
> I am totally ashamed of the behavior of the US in Panama.
I am totally ashamde of the bahavior of Panama in Panama. We let ourselves get overtaken by a dictator, and accepted (and it's still common practice) corruption in government.
It's not the US who came up with the phrase "Juega vivo !". Ask any Panamenian what that means.
A real long-term solution to the problem of terrorism will be to revise and rethink your foreign policy
I'm all for revising foreign policy, all the time, and all countries should do this, even the 3rd world country you claim to reside (I come from the so called 3rd world too).
But saying that that will discourage fanatical terrorist is a big mistake, as you'll always piss off one group with whatever decision you make !
In addition, there are some things in our policy that should not change, and you shouldn't give in to the terrorist demands. For example, Bin Laden advocates the overthrow of non Muslim governments and calls for their replacement with "just" Muslim ones.
I don't know about you, but I'm not about to be force converted and bow to a Taliban like religion.
So revision, yes. Change as a response to terrorist, heck no.
Slashdot Mirror
... I see no bravery by being a cult brainwashed drone intent on killing thousands of innocent civilians, expecting reward from God by givin you 72 virgins and lots of alcohol.
This is like saying that the Columbine mass killers where brave, hey, they took their life to you know.
> A better (as in more freedom) method is to allow civilians to protect themselves by carrying firearms (with appropriate types of ammunition) on flights.
What a horrible solution, now everybody has the power to down the plane.
Not only could a fanatical terrorist do it, but also a suicidal depressed lunatic too.
No thanks.
Well, I'm talking about face scans in airports, more specifically before you board a plane.
If you want to take it farther with DNA samples and the like, you're arguing with the wrong person.
I would think that if you are on a terrorist watch list, they either search you a bit more or put an air marshall on the plane.
Hey, if you have no problem flying with people who are (correctly) on a watch list, be my guest.
> But being ridiculously intrusive isnt going to help much.
What's intrusive about scanning your face and matching it against a DB for wanted and suspected terrorists ?
Do you find it intrusive if somebody looks at you ?
Is it intrusive to show your license ?
Could be, but my point is that you still need to protect yourself. Just because you can't prevent this %100, doesn't mean you just give up and don't bother protecting yourself.
That's true, however, since I already read some of those sites before salon, I guess their editorial process is not worth that much in my case.
Wouldn't hurt them to pay the writers a bit more and get some temporary exclusivity tough.
Exactly.
However, I think some of these systems claim to be succesful even with simple disguses as those. But I'm not sure about the stats on those, and if they're true.
But your suggestion is good, but oh boy, wait for people here and the paranoid to scream "INVASION OF PRIVACY".
2 of the bastards were on a watch list for terrorism, one even had an arrest warrant.
Most of these "Holy Warriors" don't have criminal records, but sometimes we flag them as potential terrorists and put them on watch lists.
If we can't use the list to detect them at the entrance of a plane, then it's useless to gather intelligence on terrorists.
> when we really need to be applying a bit more low tech, hands-on investigative work
That was done ! However, they weren't detected when boarding planes ! A face recognition and even name match system would have stopped them !!!
> There is no way to stop a determined terrorist on a suicide mission.
Many have been stopped before, in addition, I believe many measures could make it virtually impossible to repeat using a plane of such size as a weapon.
It's always possible for me to break into your house, even with an alarm, does that mean you won't put a door in your house, not lock it ?
Weird argument.
> Or that they'll wear heavily rimmed glasses and a goatee
Actually, that's not a good argument against such a system. Whatever makes it more difficult for the "Holy Warriors" is good for everybody.
Oh, you mean like Linux? Suppose none of us should pay for a copy of Linux even though it takes money to develop and improve it.
What the heck are you talking about ?
I said, lots of the premium content is freely available in the original sites, which I read frequently so to me it doesn't make sense to pay for something I already read , it's free, and not exclusive.
Feel free to donate money to salon.com, but if you already have a product (article) there's little reason to pay for it.
You are complete and utter TRASH. Crawl back into whatever nasty trailer park whore's womb that you came from.
Did salon.com lay you off or something ? Calm down and be rational.
Yesterday most of their stories were subscriber only, "premium" content.
However, many of these stories are available for free at the author's main sites (which usually are not salon.com).
For example, there was an article by Arianna Huffinton which was marked "premium" , but it's freely available at her site.
http://www.ariannaonline.com/
Same goes for Horowitz articles.
http://www.frontpagemag.com
I think if salon is going to charge for premium content, they should at least bother to pay for some type of exclusivity. It doesn't make any sense to pay for something that is legally free elsewhere.
They were guerrilla warriors when they were fighting military targets, specifically the Russian invaders.
No, we didn't teach them to mow down civilians.
And yes, there's a big difference between fighting a foreign invader in your land and blowing up buildings full of innocent people.
BTW, none of the hijackers were Afghanis.
> Now I know what to do with all those AOL CD's..
Next time you're in a plane, and some crazed fanatical "Holy Warrior" threatens you with a box cutter, take out the AOL CDs, distrubute them among the passengers and break them apart.
Voila, now everybody is armed with sharp CD fragments ready to impale the "Holy Warriors".
See, AOL CDs are very useful. Thank you AOL !
The CIA didn't train them to be "Islamic extremists", they trained them to be guerrilla warriors.
They were chosen because they opposed the "godless" Russians, which happened to be our enemies too.
> cloak-and-dagger games of subversion and manipulation stop,
LOL. They HAVE stopped, that's why we didn't have "intelligence" on this attack and why we can't infiltrate Bin Laden. Actually, this whole mess is a justification to get back into dirty Cold War era "cloack-and-dagger" tactics.
I don't see why 3G phones would have made a difference here, they already knew the WTC planes had crashed.
Barbara Olson was on the phone with her husband and she was in the plane that crashed in the Pentagon.
They just seem to be getting more and more arrogant. Thankfully, I don't use Frontpage, but I've never seen a license for a tool that says you can't criticize the makers of the tool !!!
It's like putting a "license" around the use of a hammer saying you can't build a sign that protests the hammer's maker.
Incredible !
Nobody said that, but on the other hand I don't think our main goal of existence is to impose Theocracies around the world, BTW.
Let's say he wasn't deliberately "lying", but to assume that the footage was wrong just because somebody posted it on indymedia.org who heard a professor said so in Brazil shows a pretty gullible mind.
You can mistrust CNN all you want, heck knows I have problems with them, but they are still a million times more credible than some unkown person posting on the internet offering zero proof.
... and it's a broken link.
a n/ fact/17may01.htm
The $43 million is in "humanitary aid" assistance;
http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/sasia/afgh
Fact Sheet: U.S. Increases Aid to Relieve Afghan Crisis
($43 million to include wheat, food, health care, shelter)
Of course this is not always true, for either terrorist or
I think they are weak because their suicide "Holy" Warrior culture is a from the Dark Ages and that because slitting throats of women in flights and crashing buildings won't do squat to help them in "whatever cause" they believe.
Even their faith is weak, since they don't do it because they "love" Allah, they do it because of the extra rewards promised to them in "heaven".
I see them as very similar to the frustrated Colombine shooters, who take lives in their own suicidal rages. But feel free to admire these monsters as you will.
Eliminating poverty in the Middle East ?
Now that's a good goal, but extremely hard and long term. Plus, we'd first have to eliminate poverty in our own country (if not continent).
However, even that wouldn't be the "magic bullet". Bin Laden is super rich, and I bet you the Taliban leadership is "rich" by Afghani standards.
Sure, these hypocrits are not the ones blowing themselves up, but they'll always find weaklings to brainwash and do their dirty work.
There's a documentary film called the Panama Deception you should watch. Essentially, the 'useless Panamanian Army' had captured Noriega and was waiting for promised US assistance (sealing a couple of roads and securing an airfield I think) which never came and they were overrun and killed.
I've seen it, but that is nothing, I lived through this thing. I used to protest while this same army , which YES WAS USELESS, pointed gun at us and the riot police would tear gas us all the time.
Like I said, the original posters position that the US got upset at Noriega because of the Canal is beyond absurd.
> I am totally ashamed of the behavior of the US in Panama.
I am totally ashamde of the bahavior of Panama in Panama. We let ourselves get overtaken by a dictator, and accepted (and it's still common practice) corruption in government.
It's not the US who came up with the phrase "Juega vivo !". Ask any Panamenian what that means.
A real long-term solution to the problem of terrorism will be to revise and rethink your foreign policy
I'm all for revising foreign policy, all the time, and all countries should do this, even the 3rd world country you claim to reside (I come from the so called 3rd world too).
But saying that that will discourage fanatical terrorist is a big mistake, as you'll always piss off one group with whatever decision you make !
In addition, there are some things in our policy that should not change, and you shouldn't give in to the terrorist demands. For example, Bin Laden advocates the overthrow of non Muslim governments and calls for their replacement with "just" Muslim ones.
I don't know about you, but I'm not about to be force converted and bow to a Taliban like religion.
So revision, yes. Change as a response to terrorist, heck no.