A Tale of Two Media:Tragedy and Images

Pearl Street, Lower Manhattan -- Tuesday morning definitely marked the passage from one time to another. The Information Age is defined by images, not e-mail, and your kids and others will be asking you all of your lives where you were when the plane crashed into the World Trade Center and burst into that orange fireball and the buildings fell down. I can't help but think that this was the day when computer animation became reality. One of the most striking things about this story is the marked evolution of two media -- online and off. Politicians and pundits own the second, individual humans the first. It was odd how cool and natural all of the reporters and anchors were. Everybody said they were shocked, but nobody seemed to be. There was a lot of grave talk about how things will change forever, but most of the coverage was curiously remote and detached. Thanks to some local cops and firemen from my town, I just got to within a couple blocks of what the volunteers call "Ground Zero" -- the shockingly small pile of rubble that is all that is left of two of the biggest buildings on the planet. It's the perfect place to write about how the media -- new and old -- handled this story.(more)

For me, the images down here will be the barges that chugged out of Battery Park carrying corpses bound for vast New Jersey morgues, the smoke and smell and noise, the gaunt and hollow-eyed looks of the cops and firemen digging desperately for their buddies with their bare hands, the relatives on their knees praying all over the place, the video of the couple jumping off one of the towers holding hands, crushed police cars and fire trucks, many with bodies inside, the distant figure on the water everybody said was the U.S.S. George Washington, an aircraft carrier sent to protect New York harbor, and the soldiers with machine guns that are guarding major roadways and airports.

Big stories like this now are covered two ways -- online and off. The former draws millions to websites like CNN's and USA Today's, and new kind of sites like this one. Bloggers and others put up sites so that people could describe what was happening in their own words. People in apartment complexes and news sites posted accounts, and looked for relatives and housing.

As interesting as the Net is -- some of the best and most graphic video of the tragedy was popping up all over the Web -- and as idiosyncratic, the dominant medium when stuff like this happens is still TV, by a wide margin. Hour by hour, TV culls and culls until it finds a handful of quickly familiar images burned into our national and global consciousness. In our time, somebody has a videocam aimed at everything all the time, and within minutes the pictures show up everywhere, on television and the Net. Almost nothing is our culture goes unrecorded or unobserved any longer. The immediacy was as astonishing as the images were unbelievable.

By nightfall, CNN, MSNBC and the networks were moving away from the dramatic video and the indescribable scenes of wreckage and carnage and calling in the policy wonks and propellerheads who hide out in Washington caves until something like this happens. The focal point of all the airtime then shifted from the devastation in New York to the parsing and analyzing of the political, governmental and intelligence communities. For future reference, that may be a good time to turn off the tube and get online, the medium of individual stories, feelings and experiences.

When things like this happen, TV, much more than the Net or the Web, reveals whether leaders rise or fall to the occasion. Mayor Guiliani of New York clearly rose to the tragedy. President Bush, sticking to his cautious sing-song monotone, fled to various bunkers and seemed to shrink throughout the day. Guiliani got bigger by the hour. Defying advice that he hide out until the shooting stopped, he rushed to the scene, was nearly killed, calmed the city down and took charge of the clean-up and rescue. Bush got on his best suit and stuck to the prompter. At least that was the image that TV brought of us of these two very different leaders.

If you love New York, your heart will break when the smoke clears. Something about the city is busted for good, no matter what the mayor says. The damage is not describable, and surely hasn't been captured on TV. There are dead firemen, cops and office workers all over the rubble, everybody is saying, and the dust is so thick even the cadaver dogs are getting sick. Five techs with thermal imaging probes were retreating uptown, their sensitive equipment almost useless in the mud (caused by water poured on the still-burning fires) and smoke and dirt.

The buzz from the cops and reporters standing around is that the death toll will be horrible -- between two and three thousand -- but nowhere near the much higher figures feared yesterday. It seems that many people did get out, calling wives and cops from their cell phones as they went, as did some of the doomed passengers on the hijacked planes. (And a number of the people buried under the towers are still calling for help on their cells. Others got calls from spouses and friends telling them to get out.)

Across the street, a group of structural engineers were reassuring reporters that the towers collapsed of their own structural weakness, the steel melting from the fires, the buildings designed to collapse inward -- rather than fall down -- to save lives.

With their usual hubris, reporters and politicians were promising us that everything was going to change. But if the attacks demonstrate nothing else, it is the folly of that kind of thinking. Terrorists change too, and for all the high-tech equipment pouring into Manhattan, sometimes there isn't a thing we can do to stop them.

Middle East Wire -- Interesting

The Middle East Wire [middleeastwire.com] is very interesting read. I've especially enjoyed their Commentary and Interviews [middleeastwire.com]. For example, here is one very good article...

Jordanian Perspective about Attacks on America
Middle East News Online
By Edna Yaghi for Middle East News Online
Posted Wednesday September 12, 2001 - 06:00:52 PM EDT

While Israeli bulldozers continue to destroy Palestinian homes in the Beit Hanina district of Arab East Jerusalem and while 2 Palestinians in Nablus were killed and 20 injured as Israeli tanks shelled a refugee camp in the West Bank city of Jenin, Tuesday, September 11, 2 hijacked planes cut through the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City and a third plane dove done into the Pentagon in Washington, D.C.

These attacks, the worst ever on the U.S. mainland in modern history, struck at the heart of the American people and paralyzed the entire nation.

Thousands of innocent people may have lost their lives in a most tragic way. Surely, no peace loving person can condone the killing of civilian people regardless of what race, nationality or creed they possess.

Yet, America's blind and unconditional support for Israeli atrocities and crimes against the Palestinian people, plus the ongoing American assault against the Iraqis was bound to boomerang sooner or later. It is, after all, American made weapons that demolish, bomb, cut down and shoot Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. American planes are the ones that also randomly bomb Iraqi civilian targets.

One people are no more human than any other. As Americans grieve for the loss of their loved ones, so do Palestinians grieve for the senseless deaths of their people and the same goes for the Iraqis as well.

For nearly a year, the Palestinian people have been under Israeli siege. Every day Palestinians die in their homes, going to school, going to work, trying to get through an Israeli checkpoint or on the streets where they are open targets for Israeli tanks and snipers.

Every day Iraqi babies die because of the sanctions. Every month the death toll of Iraqi children surpasses 5,000. And George Jr. has taken over the job of bombarding Iraqis by air to make sure that their misery continues.

For the first time in a long time, the American people experienced how it feels to be attacked. People ran in desperate fear through the streets of New York City. Some hid behind cars. Others could not escape death.

America will never be the same again. The attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon have proved that the greatest and only super power in the world is not invincible. No mater who is responsible for the attacks on America and not matter how viciously the Americans choose to retaliate, American foreign policy is what brought this all on. Perhaps this is the beginning of the decline of the great American Empire.

All good and bad things eventually come to an end. Americans should become aware of just how detrimental their foreign policy is and for a change, stand on the side of justice instead of supporting injustice all over the world.

Re:Middle East Wire -- Interesting

I agree with your criticism of the original post, Reality Master. And I would add an additional criticism: the terrorists have not stood up and said why they did what they did. So the original post that Reality Master replied to, and it's original article, are either guessing, or inferring, or else it was written by the terrorists. In which case, I suspect that the FBI will be knocking on slashdot's door pretty soon.

Since I don't believe that the article was written by the terrorists -- it certainly isn't portrayed that way -- I'm left thinking it's just guesswork, which I reject, or else they inferred it based upon current information. If that's the case, every person on slashdot is equally qualified to state why it was done, based upon current information. It's entirely up to each person's interpretation. And in that case, my interpretation is that these are terrorists, these are evil people who are willing to sacrifice innocent people. There is no higher cause at work here. They are petty, self-absorbed people who are willing to sacrifice and sell-out their own people and other innocent people for an unstated message that I would reject even if it were stated. I give no forum to murderers.

Re:Middle East Wire -- Interesting

First of all, Iraq gets tons of food and medical supplies, which are often intercepted by the military away from their own people

A UN inspection group found that well over 95% of the food and medical supplies were reaching Iraqi civilians directly. They reported it as one of the most effective humanitarian projects in history.

Second of all, maybe they forgot that Iraq invaded a sovereign nation in order to steal their oil.

American oil companies use U.S. military and political force to obtain their oil. They do it in secret, using the State Department and CIA, to escape justice. In most cases only money is required to grease the wheels, but on several occasions we've provided all but the soldiers.

Neither side is right. They both must be stopped. Don't try to claim that "they" are somehow more "evil" because they attacked civilians, for the U.S. does that as well. What happened is an atrocity, but at least most everyone killed in Tuesday's attack died instantly. Iraqi children have been starving to death by the thousands for well over a year.

The terrorists are probably hoping that this will result in the American public pressuring our government to change some particular action. I believe they are, unfortunately, just as wrong as our government in believing that the starving citizens of Iraq are going to suddenly revolt against their leadership.

Most Americans not only don't know what our government does, they don't want to. The majority believe they have no say in what the government does, so the last thing they want is to learn of U.S. atrocities. They don't want to feel any more guilt or responsibility. They pay their taxes, and that means they don't have to think about all the terror that money buys.

Re:Middle East Wire -- Interesting

Iraqi children have been starving to death by the thousands for well over a year.

Correction (amplification). The sanctions have been in place for over ten years. Children have been starving and dying of cancer at highly above-normal rates for much of that time. After the Gulf War conditions were pretty bad even to start with because of the destruction of basic infrastructure. Iraq has seen children playing in streets covered in raw sewage, emergency vehicles and hospital equipement lying idle for want of spare parts, patients treated with anaesthetic. This was a country that before the Gulf War had a high quality socialized healthcare system and relatively good living standards (due to oil exports, of course). The US has stood by and callously blocked the import of essential medicines, anaesthetics and spare parts. Make no mistake, the US government is fully aware of their complicity in the suffering and death of innocent Iraqi civilians.

Re:Middle East Wire -- Interesting

He didn't say that everybody died instantly. He said that most eferybody died instantly. I doubt that anybody in any of those planes lived as long as half a second into the impact. people who were trapped in the building when they collapsed ... well the buildings colapsed, for the most part in about 30 seconds. That's an average of 1/3 of a second per floor.. Most people probably had about a second or 2 between realizing that their floor was colapsing and being squashed.

When people say that acts like the kamikaze attacks of this week are a logical result of our lackadazical attitude towards the rights of the palestinians, this does not justify any of the killing -- On either side. To say that the killing is only OK as long as it is us who benefits from the killing doesn't work. Whoever holds the gun, the knife or (in this case) the yoke is always the us for whom the killing is OK.

Either you stand against the killing of civilians and non-combatants, or you put up with the death striking both sides -- with the weight of suffering going back and forth with the whims of fate. This week was our week to put up with the results of our allowing and even supporting the violation of human rights, and the killing of non-combatants.

Human rights either exist, or they don't exist. Either we fight for the respect rights and freedoms, or we abdicate our rights when the "them" whom it is OK to opress and even kill turns out to be us. There are always going to be times when it appears convenient to allow the violation of rights and the opression of innocents. We should remember, however, that few weapons care which hands they are in.

If we have not set a standard of respect and even reverence for the rights and lives of the conveniently opressed, we will have nothing to rely on when the weapon is suddenly in the hands of those who once seemed firmly in the sights of ourselves or our allies.

Re:Middle East Wire -- Interesting

First of all, Iraq gets tons of food and medical supplies, which are often intercepted by the military away from their own people.

You have swallowed US bullshit propaganda whole. Learn to be a bit more skeptical, damnit! I trust individuals like Halliday who have staked their careers on these allegations rather than the vicious US government. How many times do we have to say Don't believe government propaganda without question. If they were killing children they wouldn't admit it, would they?

Now to the facts at issue. Iraq does not get enough supplies. For a long time the UK, France, Russia, etc. have been pushing for better targeted sanctions - all of them acknowledged there was a humanitarian relief problem. The US has up to now maintained its hardline stance. More info and analysis acan be found at the excellent CASI site:

http://www.cam.ac.uk/societies/casi/index.html

Notable quotes:

"if the substantial reduction in child mortality throughout Iraq during the 1980s had continued through the 1990s, there would have been half a million fewer deaths of children under-five in the country as a whole during the eight year period 1991 to 1998" Unicef, 12 August 1999.

"We are in the process of destroying an entire society. It is as simple and terrifying as that. It is illegal and immoral." Denis Halliday, after resigning as first UN Assistant Secretary General and Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq, The Independent, 15 October 1998

Re:Middle East Wire -- Interesting

America will never be the same again. The attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon have proved that the greatest and only super power in the world is not invincible. No mater who is responsible for the attacks on America and not matter how viciously the Americans choose to retaliate, American foreign policy is what brought this all on. Perhaps this is the beginning of the decline of the great American Empire.

I really detest reading these editorials, where the author seems to be on the verge of celebration because innocent people have died in a country he doesn't like, or because now more people have experienced horror and death in the world than before.

Will this author be pleased when every man, woman, and child on this planet has felt terror and pain, rather than have the audacity to desire a free and happy life?

Innocent human lives do not go on opposite sides of a balance, with Americans or Israelis on one side, Palestinians on the other. Innocent human life knows no political boundaries. Innocent human lives are always just that: human lives. Or put another way, two wrongs don't make a right.

And I don't understand when people say this shows America is somehow weak. Don't they realize, we have several hundred millions of people, and 49 more states? The terrorists took two buildings, and several thousand innocent lives, and this will somehow topple America? Even without America, the world is full of people who will fight for the ideals of democracy and freedom and capitalism. We know it's not perfect, but there's nothing better.

We fought hard to get to the point where we don't have to experience death and suffering every day, and we will continue fighting for it, as any rational human being would do!

Re:Middle East Wire -- Interesting

Hmmm, that's not the way I interpret the point of the editorial. It seems to me the sentiment is a hope that the US will, because of a new awareness of its own vulnerability, no longer feel as free to cause suffering to innocents abroad as it historically has been. Anyway, apart from whether or not that's a reasonable hope, that's what I thought the author was focusing on, not a celebration in increased suffering overall.

Re:Middle East Wire -- Interesting

This is how I interpret the article, in a nutshell: Now you know how it feels, now, will you finally start to care about the oppression and violence that America and Israel are perpetrating in your name and with your dollars? How about waking up and caring about people outside the borders of your own country - and putting that caring into practice?

Re:Middle East Wire -- Interesting

This is exactly the point my wife (who is Polish) made to me (an American citizen) when we discussed the tragedy. I was shocked, but the European perspective (at least her and her friends) is that America has stood idly by while terrorism has gripped the rest of the world for so long. She went on to say that the same was true of WWII, in which we declined to participate until we ourselves were at risk.

Perhaps the United States has been accused of acting like the global police department, but only for our own ends. It appears we can no longer rely on our own media to bring us news from around the world, because they don't. If you watch BBC television or surf the world's news websites, you will see a greater picture than the AOL/Time Warner machine is presenting to the majority of Americans.

Maybe it is time we wake up and start acting like part of a global problem.

Re:Middle East Wire -- Interesting

1) WWII was essentially the second phase of a European Civil War, WWI being the first phase. In both cases, the U.S. kept out of it until attacks upon American interests forced their hand.

2) (one side of mouth) America has stood idly by while terrorism has gripped the rest of the world.
(other side of mouth) United States has been accused of acting like the global police department. Come on, say what you mean. Contradictory statements don't help your point.

Why should America hastily involve itself in every conflict and problem in the world? We run a free society based on liberal values, and thankfully we have avoided the dual curses of a politicized military and nationalism. I fear that with too great of an entanglement in the affairs of others we may degenerate into a nation that holds blood grudges against other nations, much like what you will find in Eastern Europe or the Middle East.

On one hand, many people complain that the terrorist actions were a result of too much US meddling in the affairs of others (going back to the cold war days). Now is your argument that we haven't meddled enough? And if we're not going to meddle for our own purposes, then what purposes should we be meddling for?

Re:Middle East Wire -- Interesting

"And if we're not going to meddle for our own purposes, then what purposes should we be meddling for?"

This is the crux of the matter. You present a false choice: that between "meddling" for our own personal interests, or not "meddling" at all; when in fact, that should not be the question. We should be *participating*. We should stop acting unilaterally. We should stop blessing this nation and condemning that nation and walking around with a big stick bullying everybody. We may be "number one" but that doesn't mean we should be an asshole about it and this shows that, yes, we aren't impervious, and yes, we can be brought the same fear and terror that other nations have to humbly cope with and cooperate with each other to solve. Regardless of what the mindless jingos keep chanting, this was not an attack on "democracy" or on "freedom" - this was an attack in retaliation for a long history of actions and behaviors that have generated lots of hate toward us. But everybody wants to wrap themselves in a flag and stand on some moral high ground. There are people just like you and me, just as human as any American, which have been the butt of our policies.

Re:Middle East Wire -- Interesting

This is insightful? Rather, I'd say it's symptomatic of the blind hatred for the US we see in many Muslem countries, regardless of what we may or may not do.

Why are there now areas within Israel where Palestinian Arabs are self-administered? Because of a US-mediated settlement between the PLO and Israel. Why are these areas now under "Israeli seige"? Because Palestinian terrorists, whom Arafat is either unwilling or unable to control, started blowing up Israeli civillians. Why did Israel take such a hard line against the Muslims within their borders in the first place? Does the year 1967 [israel-mfa.gov.il] remind anyone of anything? (Not the main cause perhaps, but a symptom of why Israel has valid reasons for doing what they do, by their own lights if nothing else.) Nor has US support for Israel in recent years been either blind or unconditional. We have repeatedly insisted that Israel back off on reprisals to Palestinian terror, often clearly to the detriment of Israel's own self-interest, in the hopes that this time, just maybe, the cycle of terror will be broken. The terrorist groups instead have shown absolutely no interest in peace, but continue to escalate their activities.

As Americans go, I'm a Palestinian sympathizer. I'm an Orthodox Christian [oca.org], within the same communion as the indigenous Christian Church in the Holy Land. Palestinian Christians suffer from all of the disadvantages of being Arabs in Israel even though they are not among the militants. I know very well that Palestinians have lived under conditions of oppression. But I'd have to be blind not to realize that the militant Palestinian factions brought most of it upon themselves and upon every other Palestinian, terrorist or not, Muslim or not, by their actions.

As far as Iraq goes, neither sanctions nor bombings would ever happen if Saddam Hussein would simply abide by the terms of the agreements he made at the end of the Gulf War. He would be able to end all sanctions tomorrow by doing so if only he hadn't proven repeatedly that his word can't be trusted for anything. I suppose the Jordanians don't much care that the reason the Gulf War happened in the first place was because of Saddam's sudden, unprovoked assault on a peaceful neighboring Muslim state. (And are 5,000 Iraqi babies really dying every day due to economic sanctions while Saddam rests comfortably in one of his many palaces? Even if it's true, how can it possibly be the fault of the US when Saddam clearly has the resources to deal with it, but chooses instead to spend them on militancy?)

Perhaps this is the beginning of the decline of the great American Empire.

They can but hope. I suppose it's useless to point out that the US doesn't really have an empire. If we did, our "client states" are the most unruly and disobedient of those of any empire in the history of the world. But I'm well read in world history, and I say that anyone who would provoke the US again ought to proceed with extreme caution. If the provocation is sufficient, the US just might be moved to create a genuine empire, if that's what it takes to make itself secure. Be very, very careful.

Re:Middle East Wire -- Interesting

The sad thing about all of this is that Iraq was one of the only Mideast countries that was trying to develop it's oil wealth into a real industrial base.

Basic economics says that transforming natural resources creates far more wealth than just selling it and shipping it off. To a certain degree, Iraq was trying to build a long-term society, unlike say the Saudis, who are planning ride back into the dunes and live in tents like they always had as soon as they've pumped their oil dry. Furthermore, the conventional wisdom is that a modern economy eventually develops a modern (open) government, and Iraq was closer to a modern economy than most of those places.

As Europe has proved many times, you can get the shit bombed out of you and still get back up on your feet. However, much of what existed of Iraq's modern enconomy (roads, bridges, water projects, rail, etc) was destroyed during the war, and the embargos prohibit imports of the equipment (such as machine tools) and material necessary to rebuild and get a normal economy going.

I'm not sure what we are trying to prove -- we are apparently starving them and leaving their economy in abject poverty in the hope that they will overthrow Saddam. But when the Kurds and others approached us for assistance after the war, we refused to help them...

What we really have is WWI all over again -- the Germans were 'punished' by having their industrial base stolen from them. People sympathetic to their plight let radical elements steal it back. The result was not pretty.

Israeli "atrocities"

I couldn't agree more.

In addition, I really do wonder what people mean when they refer to Israeli "atrocities." In most cases, the incidents refered to are the shootings that have left so many young Palistinian men dead. These deaths have nearly brought me to tears, but not for their injustice - for their stupidity. Think about the circumstances under which so many of them have been killed. If you initiate or participate in a riot and assalt police officers, you will probably get shot. It doesn't matter what country you are in, or what religion you are, or what ethnic group you belong to, or how rightous your cause might be. The Police will eventually have no choice but to shoot you. It sucks, but that is how you have to maintain order. Honestly, if you throw rocks and bottles at someone with an assault rifle, you are practically begging them to shoot you. If they eventually do, that doesn't make you a martyr, no matter what you might have been screaming at the time. It makes you an idiot.

What makes me sad about these deaths is not just that Palistinian children are being killed. What makes me sad is how the Palistinian community glorifies their deaths, and exploits the sadness that anyone would feel about such an event. Parents, role models and leaders all but beg their children to go out to Israeli checkpoints and get shot. Their lives are being manipulated and expended by a self-serving and cynical leaders. This is not exactly what I would call an "Israeli attrocity."

The other complaint that one hears about the most is the demolition of Palistinian homes, and the construction of additional settlements. I've never been in support of either of these actions. I think it's wrong to take away someone's home, even if they didn't have a permit to build it. Furthermore, I think it's unwise to settle territory in the way that Israel has chosen to given present circumstances. These are both probably mistakes. But again, people seem to forget what we're talking about here. Israel is 20,330 square kilometers. The state of Vermont is 23,957 square kilometers. Areas like the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights are comparable to in size to such places as Windhan county or Bellows Falls. Not to belittle the Great State of Vermont, but why on earth would people get so worked up about such tiny, insignificant dollops of land? It would be like going to war because the state wanted to move you from Bellows Falls to Brattleboro. It's utter foolishness.

It always seems to come down the the fact that there are all sorts of "holy sites" all over the place there. In my opinion, if these holy sites are really causing that much trouble, they ought to destroy them all, for all religions, and be done with it. No pile of rubble, no matter how mystical or aincent, is worth the blood that has been spilt. I'm sure that if Muhammad, Moses and Jesus all appeared as guests on CMM'sCrossfire, they would all agree that a holy site isn't worth a single human life. So, with respect to land and settlements, I beleive that Isreal has acted beligerantly and unwisely. But the Palestinians (or at least their leadership) has acted completly insane. When the whole country is small enough to drive across in a couple of hours, what does it matter if you live here or there? We should be hearing demands from the Palestinian side that sound more like this:

Well, if you're going to expect us to agree to live there, then you're going to have to agree to build and maintain a public transit system from here to there! We denamd a high speed rail line from Golan to Jeruselem! And keep in mind that that's out in the middle of the desert, so you're going to have to help us build water and sewage facilities! And, since it's so hot, you're going to have to subsidize the electricity, so we can run our air conditioners!

Instead, they are blowing themselves up on streetcorners and taking potshots at preschools. Not all of them, of course. But the critical thing is that this behavior is all but encouraged by their leadership, and was officially encouraged not too long ago. We have such people in the United States, but we go to lengths to discorage them from actually killing people, and when they do, we lock them up.

I happen to think that a lot of the things done by Israel have been mistakes. There have been times that I've been ashamed to call myself a Jew on acount of what Israel was doing at the time. But the fact is, Israel offered a final and permanant peace to Arafat, and Arafat turned it down. Israel allowed the United States to twist its arm until it yeilded to just about every demand made by the PLO. But Arafat decided to hold out for a better deal. Parez knowlingly sacrificed his leadership of the nation in an attempt to make this peace, and Arafat must have known that this would be his last shot at such a sweet deal. Up until that point, I was on the side of the Palistinians. I felt that they had been wronged, and although they behaved very, very poorly, they ought to be copmensated. But to respond to a peace offering by starting a war, and to do so with the blood of their own children is to betray the very name of Peace.

Arafat and the Palestinians wanted a war, and Israel has merely obliged them. It is exactly the same situation as the rock-throwers and the soldiers, only with whole nations. Israel (the soldier) might not be the most enlightened in its opinion of the rock-thrower (the Palestinians), but will reluctantly shoot when forced to. It sucks, but that's how you defend a nation.

Re:Middle East Wire -- Interesting

You seem to ignore that Israel is territory forcefully taken from the Palestinians. If I gave someone else your home, would you be happy living in a closet in the basement?

Remember, Palestine was a British colony, with both Jews and Arabs living there. The following was taken from the American Israeli Cooperative Enterprise Page on Myths and Facts of the Partition [us-israel.org].

MYTH
"Israel usurped all of Palestine in 1948."

FACT
Nearly 80 percent of what was the historic land of Palestine and the Jewish National Home, as defined by the League of Nations, was severed by the British in 1922 and allocated to what became Transjordan. Jewish settlement there was barred. The UN partitioned the remaining 20 percent of Palestine into two states. With Jordan's annexation of the West Bank in 1950, Arabs controlled approximately 80 percent of the territory of the Mandate, while the Jewish State held a bare 17.5 percent (Gaza, occupied by Egypt, was the remainder).

MYTH
"The Palestinian Arabs were never offered a state and therefore have been denied the right to self-determination."

FACT
The Peel Commission in 1937 concluded the only logical solution to resolving the contradictory aspirations of the Jews and Arabs was to partition Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states. The Arabs rejected the plan because it forced them to accept the creation of a Jewish state, and required some Palestinians to live under "Jewish domination." The Zionists opposed the Peel Plan's boundaries because they would have been confined to little more than a ghetto of 1,900 out of the 10,310 square miles remaining in Palestine. Nevertheless, the Zionists decided to negotiate with the British, while the Arabs refused to consider any compromises. Again, in 1939, the British White Paper called for the establishment of an Arab state in Palestine within 10 years, and for limiting Jewish immigration to no more than 75,000 over the following five years. Afterward, no one would be allowed in without the consent of the Arab population. Though the Arabs had been granted a concession on Jewish immigration, and been offered independence - the goal of Arab nationalists - they repudiated the White Paper. With partition, the Palestinians were given a state and the opportunity for self-determination. This too was rejected.

Re:Middle East Wire -- Interesting

I'm a canadian - and you embarass me. Here is an excellent statement made by Gordan Sinclair that sums things up. Yes the US *isn't* perfect..... but they do a hell of a lot more and put up with a hell of a lot more than anybody else out there......

TRIBUTE TO THE UNITED STATES
This, from a Canadian newspaper, is worth sharing.
America: The Good Neighbor.
Widespread but only partial news coverage was given recently to a remarkable editorial broadcast from Toronto by Gordon Sinclair, a Canadian television commentator.
What follows is the full text of his trenchant remarks as printed in the Congressional Record:
"This Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as the most generous and possibly the least appreciated people on all the earth. Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy were lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts. None of these countries is today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to the United States.
When France was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who propped it up, and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris. I was there. I saw it.
When earthquakes hit distant cities, it is the United States that hurries in to help. This spring, 59 American communities were flattened by tornadoes. Nobody helped.
The Marshall Plan and the Truman Policy pumped billions of dollars into discouraged countries. Now newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent, warmongering Americans.
I'd like to see just one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United States dollar build its own airplane. Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tri-Star, or the Douglas DC10? If so, why don't they fly them? Why do all the International lines except Russia fly American Planes?
Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or woman on the moon? You talk about Japanese technocracy, and you get radios. You talk about German technocracy, and you get automobiles.
You talk about American technocracy, and you find men on the moon- not once, but several times - and safely home again. You talk about scandals, and the Americans put theirs right in the store window for everybody to look at.
Even their draft-dodgers are not pursued and hounded. They are here on our streets, and most of them, unless they are breaking Canadian laws, are getting American dollars from ma and pa at home to spend here.
When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down through age, it was the Americans who rebuilt them. When the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke, nobody loaned them an old caboose. Both are still broke.
I can name you 5000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble. Can you name me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble? I don't think there was outside help even during the San Francisco earthquake.
Our neighbors have faced it alone, and I'm one Canadian who is damned tired of hearing them get kicked around. They will come out of this thing with their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled to thumb their nose at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles. I hope Canada is not one of those."

Stand proud, America!
Wear it proudly!!
Gordon Sinclair

Why? What motivated these terrorists?

When we go to prosecute a murder, we look
for intent. I find it funny that very
little media has given us a detailed
background of the history and possible
motivations of the terrorists. This was
obviously not a spur-of-the-moment thing.
It took determination, planning, willing
to give up one's life. I would like to see
less talk of War and more of Why.

In short, I've listened to CSPAN all day
today and yesterday. Lots of talk of
war, getting retribution, but no analysis
of what part we have played in this story.

Best,

Clark

the truth (was: re: what motivated....)

I find it funny that very

little media has given us a detailed
background of the history and possible
motivations of the terrorists.

Because if they were to do this, they would have to admit a number of things which would undermine the message they are trying to send, such as:

1. Osama bin Laden, the current prime scapegoat, was originally supported by the CIA to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. Most of bin Laden's associates, as well as the others associated with the Taliban regime, were trained and financed by the CIA.
2. If it was bin Laden, the bombing was in response to such things as: the bombing and sanctions against Iraq which may have killed clost to a million innocent civillians, the continued oppression of Palestinian civillians by Israel (recent death toll in the thousands, at least), and the destruction of a Sudanese pharmacutical plant by American cruise missiles, death toll unknown because a UN investigation was blocked by the US, but it was the primary source of vaccines and antibiotics for almost all of Central Africa, so it is possible the death toll is in the ten thousands. It would be difficult to acknowledge these things while at the same time clamoring for retribution against Afghanistan, Iraq, etc., because it would be clear that the attack on america itself was a similar act of desparate retribution.

But rather than explaining anything, the media seems more interested in rallying support for another middle eastern war, which will likely lead to further despicable terrorist attacks on america such as this one, AS WELL AS untold thousands of civillian deaths wherever the american government chooses to attack.

Oh yes, one more thing. The images of Palestinians celebrating in Israel you have seen on the news are most likely fake. In a manner of speaking, anyway. They are from 1991 and unrelated to anything going on currently.

Re:the truth (was: re: what motivated....)

Because if they were to do this, they would have to admit a number of things which would undermine the message they are trying to send,

The US Government doesn't have to "send a message". The American people, believe it or not, actually are angry all on their own because their lives have been disrupted, and they're tired of terrorism.

It really doesn't matter that the USA trained bin Laden, or who we've supported, or what we've done. None of that justifies the choice of targets, none of that justifies the WAY he chose to attack.

Re:the truth (was: re: what motivated....)

so the images of Palestinians celebrating are most likely fake? okay...

so if they're fake, why is Hanan Ashrawi, the Palestinian Authority Cabinet member, discussing them in a press conference?

"Hanan Ashrawi, Palestinian Authority Cabinet member, said the apparent celebrations in Ramallah in the West Bank were a minority reaction and focusing on them would be misleading, as far as Arab reaction to the attacks is concerned."

This in reference to this:

"As Palestinians celebrated in one West Bank town and in Lebanese refugee camps on Tuesday, their leader Yasser Arafat offered his sympathy to Americans and said the Palestinian authority was "completely shocked" by the string of attacks."

taken from here [cnn.com]

Please tell me that for your next act you're going to try to excuse the act of Jyhad as a natural response to the supposed oppression of the american government.

Cartago Delendo Est.

The enemy's greatest fear is that the prosperity of the West will seduce the generation after this one. That the memories of old blood feuds will fade when presented with McDonald's and computers and cheap cell phones. Every call they make to recruit is against the decadence of the West destroying their way of life.

After we punish the enemy with bombs, with bullets, we must salt the soil that the twisted tree of intolerance and fanaticism takes root in. We must change the hearts and minds of the young.

We salt them with small computers. With internet access. With a telephone in every village. With juvenile novels and encyclopedias translated into Arabic. With teachers who speak their language, and who teach them to use these tools to answer questions for themselves. Yes, some of those teachers will be killed. They are soldiers in this war as much as anyone who takes on a beret or a gun, and we can make martyrs of them for the world.

No tyrant can long survive with an informed and educated populace.

The organizations they declaim as the mouthpieces of the US shall be USED as the mouthpieces of the west. We tell their children that there is a life beyond substistence farming and blood feuds. We tell their wives and daughters that there is a life where they are valued as individuals and people in their own right, not as chattel.

We give them the tools of bilateral communication, rather than unilateral indoctrination. We give them the internet. We declare a great work, of making sure that every corner of this globe has access to fast internet access. Not just the US. Not just Europe. The world.

They will see pornography sites. They will also see sites discussing engineering, and simple improvements to agriculture. The curiousity of children will be piqued, and their questions answered. With each question asked, and each answer given, we slowly wean them away from the culture of intolerance.

They'll be able to ask questions without censure or censoring, and get answers they might not otherwise have.

I would sooner carpet bomb with game boys and Pokemon, and an Arabic translation of Monopoly, than FAEs and nuclear explosives. The adults are beyond our reach. The young MUST be reached so that 20 years from now, the thought of piloting a captured airliner into an office building full if innocent bystanders meets with universal horror.

I fear, in the haste for vengeance, that the nature of this conflict will be forgotten. Make no bones about it -- this is a culture war. It can only end with a declaration on the order of Cartago Delendo Est.

We cannot win this war with bombs or bullets, although we can accelerate its prosecution by those means. We can only win this war through a generational conflict; we must win the war in the hearts and minds of the children growing up in the Middle East now.

Winning that longer war will be costlier and less immediately gratifying than cluster bombs and Fuel Air Explosives, and "killing the bastards and everyone that helped them."

It can, however, be a profitable war.

If you are an author, or someone who creates media, contact your publisher about translating your works into Arabic. Someone in the DoD is in charge of outbound propaganda; we should find who that person is, and give them the munitions to win this war.

Bin-Ladin has declared this a culture war.

Let's show him what a culture war TRULY looks like. Let's send in Shakespeare. And Heinlein. And Harlequin Romances, Pokemon and The Simpsons.

Ken Burnside

reprinted without permission from jerrypournelle.com But Jerry won't mind.

cause and effect?

While I like your attitude a lot more than that of all those guys running around yelling bloody revenge, I have a couple of problems with your post:

To start off, who exactly do you refer to as "the enemy"? If I read you correctly, the whole of the Islamic/Arabic world. Sorry, sweeping overgeneralization.

What's even worse is the total disregard for cultures other than our own your post shows - there is nothing inherently better in modern Western culture than in traditional Islamic culture (which was, as can not be pointed out often enough, a haven of learning and tolerance for centuries during which European crusaders lined their way to the holy land with corpses). Sure, there are extremists, and there's not the slightest reason to defend them and their sick actions, but these extremists are by no means a majority, and they are by far not the only thing that makes up Islamic culture.

I have a gut feeling that this sort of (sorry) cultural chauvinism is at the heart of much of the terror we have been witnessing during recent years...

Re:hope you didn't breath in

According to Giuliani, at least, they've been repeatedly testing air quality and "as you get beyond the epicenter of the recovery site, the asbestos levels in the air are either safe or nonexistent."

Giuliani press conference [nytimes.com]. (NY Times; registration required.)

Re:hope you didn't breath in

The problem with Asbestos is that the only safe level of exposure is zero.

Actually, that's a myth. The reason so many thousands got sick from asbestos is because so many thousands breathed in lots and lots of it, over and over and over for years. Mainly people who worked in construction and installed it almost every day for years. Also shipyards (asbestos was widely used in ship construction, as you *really* don't want those catching fire) and the factories where the asbestos was made.

Check out the graph on this page [asbestos.org]. It shows the asbestos-related death rates for workers who were exposed to various levels of airborne asbestos every day of their working careers. Even then, the death rate varies widely (and almost linearly) with the asbestos levels experienced. At low levels (eg. .1 fiber/cc of air), the increased death rate is barely significant (3.2 deaths/1000).

Furthermore, asbestos exposure is a cumulative risk, very similar to the risks from smoking. Just as smoking 3 packs every day for a week won't kill you if you don't smoke again, even a relatively high asbestos exposure over a few days or weeks will not cause a significant occurance of disease. Or, as that link puts it, "Risk of asbestos related illness is Dose-Response related. That is, the greater the amount of exposure and the longer the time of exposure, the greater the risk of asbestos related cancers."

Assuming that Giuliani is telling the truth about the levels measured, there would appear to be little to worry about from asbestos here.

Worlds bigest towers

Not to be distastefull, but the bigest towers in the world are in malaysia. The Petronas Twin Towers (well known from the movie 'Entrapment' with sean connery and catherine zeta-jones). At 88 floors and 452 meters.

One & Two World trade measured in at 417 and 415 meters and 110 stories.

The Sears tower (443 meters, 110 stories) in chicago and the Jin Mao Building in Shanghai (420 meters, 88 stories) are also taller then the WTC's.

Anyways, non of it matters anyways.. just nit-picking.

Slightly off topic

Speaking of online media (in another sense) - I've heard reports in the past that claimed that Bin Laden steganographically hid data inside of images and postings on public message boards to communicate.

I was wondering how feasible it would be to create filters for Apache and/or IIS which would strip images of potential steganographic information. For instance, GIF images could be converted to JPG's and then back to GIF's before being served - this would probably eliminate hiding data in the LSB. (Obviously you'd have to do some caching) You could do similar things to other media, like WAV and MP3 files.

How hard is this? Could it be used to prevent use of public servers as repositories for steganographic media? Would it work? Would it be used widely enough to be effective?

Change forever - but not just in New York

NYC has never been my stomping, nor even my visiting ground. But for five hours I dreaded that my sister-in-law (who consults in E ring, west side, pentagon) was dead. She is alive, but the fear brought home the legacy of hatred.

The temptation is to bomb whoever did this back into the stone age. If we return senseless evil for senseless evil, we will sow a whirlwind for our grandchildren to reap. Let us respond deliberately, and in such a way that not one innocent person is harmed.

Let us respond by examining ourselves and our policies, but not by restricting our freedoms, or requesting that anyone's liberty be restricted. We need to light a candle for those who mourn, and for those lost. We must become a beacon of sanity, hope, and justice. Justice will be done, but let it not be done with an even greater measure of injustice.

Bush's response

Like most of us, I sometimes wonder if Katz's articles shouldn't just be modded "0, Troll" and ignored. The statement that George Bush "fled to various bunkers and seemed to shrink throughout the day" is rather disingenuous and short-sighted. Bush was evacuated by the Secret Service, doing exactly what they're trained to: get the President out of harm's way and into facilities where he can receive C4I (command, control, communications, computer, and intelligence) data and coordinate a response.

I live less than ten miles from Offutt Air Force Base here in Nebraska. None of us were surprised when it was announced that Mr. Bush was brought here after releasing his taped announcement at Barksdale AFB; the headquarters for US Strategic Command is here. Data from satellites, human intelligence assets, and news media could be easily collated and presented to the President by the staff in the "rabbit hole," the STRATCOM underground command post.

President Bush wasn't hiding or fleeing. He was doing his job: managing the country's business in the best possible manner. Just because the mayor of a city was brave and/or foolish enough to endanger his own life doesn't mean the President of a nation has that luxury. Losing so many thousands of individuals is terrible enough; having to attempt to manage that response and simultaneously transition power to a new President because the last one got himself killed is infinitely more so.

I didn't vote for President Bush, nor do I agree with all (or even a majority) of his other decisions. Nonetheless, to feel the need to criticize the man for doing his job is the mark of a small man indeed.

Re:Bush's response

The statement that George Bush "fled to various bunkers and seemed to shrink throughout the day" is rather disingenuous and short-sighted.

You're absolutely right on one point. It's not Bush's fault that he was shuttled all over the country.

I will say this, though. I've never truly understood the public function of the presidency. I've sometimes wondered why the nation so desperately needs a charismatic figure to line up behind, to the point where we elect criminals and people we don't entirely trust. But yesterday changed all of that. I saw the towers burning with my own eyes, and I was shaken up-- I didn't know if more was on the way, if I was safe where I was, what to do next. I wanted somebody to get on TV and say "this is a tragedy, but we've got things under control." Even though I've never liked Bush, I was glad that someone existed to fill that role.

It didn't bother me that Bush was in the air, I was glad that the Chief Executive was safe. And then he reached Louisiana and gave a speech, and it was devastating. I've never seen such a short, useless, unempathetic performance. He was reading off of a goddamn teleprompter, for chrissake! And he was reading poorly! I've seen fifth-grade plays that convey more emotion, confidence and skill.

Perhaps irrationally, I lost a lot of confidence in this nation at that point. The knowledge that Bush surrounds himself with intelligent people was not enough to reassure me; I wanted to know that we have a president who cares. I didn't expect him to shed tears-- I just wanted some emotion, be it anger, sadness, grief, anything. I also wanted something more substantial. Perhaps this last could have been attributed to lack of time... But when he reached the White House and for the rest of the day, we got little more; better reading skills, perhaps. But nothing to convince me that the guy cared.

I understand that Bush is a busy man, but we needed somebody to be there. There isn't a president we've elected in the last 20 years who couldn't have handled that situation. Why couldn't Bush?

His wife, on the other hand, was extraordinary on TV this morning. Not to mention Guiliani, who could for all intents and purposes have been the president.

Amazing perspective

JonKat's article really drives home something that had been hovering around my mind while I dove deeper into the web and farther and farther away from the TV.

They say that Vietnam was the TV war. The event so saturated by the media that interpreted it that the event itself was changed. The Gulf War might be considered the highest incarnation of event Television -- characterized by just the elements JK mentions. Hyper focused images extracting as much pathos as possible from the event. Tight messages. Repetition. Analysis. Hyperbole without connection.

It seems that perhaps september 11th is the first Interactive war. The impact of cell phones accross the event is astounding. The role of Internet as events unfolded is equally impacting. The tenor of coverage provided by the Net has been throughally, radically, different from the TV coverage.

As much as things will change because of this event, I am struck when considering how this event shows how much already has changed

Is this Katz?

My God, Katz, is this you? This is a well-done article, I think. You made good sense, you made good points, you even sounded reasonable. I guess something has changed.

The change has already happened

The FAA security increases are irrelevant.

The real security increases took place at internet speed, within the first half hour after the first plane hit. Passengers on that plane used cell phones to let the world know they had been hijacked. The news media let the world know that hijacked planes were being used as weapons. Callers from the fourth plane got their cultural norm updated when they called out on their cell phones. They recomputed the risks and benefits of

A) 30+ people attacking five hijackers armed with knifes, vs.

B) sitting quietly while the plane is crashed at high speed into a large object.

Because they were a little late getting this news, they were unable to regain control of the plane when they attacked the hijackers, but they thwarted its use as a weapon. Within twenty four hours the news had spread: if someone with a knife starts to hijack a plane you are on, jump them-- kick them, bite them, knee them in the holy land. Do whatever it takes, because even though you might get hurt, or killed, your odds are a lot better than if you let them get control of the plane.

The real lesson here is that, when attacking a wired society, you'd darn well better coordinate your attacks, because within a blindingly short time the society will have learned and that trick won't work anymore.

-- MarkusQ

Re:The change has already happened

You actually have many more weapons than you realize with you on most planes, however, please be aware that not all the terrorists may have stood up and made themselves known. With 5 terrorists on one plane, perhaps two stand up, leaving three others "in the back" to grab you or kill you if you stand up to hit one of the "lead two" in the back of the head or something. They may not have ever made themselves known at all to the passengers.

That being said, back to weapons:

As a business traveler, I carry quite an array of gadgets with me, and since I have some pretty detailed training, I know how to use these for more than their conventional use. Let's itemize them:

1. A laptop. Closed and hurled like a frisbee at a hijacker in the row, they have two basic options (among some others) when seeing an 8lb Thinkpad coming at their head. 1.) Duck into a row. This provides you with a huge advantage as a passenger, since you can now run up to that row and block his exit. Others can then come over the seats and subdue him. 2.) Take the hit, and that's gonna hurt like a bastard. 3.) You could dodge the laptop, but you still have been toppled by the surprise. Similarly, your "corded" mouse can work very well as a "whip" if hurled at the attacker mouse-first. Remember to wrap the connector end around your hand once first, lest you just let it whip off at them without a controlling end for yourself.
2. Magazines. If anyone has ever thrown a magazine spine first "hatchet style", you know that it will travel quite fast and far before spreading out and fluttering open like a bird. Enough of these hurled at the hijackers will certainly distract them enough to miss the fact that you were running right up behind the magazines to kick them in the side of the hip, breaking their hip and spine. Any sane person not on some sort of chemical additive (PCP, lsd) will instinctively throw up their arms to block the "thing" coming at them. A fluttering thing has an ever-changing shape and size, making it hard to target and effectively block.
3. A seat cushion, someone already mentioned this.
4. Soda and soda cans (thrown or a mouthful of soda appropriately spit can easily distract the attacker with both noise and soda itself), pagers, cell phones, Palm: projectiles, easily weilded and very effective. Go for the thigs and shins on this one. You don't want to take a lightweight item like this and aim for the head (easy to dodge) and not for the torso (no pain, no impact)
5. A belt. You'd be surprised how effective a belt can be against a knife-weilding attacker. 1.) it keeps you beyond arms length of the knife holding person, and if you snap out buckle first, you have quite a lethal bolo on your hands. 2.) you can use it as a noose, tripping them in the aisle, or as a strangling agent, jumping into them from behind (always with one knee up for the middle of the back hit) and take them down by the throat.
6. Blankets and pillow cases: very very effective distractive weapons. You can use these to misdirect the attacker, blind him, smother him, or like in the locker rooms in gym class back in high school, twirl into a rope and snap out at them, aim for the eyes and throat with this one. It's amazingly effective to collapse a trachea with one careful blow of a "corded" blanket twirled in such a fashion.
7. Overhead baggage compartments: Open those suckers up and fill the aisle with baggage between you and the attacker. They will have to hop over them or move them out of the way, you gain a few prescious seconds of time that other passengers can then use to help you subdue the attacker.

These hijackers had one weapon, not the knives, not the razors, but fear. Once people muster the confidence to believe they will survive, the fear is erased. Picture this:

[hijacker] "I take this plane in the name of..."

[passenger] "Shut the hell up, you don't scare anyone. If you don't sit the hell down, I'm going to ram that freaking Koran down your throat!"

This does a few key things, 1.) offbalances the attacker's advantage of fear, control, and 2.) makes them look like a complete idiot, and 3.) since you cut them off mid-sentence, shows you have no respect for them, and don't fear them. This is very important when dealing with people like this. You want to get them angry, because it is next to impossible to make clear, well-thought-out decisions when you're angry, enraged. Here's another alternative:

[hijacker] "I take this plane in the name of..."

[passenger] (stands up and charges the attacker)

Again, don't let them finish their sentence. Let them feel the fear themselves.

Now that these things are public, people are talking, and in talking, comes out good ideas. People, the American people, will not stand for this any longer. We are wired, we are angry, and we are strong. And some of us are highly trained, and you don't want to be on the other end of my anger should I be on a plane when someone decides they want to crash it into a building without my approval.

They're going to have to resort to using new techniques now, possibly with uglier results.

This was a difficult, professional attack that took elite personnel; something entirely different from the regular street crime our police face every day. They successfully hijacked four commercial passenger aircraft in one day, without a single failed attempt. They bypassed some of the toughest security civilians are subject to. The calibre of terrorist that must have done this will be unfettered by attempts to control gun ownership, internet usage, cryptography or many other laws. Let's hope this doesn't "accidentally" force us into a police state.

You are wrong on Bush

It may have appeared that he was shirking away, but from what I understand is that when he first heard the in Florida he requested to be flown to NY to be there directly and immediately. The secret service had a clear understanding that they had to first protect him from any and all danger and flew him to the nearest secure area (Louisiana). From there the secret service took him to an even more secure area (SAC in Nebraska). Finally letting him fly to DC once things were secured. There's just no pleasing people these days, if he would have flown directly to NY, you'd probably have called him a fool and putting the leader of the US in undue jeopardy.

The only thing I wish I had seen more of was a bit more fire in his eyes, an almost WWF Smackdown, we're going to get you look for lack of better words; but of course that would probably not be appropriate for the situation (actually whoever did this would probably just enjoy seeing it).

Now is not the time Mr. Katz to forward your personal political agenda.

Deer in headlights (Was: You are wrong on Bush)

When Bush was on TV, all I saw was a deer in the headlights, a small scared child reading off of a teleprompter. He did not inspire confidence. He did not speak from his heart; he read what his speechwriter wrote for him. I did not feel he was up to the task of dealing with such important tasks.

On the other hand, Colin Powell kicked ass during his numerous apperances. And this really is the thing that comforts me; Bush really does have a great set of advisors and a great cabinet.

Bush leads a group of great men; unfortunately, Bush himself is not a great leader of men.

Not really designed to do that...

Across the street, a group of structural engineers were reassuring reporters that the towers collapsed of their own structural weakness, the steel melting from the fires, the buildings designed to collapse inward -- rather than fall down -- to save lives.

I'd like to take issue with this statement, as this phenomena is largely due to design quirks that were a part of a questionable plan to increase floor space in the building. See more information on it in this discussion [cryptome.org] that was held over at Cryptome.org.

Journalists have a certain Dualism

Journalists are (for the most part) human, and don't want to see other humans hurt or killed. They feel emotions, they feel pain, they cry. They throw up the morning after watching several thousand people die before their eyes.

On the other hand, tragedies like this are what make their careers. This is big news. This is how they make all their money. As human as they are, there's something inside of them just hoping something bad will happen to cover. Even worse, sometimes they wish bad situations turn even more horrific...

Even though I'm not a journalist, I can feel this pull. Half of us wants people to be safe, the other half wants to see something spectacular.

What a horrible, contradictory dualism we humans have,
F-bacher

It falls to us

First: I would urge everyone to be very aware that not everything we read, regardless of source or attribution, is as it seems. We MUST act with reason and common sense, checking to make sure misinformation isn't used to compound these heinous acts. These bastards want to destroy us, Americans and all of the civilized people of the World, we must not allow it. As we have seen the civilized leaders of the world, even those with whom we have serious political differences, pledge to join us in what must be a massive fight against all those who would seek to destroy civilization and we must hold them to it.

We have already seen extremist from the left and the right, within and without, attempt to advance their "cause" on the back of this tragedy. Surely just as horrendous a crime as the act itself. These extremists must also be dealt with.

I am certain good will prevail over evil.

Second: Tuesday we were all made combatants in this War, we must support our military response. And, perhaps more importantly, all of us must defend the world economy. Remember that it is completely in our hands and minds. Consider Monday the bottom of the economic downturn. Invest prudently, but invest. Buy wisely, but buy. And be vigilant of those who try to gouge or otherwise unfairly profit from this.

Third: I'm a first generation American. My parents were driven from Iran by this same Islamic filth (I'm sorry but I can't help but be prejudice, and feel hate for them all. All I can do is try not to act on it). Deep within me is a hatred of that religion, all religion. They killed more than half of all the people my family knew and loved, stole all they had worked for and filled their lives with pain and terror. Even before the "fundamentalists" took over, my family (Zoroastrian and Catholics) and many others were persecuted for their faith, the cloths they wore, the food they ate (they kill people for drinking wine or eating ham ). I say these things not to spread my hate, It's my burden to bear and I don't wish it on my worst enemy. I say it so I can point out that although I'm filled with hate for ALL muslims and all Gods, my parents are not and didn't teach it to me. They know and love a lot of muslims, muslims helped them flee certain death. But those muslims were secular, they acted in the name of humanity not in the name of Allah. Beware of ANYONE who presumes to act or speak in the name of any god. I understand that some people feel they need faith in gods to be good people , and I try to be respectful when I can but it has gone too far for too long.

Lastly: To all those like me who owe their very existence to this great nation, it's our turn. Half a century ago the descendants of european immigrants went by the tens thousands to the homeland of their ancestors to rid the earth of a great evil. We must do the same, the battles will be fought differently but in the end we too shall prevail. I have great faith in America and the civilized people of the world. This is not a time to wave the flag, it is a time to display it proudly and put all our efforts into the task at hand. Victory at any cost.

By the numbers

I agree with much of your post. But you lost me with:
I'm a first generation American. My parents were driven from Iran by this same Islamic filth (I'm sorry but I can't help but be prejudice, and feel hate for them all...Half a century ago the descendants of european immigrants went by the tens thousands to the homeland of their ancestors to rid the earth of a great evil. We must do the same, the battles will be fought differently but in the end we too shall prevail...Victory at any cost.

I appreciate your patriotism, but (IMHO) that isn't how America works. Here is my position, as posted earlier today on another site.

By The Numbers (a cross post)

2001 will doubtlessly go down in history as a year when thousands of Americans died because some people felt so strongly about their way of life that they were willing to die rather than change, and were willing to kill countless innocent bystanders in the process.

Except of course that "countless" is absolutely the wrong word to use here. One of the many things that Americans do quite well is count things--everything from hanging chad to corpses gets tallied and tabulated here. So we will in fact have concrete numbers to think about, eventually. Even before the year is out we will have good estimates to start thinking rationally about--thinking being another thing Americans are quite good at. We will know not only how many people they killed, but who they were and why they did it.

Drunk drivers, for instance, are expected to kill around 16000 people this year, give or take a few depending on how jolly the holidays turn out to be. While this is a horrid toll, it is quite a bit better than the 27000 or so that smokers will take out with second hand smoke--both because there are fewer of them, and because most victims of drunken drivers are spared the painful, lingering death of the smoker's victim. These are just two examples, falling between the somewhat larger numbers killed by (say) reckless driving in general and the slightly smaller numbers taken out (for example) by terrorists. But we'll count them all.

Terrible, surely. As Americans we can hardly hear numbers like this without asking ourselves the next question: what are we going to do about this?

Some countries have systems in place to deal with these sorts of problems quickly and effectively. Drink alcohol? We'll chop off your head. That certainly solves the problem of repeat offenders, and there is reason to believe that it acts as an effective deterrent. We, of course, aren't so direct. When an individual can be tied to a crime (say, a drunk driver) we deal with their behavior on a case by case basis. But whether a perpetrator can be found or not, we react like--well, like Americans. There really isn't another word for it. We install air bags, we segregate public places into smoking and non-smoking areas, we take myriad small steps to reduce the risks, to mitigate the damage, to solve the problem. We study it. We seek cures and explanations, predictive indicators and systematic risk factors. We debate. We argue. And above all, we seek to educate.

Some may call us wimps, others may call us civilized. In the long run, it doesn't really matter what they call us, because in the long run our system is phenomenally effective. Our wheels may grind slowly, but like the mill of justice they grind exceedingly fine.

True, there are always those who preach the extremes. Anyone with a radio can hear them--just fiddle with the dial until you find a station that's all talk (and I am thankful, little action). Or hop on the internet. Smokers should be doused with gasoline. Drunk drivers are doing us a service by culling those people too weak or stupid to get out of their way. We should use our military might to turn foreign countries into parking lots. All the fags should be sent to Haiti. Everyone should be required to smoke for a year, so they'll see how hard it is to quit. Drunk drivers were sent here by Satin. We should embrace Allah. Nuke them from orbit. Kill them all, let God sort 'em out. Everyone is gay, but most people haven't admitted it yet. The Blacks are behind this. Or the Jews. Or the Californians. Elvis is stalking me. Etc, etc.

The great thing about America is that we don't shut these people up. We don't have them shot, or locked away for decades. We don't even ignore them, really, although most of us don't act on their advice. Instead, we react to them like Americans always react to things. They get counted, along with the chad, along with the casualties, and their voices are weighed in when we consider our options, ground in the mill of public policy.

Which, as has been noted, grinds exceedingly fine.

-- MarkusQ

Is Carnivore our friend now?

It has been said the the government will be investigating suspicious cell phones calls made during yesterday's events in hopes of finding a conversation between terrorists. This is the first time Carnivore is being used in a well publicized situation - and despite my desire for the protection of free speach, I can't bring myself to flame the government for using it under these circumstances. Is Carnivore now our friend? What distinguishes when it should and should not be used?

cell phones

The last few times I've flown, I've been told that all cell phones must be turned off for the duration of the flight. I assumed that this was because they would interfere with cockpit communications. And now news reports are often talking about the cell phone calls made from airplanes during the hijackings. What gives?

Re:cell phones

Actually, on at least one plane (the one that went into the Pentagon), the terrorists herded the people into the back of the plane and asked them to call their relatives and tell them they were going to die. That's what Barbara Olsen (I think that's her name) told her husband before the plane crashed with her on board.

most ridiculous article ever

The whole fucking point of this article seems to be to criticize President Bush and the media. How utterly ridiculous.

I did not vote for Bush, nor do I agree with all his decisions, but this kind of bullshit article is entirely inappropriate during such a time of crisis. President Bush was being moved around by the secret service, it appeared the whitehouse was a possible target, should he have gone back to the whitehouse to be killed? No, he should stay the fuck out of Washington until the immediate danger is over, he can run the country from anywhere anyway!

Then you criticize the media as appearing distant, etc. I saw the whole thing on live television, when the second plance crashed into the second building, the reporters, camera man, and everyone else in the stupio screamed and started shouting. Some of the news networks STILL haven't run ANY commercials, the same reporters have been reporting for 2 days straight with almost no break, eyes are puffy, speach is slow, and they've put all their partisan political leanings aside and have simply tried to report on the fucking news, which is more than I can say for you!

Fucking ridiculous, and fucking inappropriate, please, Katz, STFU!

Katz, what are you saying!

...It was odd how cool and natural all of the reporters and anchors were. Everybody said they were shocked, but nobody seemed to be.

...President Bush, sticking to his cautious sing-song monotone, fled to various bunkers and seemed to shrink throughout the day.

Katz, this simply wasn't true. There were several news anchors and people around them full of real emotion, on the verge of tears. For instance Ashleigh Banfield [msnbc.com] on MSNBC (an incredible woman and anchor who should get a friggin' medal for her work), at the beginning of the terror she was almost crying and could barely speak.

And GW, bless his heart, was almost crying today too. For once, I felt like he was really my president.

There was a lot of reality on TV for once. Too much.

The Net shall never replace the TV

If ever there could be a clear demonstration of the immense power of the television as a medium, this was it. What CNN and BBC effectively did was to invoke a sense of overwhelming shock and "unbounded" compassion for the distraught. Add to this the portrayal of emotion from the reporters. It gives the watcher a sense of communion. He feels he is part of that tragedy, however remote he may have been. This can never be duplicated on the Net, simply because, and pardon the cliche, the human angle doesn't exist.

perhaps this will help

In these days after the attack, i've seen many who thirst for blood. I can understand the need to strike back blindly in rage and anger.

Thankfully i didnt know anyone who died, and I send condolences to those who did. The world trade center has been a part of NYC for as long as I can remember it shakes my sense of permenance to think of it gone. it is one of those things that is always there.

..was. the past tense still doesnt come easily.

I dont think that blood pays for blood. I am saddened
by the events last tuesday, and i am saddened by the events which I am sure to come.

It is a strange feeling to mourn for humanity. To feel that the human race has gone mad.

Perhaps it may help those who are angry to view this webpage. It might remind us all what makes us great.

http://spinster.org/~david [spinster.org]

Many might think that this is too lenient a stance. That it is giving in to terrorism. But let us remember the words of JFK, words which very well have prevented WWIII.

"Let no one see an offer to negotiate as a sign of weakness, Let no one fear to negotiate, nor negotiate out of fear.."
just some thoughts.

Black September, 4 planes hijacking at once

Remembrances of history:

1968, El Al 707 [crimelibrary.com] was hijacked to Algiers. After a month, Israel cut a deal to exchange the hostages for Palestinian prisoners.

September 6, 1970, the PFLP (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine) organized the attempted "simultaneous hijacking of four airliners bound for New York" [crimelibrary.com]. On one of the targetted planes, an El Al flight, the pilot put the plane into a nosedive, an armed air marshall shot dead hijacker Patrick Arguello, and the leader of the hijacking Leila Khaled "was overpowered by male passengers and savagely beaten". When the plane arrived at London, Khaled was taken into British custody. However two successfully hijacked airplanes had been diverted to Jordan at a former British airfield, Dawson's Field. The PFLP also successfully hijacked a fifth plane to bring their total to hundreds of hostages, dozens of them British. What followed were dramatic secret negotiations [bbc.co.uk] between the PFLP, Jordan, Britain, the United States, and Israel, some of whose details are now known because of a British law requiring release of documents after 30 years. A deal was struck to exchange Khaled and other Palestinians for the hostages. The PFLP had won again. Or had it?

King Hussein proceeded to launch a war which drove out the armed Palestinian groups he had formerly welcomed on his soil. This war was what came to be reviled by the Palestinians as Black September.

On the other hand, Leila Khaled has claimed "The success in the tactics of the hijacking and imposing our demands and succeeding in having our demands implemented gave us the courage and the confidence to go ahead with our struggle."

When to turn off the tube

By nightfall, CNN, MSNBC and the networks were moving away from the dramatic video and the indescribable scenes of wreckage and carnage and calling in the policy wonks and propellerheads who hide out in Washington caves until something like this happens. The focal point of all the airtime then shifted from the devastation in New York to the parsing and analyzing of the political, governmental and intelligence communities. For future reference, that may be a good time to turn off the tube and get online, the medium of individual stories, feelings and experiences.

On the one hand, I agree with Katz. When the talking heads start spouting, it's time to move on.

But then, when Katz starts spouting silliness like this...

President Bush, sticking to his cautious sing-song monotone, fled to various bunkers and seemed to shrink throughout the day.

...I know it's time to get off the 'net as well, and move on with life.

Katz: Perfect Example of a Biased "Journalist"

Predictably, Jon continues to grind his new media vs. old media 'axe'. However, there's a new twist: in this case, at least, he admits that the old media has an impact that the new hasn't significantly blunted.

Typically, Katz frames the argument about the relative benefits of both old and new media outlets in terms of politicians/pundits vs. the man on the street. Presumeably, the Politicians and Pundits cannot present news sans bias, yet the man on the street can. His position has always struck me as simplistic and puzzling. I could give a damn about the media outlet type...the question is whether or not the outlet reports the news accurately, fairly, and professionaly. Katz himself is a perfect example of the "Man on the Street" that reports with bias. PBS's Newshour is a perfect example of "Old Media" that gets it right (see below). Dan Rather and the newsroom that he runs is an example of "Old Media" that shows regular bias despite their protestations to the contrary.

The sad fact is that Jon's brand of 'reporting' is a good example of one of the reasons that the "New Media" continues to lag behind the old. I've read his pieces off and on since 'Wired' and his bias and, frankly, immaturity, are often on display.

Furthermore, it's obvious that Jon frequently heeds his own call to "turn off the tube and get online, the medium of individual stories, feelings and experiences". He often has a poor grasp of facts, political realities, and the world in general. His slanderous use of the phrase "fled to various bunkers" to describe the President's activities after the incident is evidence that Jon has little understanding of the facts surrounding events nor the tremendous repercussions should the President have been killed. The destruction of the World Trade Center was a tremendous blow struck against US, and world, economics. The destruction of the President, (not George W Bush the man, mind you, whom it's obvious that Katz despises, but rather the President of the United States) would have been a tremendous blow against the US government. The combination of the two blows would result in chaos for this country, and the world. Katz's statement is silly, petty, and poorly thought out for so many reasons, too many to describe here. I'm not surprised by them, though: it's typical of him.

The "cool and natural" demeanor of Reporters that Jon calls "odd" I call refreshing and professional. I don't want a reporter sobbing, dazed, shocked, exhausted, angry, etc. I take it for granted that even the most hardboiled reporter is genuinely moved by recent events and, if they're capable of containing their emotions while doing their job, they're to be congratulated.

Anecdotes are nice and occasionally important. However, hard facts are what makes news, IMHO, and I want those facts presented rationally and dispassionately. I enjoyed Jon's first piece about the tragedy but I certainly wouldn't describe it as journalism: I was genuinely moved when he mentioned that he fell to his knees and prayed. However, that's anecdotal. Ultimately, I want facts, not emotions.

On-Line reporting, at least reporting unconnected with "Old Media" has a long way to go and attitudes like Katz's are at least in part to blame. Katz has crowed for years about the impending demise of "Old Media" and now, in today's piece, he's admitted that "old Media" still reigns supreme. I was surprised to see Katz admit that much: I'll be even more surprised when he admits that his brand of "reporting" is one of the reasons why "On-Line" journalism still eats the "Tube's" dust.

Replace Katz and his ilk with the On Line equivalent of Walter Cronkite, Robin McNeil, or Jim Lehrer, and things might change. Until then I'll still rely heavily on the "Tube" for news.

Now it's time to plug my favorite news program: PBS's "NewsHour". If you:

1. take News seriously and

2. despise the "O'Reilly Factor" method of news reporting

then do yourself a big favor and watch the NewsHour tomorrow afternoon.

The future of New York

If you love New York, your heart will break when the smoke clears. Something about the city is busted for good, no matter what the mayor says.

One has only to think of London under the blitz [historyplace.com] or the San Francisco earthquake [berkeley.edu] to know that great cities can recover from great disasters.

According to seminal urbanologist Jane Jacobs [radio.cbc.ca], cities are inherently resilient to catastrophe. More damage is done by misguided urban planning.

The World Trade Center, as its name suggests, serves a national and international market. The demand for the products and services that the companies in the World Trade Tower provided is still there. Compared to the damage [greenpeace.org] caused by hurricanes in Florida, the cost to rebuild is manageable.

If New York could thrive despite a crime rate [nyc.ny.us] that killed many more people than the terrorist over the last 10 years, it can survive this single event.

I suspect that the most lasting effect is that architects will reconsider the need for 110 storey buildings.

CNN Manipulating the Population?

I would not know if that is true or not, but according to this site, they passed 1991 footage showing the palestinians dancing.

Anyone with better info can deny/confirm this ?

The Story is here [indymedia.org]

David

Time of day issue

According to a poster at the site there are some "issues" with the time of day portrayed:

sunset in israel was at 6:50pm on the 11th. israel is 7 hours ahead of EST.

if the video was taken around 11[am] our time (which seems to be just about the right time). that would make it 6 pm their time

and thus... sunset....

NOT around 3pm as some of the videos show.

So, either CNN knows how to defy Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion.....

Or they reused at least *some* old footage.

Israel, Munich, "Wrath of God"

The United States is facing a difficulty decision in how to strike back. After the Munich Olympics, Israel faced a similar decision. I think everyone should read Alexander B. Calahan's Master of Military Studies thesis "COUNTERING TERRORISM: THE ISRAELI RESPONSE TO THE 1972 MUNICH OLYMPIC MASSACRE AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF INDEPENDENT COVERT ACTION TEAMS". This document is available from among other places the Federation of American Scientists website [fas.org].

Golda Meir's decision was for Israel to resort to assassination of those responsible for organizing and carrying out the attack, an operation later referred to be the media as the "Wrath of God". Calahan concludes that method which worked was for Mossad to cut loose from bureaucratic restrictions a mostly independent operating team organized similar to current US special forces. This team was given a list of potential targets, a directive to not harm innocents, and autonomy to go hunting.

I am concerned that it would be simply impossible for any current United States government to authorize similar autonomy despite the necessity of success.

One key difference between then and today is that today's targets might be less inclined to be in Europe, an area in which it was relatively easier for the Israeli assassination teams to operate in than say Afghanistan or Pakistan for Americans. Calahan's thesis also mentions an operation where the proximity of Israel to Lebanon enabled a massive force of dozens of Israeli commandos to kill three major targets and about a hundred Palestinian guerillas.

In another disturbing article The Atlantic Monthly raises the issue of whether the unwillingness and/or inability [theatlantic.com] of United States intelligence agencies to conduct longterm missions to penetrate local populations in areas such as Afghanistan might make any effective action against Osama Bin Laden's organization impossible. The United States doesn't even train agents in the local languages let alone assign agents to become experts specializing in a country.

The US does not randomly bomb Iraq

This kind of blatant misinformation is exactly what we need to guard against. It's an old trick, take the facts and distort them subtly to completely misrepresent reality. The US and other allies regularly bomb Iraqi military targets, they bomb Radar installations and command and control infrastructure Iraq uses to direct missile attacks on overflying jets. Your loyalties are betrayed by the bare faced lies in the text of the article you are promulgating. There are thousands of innocent civilians dead in America and Palestinians are dancing in the street. There is a clear distinctions to be drawn between right and wrong here. The Palestinians and other Arabs have been hell bent on the destruction of Israel as a state, they tried to destroy Israel and failed, now they want Israel to forget all that and concede the territory they were attacked from back to their attackers and just HOPE that the Arabs will be nice enough to not try the same thing again. Moreover they want the parts of Jerusalem originally offered when they collectively walked out of the UN decades ago and embarked on their antisemitic crusade. In the mean time just to underscore how insane that policy would be for Israel, Palestinian terrorists rocket and suicide bomb civilian targets while hiding in civilian centers like the refugee camps. Your two faced lies don't withstand scrutiny. The only deliberate and targeted murder of civilians is the terrorist attacks and we're all doomed if we forget that and listen to the lies and doublethink from the groups who condone murder. I no longer give a damn about Palestinians or their cause. Enough is enough, you can gloat over the death of innocent lives but that's the same mistake that the Palestinians made when celebrating Sadam's SCUD missile attacks on Israeli cities and American & Saudi targets. It's time for the Palestinians to drop the murderous and futile rhetoric and genuinely support peace. If there's a wrong side to be on they have an instinct for picking it. The only way they can ever hope to regain their territory is by earning the trust of their neighbours, that will take decades of concerted work towards peace. Every bomb and rocket moves them further away from their ultimate objectives. If they knew how far the attack on America had set back their cause they'd have been weeping not celebrating.