More Links And Updates On Terrorist Attacks 971
psytek writes: "We have been collecting names of people that would like to volunteer and help set up computer systems and networks for the WTC companies. Go to www.webiest.com and sign up to help."
And rp44 writes: "There is a site collating offers of geek help in NYC and DC at srcdst.org. It's mainly focused on network infrastructure (came from seeing all the posts of assistance on the nanog list getting lost in the noise), but areas covered include telco circuits, space, geek help, and hardware. Last time I looked there were 50+ assistance offers there, if you can offer facilities, services or hardware, just register and enter them into the database. It's pretty functional in that you can maintain your own help offers in real time, come back later and modify/delete them etc."
caledon, volunteering in New York for the Red Cross, writes with word that "it looks from here as if the two items most desired here right now are: 1) Cash 2) Socks.
They have been swamped, but the Red Cross seems to want money more than the in-kind help. That way they can buy EXACTLY what they might need at the site or for other purposes. A lot of bandages might not help if what they need are asbestos masks. That's probably true of the tech stuff too here in the city.
About the socks, apparently these guys downtown like to change their socks as often as possible. It is wet, always wet, and they need their feet dry. Some of my socks (and, oh no, Linux T-shirts) were disposed of last night by my loving family while I was wiring together our little effort."
Drake42 writes: "This is an excellent analysis of why the terrrorists attacked the WTC." An anonymous reader pointed out this thought-provoking commentary on War and the Internet, which points out how certain hopes for the role of the Internet in promoting peace seem to have failed, at least for now.
Along with other moves to restrict freedom and privacy that many believe will follow last weeks events, darrellsilver writes: "The New York Times is running an article about the proposed, and probably little-opposed, security changes to the Manhattan area, Times Square and SoHo specifically. As the article quotes, 'A week ago, certain things would have been unheard of as safety options. But now you reassess, you reconsider.' What once stirred controversy now seems to be discussed as inevitable and welcome, such as face recognition software."
guygee also writes "Andrew Cohen , CBS legal analyst who correctly predicted key aspects of the recent ruling of the U.S. Appellate Court in the Microsoft case, has issued a warning of the coming government crackdown on civil liberties."
Rescue and recovery teams in New York are using some interesting technology: GPSguy writes: "This is still embryonic, but a friend in the broadcast RF business just had his stock of spares cleaned out. Seems that the latest approach to sub-rubble searching is to look for the security access cards all WTC employees had been issued. Excited by a low-power VLF source, they emit a response. Apparently, not the idea is to hit the pile with a much higher signal level and try to get a number of the responses and try to triangulate onto some of them. No URLs available, yet, and scant real information."
And DeathBunny writes: "According to a pair of articles at robots.net, a group of researchers from the University of South Florida are using six "shape shifting" robots to help locate survivors of the World Trade Center tragedy in NY. " They're running Linux, too.MrDelSarto writes: "From this zdnet article and this updated article author Steve Kirsch suggests a number of techniques for putting a plane in "safe mode" that auto-lands it's self in case of emergency ... hijacking or even the Payne Stuart situation. I'm sure /. readers will have a myriad of other ideas." As rackrent explains, "The article basically discusses locking out manual control of aircraft and forcing the autopilot to land them without any human control. Interesting idea, but certainly could have its problems, I say."
Liberal writes: "This article by a leading Iranian filmmaker is absolutely the deepest, most insightful thing I've ever read about that country. It was written before recent events; now that everyone is thinking about bombing Afghanistan, I think this should be required reading, to understand what the problems there really are, and to try and figure out what sort of long term solution may be possible (why it won't do just to massacre the Taliban)."
Finally, many readers submitted word of this photo album at Ars showing reactions around the world to the attacks. Sad though these pictures are, it may be one of the most encouraging things I've seen since Tuesday.
Emergency Autoland (Score:2, Insightful)
Big problem. If this is coupled with autopilot, all it takes is a single flick of a switch to disable the autopilot.
Not to mention all electrical equipment has circuit breakers of some kind onboard. They can always pull a breaker.
view from the UK (Score:4, Insightful)
Although not truly representative of British public opinion, I found it a fascinating insight into how blinkered most of the USA are to world opinion. The look of shock on Phil Lader (ex American Ambassador at US Embassy) at some of the feelings expressed and views on US foreign policy will be an eye opener to many.
Yes, bring justice to the perpatrators, but also think about what else the US can do to change the views of a large number of the world's citizens that have intense loathing of the US.
aX
"Islam is not the enemy, war is not the answer"
Why they did it... (Score:2, Insightful)
IMHO, this was not an attack on freedom or democracy, and also not simply an attack on the American way of life. It was retaliation by fanatic Arab terrorists who feel that the US involvement in the middle east, and in Palestine in particular, discriminates the arabs.
The situation in the middle east in unfortunately a dilemma that doesn't seem to have a good and just solution, and things are far from black-and-white. But whatever one thinks about it, it seems evident that the reasons for the terrorist attacks are to be found there too.
NYT article is a joke (Score:4, Insightful)
What a pile of rubbish. Do we want to keep pretending that we were attacked because of some cultural hatred? Let's face reality for a minute. For the past decade, our government has been sticking it's nose all over the middle east. We have bombed and killed innocent civilians in Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan, among other countries. We have supported corrupt governments, we have trained terrorists, we have starved innocent civilians through blockades. The reason we were attacked is simple, our foreign policy has been one of government sponsored terrorism. We have made enemies in the middle east, it is ridiculous to think we could do this without one day paying for it.
I am in no way supporting what was done, it was a horrible horrible act and those responsible should be found and punished. But to pretend that this was a total surprise, an unprovoked incident, and that we are someone morally justified for all out government's actions is ignorant. Our government has refused to learn from it's past actions, and I would hope that this incident would finally sink home the point. However, it looks like they have again completely missed the point and will continue to spread the cycle of terrorism and violence.
Colin Powell condemed whoever did this, denouncing anyone who thought that they could prove a political point through bombs and the killing of innocent civilians. He seems to have completely missed the irony of this, that this is exactly what our government has been doing for decades.
It's time to wake up america.
Fighting last Tuesday's war today (Score:3, Insightful)
The question is "What are they going to do *next*"?
-russ
Iran... How Ironic... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Economic Idea (Score:2, Insightful)
Nice conspiracy theory, though. I give you 4 Art Bell's out of a possible 5.
Re:Iran... How Ironic... (Score:3, Insightful)
Why, however, with all its touting of modernism, does it not initiate an action to save the 10 million women who have no schools or social presence and are trapped under the burqa?
Because, as powerful as the US is, we can't save the world. We can't just dump money on every country. What about all the poor african countries? What about all the poor South American countries?
He is right about one thing: We help countries that are part of our National Interest. We do that for obvious reasons.
But there are other countries that we help, and no one should forget it: countries that are struggling toward freedom. If Afghanistan wanted our help, all they have to do institute freedom and democracy. Money would come flowing down as if from heaven. We would help build their economy and launch them on the road to prosperity.
Don't believe it? That's exactly what we did for Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union. Talk about forgiveness. [p.s. not that Russia still doesn't have huge problems...]
Re:Why they did it... (Score:3, Insightful)
Bin Laden and his band of sheep-fuckers hate Israel because Israel is further proof that the best way to have a prosperous country is to embrace the Western values of freedom, democracy, capitalism, and pluralism. (Yes, pluralism. Israel is arguably the best place in the Middle East to be a Muslim. Being a Sufi or Suni or Shi'ite or just not too religious in the wrong Middle Eastern country is a death sentence. Not so in Israel. All Muslim citizens have the right to vote and to worship however they choose. Remember, after Israel captured East Jerusalem and the Dome of the Rock in 1967, they turned its administration back over to the Muslim authorities. When Jordan and Egypt captured Jewish holy sites in 1948, they destroyed them, as the Palestinians did to Joseph's Tomb in 2000.)
It's only fools who think that Israel is the problem. Israel is the solution, not the problem. If only there was a single Arab country which embraced the same values as Israel, the Middle East would be a far saner place.
-jon
Re:terrorist or suicide cult ? (Score:2, Insightful)
No, we're not.
In the mentioned cults that I know anything of, the idea is, you kill yourself, but you don't really die, you go to another place, or something. Closer to God, who cares.
With these suicide bombers, it's true they are fighting for their religion against people that they think are impure or however you wish to call it (I don't feel like being politically correct). The difference is, they are not killing themselves to kill themselves. For that matter, they are not killing themselves; they are killing other people, and if they die in the process, then that is the way it must be.
Consider the Crusades. Hundreds, thousands, of Christian soldiers go off to spread the word of God. Anyone who didn't convert gets whacked. They go, they fight battles. Some die. They knew that they might die, but are they a suicide cult? No, they're fighting the good fight, and some may die, but that's the way it is.
In this case, the other side (the Islamic militant fundimentalist right-wing conservative nutcase whackjob...) has a few differences in its definition of warfare.
First, they do not restrict themselves to military targets. This is the first rule of civilized warfare. Secondly, they conduct all of their warfare behind enemy lines, in 'clandestine operations'. All of their 'soldiers' are 'operatives', they are all infiltrators, they all wish to get past the 'front line' defence and then attack from within, as happened on Tuesday.
Finally, they engage in suicide attacks for two reasons. First, if they know they are going to die, it makes it easier. You can prepare yourself for it, you know it's going to happen, you can make your peace with Allah, or however it is they make their peace (I'm totally ignorant of Islam at this moment).
Most importantly, though, and I have discussed this with Israelis who understand this all too well, a suicide bomber is almost impossible to stop.
Imagine someone who has strapped themselves with explosives and wishes to get into a mall to set himself off. If he gets into the mall, he kills lots of people, and himself. If he gets stopped by police/security/mall guards/door guards and is going to be caught, he sets himself off and kills a couple of people and himself. He has nothing to lose, so even one death is a victory.
To summarize, they do not kill themselves to kill themselves, they kill themselves because they know, as do the Palestinians and Israelis, that through killing themselves, they can not only kill more of the enemy more reliably, but they can also strike terror further into the hearts of their enemy - because you never know - none of us can know, anymore - when you'll be standing beside someone at the marketplace and they'll turn to you, look into your eyes for the last time anyone ever will, and then fill your sight with flames for the last second of your life.
This is why they kill themselves. No other reason.
--Dan
Not much different, probably (Score:4, Insightful)
If this is a well thought out terrorist plan, they'll proabably attack something relatively soon. Probably not this week, but next week. Make us feel a little safe agai, and then stuff it right back into our faces.
The sad thing is there is ultimately nothing that can be done to stop terrorism in general. We can stop simple cases (aka terrorists with box cutters), but it's nearly impossible to block off terrorism at every turn without substantially limiting everyones individual freedom. It'll take something like a Matrix world, where government or some machine locks us away and/or watches our every move, possibly being able to immediately "deactive" us for "inappropraite" behavior. We can never have complete security without complete loss of freedom... but then, is it really worth it.
I remember the scene from Star Trek: Generation, when James T. Kirk is loving the Nexus, the ability to go back and do everything he wanted to in the past. But then it hits him, after he jumps over a stream with his horse, that life isn't meanignful if it can't be lost, or you can't fail. That's why watching sporting activities is so much fun, because the outcome is never for sure.
F-bacher
Re:Not much different, probably (Score:5, Insightful)
-russ
Re:view from the UK (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Here Come The Nukes (Score:4, Insightful)
I trust the US government will not even consider using a nuclear device. That would make them far worse than the terrorists thay are after.
Even if your hatred and anger have gone this far, I hope you can see that such an act in an already war-torn area of the world, near countries which are nuclear armed themselves, would be a supreme act of stupidity.
I only hope there are at least a few people in the US who will actually consider trying to find out who is responsible before breaking out the BFGs.
"We will root out the evil-doers" (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyway, I got to thinking: if (most of) the world governments are going to seek and destroy terrorist cells, those that lead terrorist cells, and those that fund them, are they going to do a comprehensive job of it?
I'm figuring that part of the reason ol' Tony Blair is mounting his war steed is that he wants to eliminate the IRA. One hopes he'll be equally vicious with the Orange Volunteers and other Protestant creeps.
The Spanish have the Basque freedom fighters. Chile has a guerilla group that's nothing but trouble, too. Japan had those freaks that Sarin-gassed the subway system, although I think they got rid of 'em. And the mainland Asian triads: they're a real fucking problem over here on the west coast.
This is a helluva opportunity. If it got out of control, it'd be downright scary: anyone with a dissenting opinion might end up labelled as a terrorist and shot.
I'm also fairly keen to see what is going to happen with regards those that fund terrorists. For instance, there could be a lot of imprisoned, if not executed, Irish Americans who keep sending money to the goddamn IRA and Orangemen. I won't even talk about those who donate to Israeli and Islamic radical/terrorist groups.
Not sure where the line gets drawn, though. Is the Mafia gonna be toasted? It's a borderline terrorist organization, ain't it? And the Drug Enforcement Agency simply must be considered a terrorist group, along with the CIA...
Interesting times. Very interesting times. I'm not sure how much more interesting I really want them to get, though...
Re:NYT article is a joke (Score:2, Insightful)
And, in all likelihood, the government has a very large influence on what the media gets to report.
Between media deception and government deception, it's time for everyone to become extremely cautious about accepting the pablum that's pumped through that glass tube.
And, perhaps, it's time to demand something better from both of 'em.
Re:view from the UK (Score:3, Insightful)
No nobody as any right to kill 5000 people. But the US shouldn't have the right to overrule the rest of the world, on the grounds of it not being "in the US's best interest". It just makes the rest of the world feel hard done by, which in turn breeds absolute hatred of US ideals and values.
Re:Iran... How Ironic... (Score:1, Insightful)
People all over the Middle East hate the US. Now, who believes that the US is really hated because of its supposed Freedom? How about because it's not a muslim country? I hardly think these issues can really galvanize an entire region in such a fashion, and I think other reasons point to why the ME is such a breeding ground for terrorists. Oil is energy, and energy is wealth. Where has that wealth gone? Is it invested in the countries of the ME? If so, why are people so poor and upset? Why is the ME dominated by dictatorships?
After the fall of the Ottoman empire (during WWI), France and Britain divided up the region and installed "facades", basically dictatorships that would be heavily influenced by their patrons. When Iran in the 50s tried to nationalize its oil, the CIA intervened and installed the Shah. That lasted until the Shah was deposed by religious extremists 1979, and a failed coup attempt by the Carter administration left the extremists in power. I think you can argue that the Shah's rule encouraged the growth of anti-US factions in the region.
The issues here are keeping Arab nationalism in check, which in turn insures that the US will maintain heavy influence over the region's oil. In addition, the US's energy policy (influenced by automobile manufacturers, oil companies, and others) maintains a dependence on ME oil (about 50%). This is seen as a national security issue, as can be demonstrated by the Gulf War action.
Now, if you link the WTO attack with Arab nationalism, then you may see that you have "terrorists" all over the ME. This is why I expect the US to promote quite a few "police actions" in the ME in the near future.
Some interesting sources for information:
Frontline: Hunting Bin Ladin (being shown on PBS throughout the week at night)
Frontline: The Politics of Power (influencing US Energy Policy)
Noam Chomsky talk: (peace in the Middle East) Noam Chomsky talk: (peace in the Middle East) [zmag.org]
I do not think the future bodes well...
Re:Watching the news tonight... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, and the United States has a history of successfully winning wars.
I've been researching the past invasions of Afghanistan that have failed and which are now being trumpeted as cowardly reasons to refrain from attacking. This is not the same situation, and Afghanistan's past performance is not representative of what they can hope for this time.
First, UK's invasions of Afghanistan cannot be used to guage what will happen this time. The UK attacked several times in the 1800's and were involved in a final conflict in Afghanistan after WWI. The UK was just starting to recover from the first World War and was tired and uninterested in an umimportant foreign battle far from home that posed no threat to the UK. Also, in those times, the differences between the occupying military and a bunch of people with guns was not so significant, except the occupying military was an easily identifiable target and the people with guns weren't. So the UK failure in Afghanistan is not a valid comparison. The situation is too different to make a useful comparison.
More recently, the Soviets failed in their Afghanistan invasion from 1979-1989. A great deal of this failure was due to a lack of resolve at the highest levels of Soviet government and a resulting lack of commitment to the cause. Additionally, they had a very real concern about alienating almost the entire world in a time where it was important to have as many, or more, friends than their cold-war enemy, the United States. They lost Afghanistan for the same reasons the U.S. lost Vietnam: The politicians back home didn't allow them to go in with everything they had to win.
Additionally, Afghanistan was receiving support from Iran, Pakistan and, yes, the United States' CIA.
Given the Soviet politicians' unwillingness to give the military the green light to win, and considering all the countries that were supporting the Afghan opposition, it is not surprising that that invasion failed.
The difference here is:
I agree that Afghanistan is not the easiest target. They have no significant infrastructure to target.
But we can, and I suspect will, easily take Kabul, get the Taliban running into the hills where the opposition forces on the ground will be able to help take care of them, radio in their positions for air support, strifing runs, carpet boming. We have night-vision and infrared equipment that will make it harder for them to hide than normal.
And remember, I don't think we're looking at a long-term invasion. We're not looking to annex or particulary control Afghanistan, we're going to topple a terrorist government and probably give control to the opposition forces. Whether the opposition later starts killing themselves again and Afghanistan returns to civil war is not our problem here--as long as Afghanistan keeps the killing inside its borders.
So be skeptical of those that suggest that Afghanistan is somehow a force to be reckoned with; they just had favorable conditions in the past. This time everything is against them with the one and only exception being it could be a guerilla war.
Also, remember people were making similar warnings about Saddam's fearsome military. No need to remind anyone how fearsome that military really turned out to be.
Re:Iran... How Ironic... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yup, that's so easy we're busily undoing it here. And Russia is far from being out of the woods yet.
Of course the $40M we gave the Taleban this year [robertscheer.com] may not be helping the insurrection.
After the Afghani-Russian war that we armed and funded them for they begged us to stay and help set up a democratic government, but they no longer held any strategic interest for us, I'm afraid. So we left them to the Taleban, which we have helped prop up, just like the military government in neighboring Pakistan.
No, I'm afraid that who we support has little to do with whether they are democratic and everything to do with their short term realpolitik strategic value. Russia's stability was quite critical to us for what I hope are obvious reasons. About 20,000 of them.
If you would like some more examples think on Pinochet, Noreiga, the Shah, and Hussein. None of those ran even mildly democratic governments, yet they all received stong support at one time. And we've had to clean up after a few as well. The list is far longer of course. Our country has become known for it's puppet dictators. But we live back here where it's safe and free. Or was.
Re:Iran... How Ironic... (Score:3, Insightful)
Because, realistically, the only way to do that would be to invade Afghanistan, utterly destroy the clerics who are ruling the country, and install a puppet government, backed by the full force of the NATO armies. This simply isn't feasible, even if it were the "right" thing to do. We all remember the American officer in Vietnam saying "we had to destroy the village in order to save it". Getting involved in the internal politics of Afghanistan would be another Vietnam.
The West simply cannot be expected to tour the world cleaning up after everyone elses mistakes. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but it's true. We have a whole bunch of our own problems to deal with - and there is no one that we can ask for help from. In some cases, like the Gulf War, the interests of the West happened to align with the interests of moderate Islamic states like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. In other cases, the West finds that other Islamic states, for example Libya, are opposed to its objectives. Either way, the Western taxpayer spends billions every year on aid to less-developed countries.
If the Afghans were to overthrow the Taleban and install a genuinely democratic government, with liberal social policies and a broadly capitalist economy, they would find that the Western nations would welcome them as one of our own.
No, "own" as in "it is theirs". (Score:3, Insightful)
I wasn't saying that the weapons makers own the media, as in "owning" a politician. I was saying the weapons makers own the media, as in it is legally theirs. For example, Westinghouse and GE both own TV stations. They therefore have a "duty to the stockholders" to "maximize their profits". This means that they have a "duty to the stockholders" to encourage war. Do they do this consciously? Maybe not. But it happens that the really negative issues of war are not fully discussed.
War for the corporate executive is a way of temporarily relieving the pressure of his anger by acting it out. He views killing people in poor countries as better than having a fight with his wife.
They must be poor countries, however, like Sudan, Cuba, Granada, Vietnam, and Afghanistan. He wouldn't make war on a customer country, because that would not be "maximizing profits".
Is this cynical? No, it seems to be a description of the facts. You can watch news shows all day and not see one instance of someone demonstrating a thorough knowledge of the cultures they are discussing bombing. Tonight on the CBS TV show "60 Minutes", former CIA officials said that very few in the CIA even speak Arabic.
What Should be the Response to Violence? [hevanet.com]
Re:Please don't buy/make "benefit products" (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm staring in amazement at the "public" Hotmail inbox I maintain. I've been up towards my space quota at least twice this past week. Without recourse to how bad Hotmail is, my spam filters are working, and I'm not seeing any of the really offensive, mercenary spam. But what I'm getting is duplicates, triplicates and more, many times over, of the same tired old patriotic blurbs, GIFS, unattributed quotes and diatribes, really inflammatory screeds, and missives from people who feel they need to update me every hour on what is going on and what this or that pundit's reaction to it is. I'm so sick of badly-written parallels between this and Pearl Harbor, this and 1776, this and every other war we've fought. I've gotten the bogus Canada message five times.
Most of the acquaintances sending this junk are technical illiterates. But at least one set is from the CEO of a nice-sized software/shareware company whose newsletter I subscribe to.
I'll admit I'm puzzled by this--though not entirely. What's motivating it? Does it make people feel like they're sharing? Fighting back? Do they figure they're telling everybody something new?? Is it happening because we were home from work a great deal last week and nobody had anything better to do? Is it because e-mail is "free" so we might as well use it?
Unless somebody can suggest another outlook, I'm just going to keep quietly deleting the stuff. But I can't help thinking about how much real good these people could be doing by spending five minutes with checkbook or credit card and the charity of their choice.
Just another Internet phenomenon, I guess--E-mail as bully pulpit and soapbox.
Anne
(Headed out the door to begin re-adding my tiny bit to the economy...)
Re:Low tech solution (Score:3, Insightful)
Right, because they will all have been knocked out by sleeping gas before the hijackers move the next time.
There is one way, and one way only, to stop terrorism. People don't just blow up things and crash planes into buildings for no reason. People are obviously angry at the US. If you can figure out why and try to solve it, you will have a much better chance of having this not happen again than if you just "bomb" some place back to the stoneage, you can't kill'em all, and what doesn't kill them just makes them stronger and more devious.
Re:Let's Bomb Afganistan! (Score:2, Insightful)
As numbing as it is, bombing Afghanistan would lead to nothing more than dead innocent Afghanies. So there can be nothing gained there, in fact if that was the actual case then the dead would be called martyrs and further galvanize the cause of the Islamic Jihad in the world. No, doing nothing is ot the answer either, that would just be silly, and serve to allow the terror spreaders to say "Look, america is weak, beaten.."
However, if bombing en-masse is not the answer, and doing nothing is just wrong; what can the Western world do?
I hope that a symbolic gesture will be enough, perhaps allowing the "honour" of the terrorists, I know the term is used in derision, giving them a chance to stand for Allah and face their accusers man-to-infidel and then face the justice of the world, regardless of religion.
This would serve to keep them from being Martyrs and also give the world a chance to take the villans on, using Global terms, without needless slaughter.
Of course, if they choose not to stand up, as holy warriors for Allah, THEN they can be Martyrs, as there can be no reasoning with these flawed "holy" people.
Re:Why are Sikhs being targeted? (Score:2, Insightful)
An idea: Just for today, maybe each of us should take a minute to speak with, and get to know, somebody who doesn't look just like we do--somebody of a different race, religion, or ethnicity. Maybe we should encourage our children to do the same. Maybe we should try to make a habit of it.
Anne
Re:Low tech solution (Score:2, Insightful)
bin Laden's money needs to dry up but this country needs our help, not our bombs. We would do better to cut a deal to build roads and water projects. Doing that might require military force, but it is a different orientation.
Re:NYT article is a joke (Score:3, Insightful)
It's more depressing than that. The US government doesn't care about "winning hearts and minds" except insofar as that's necessary to achieve its goals. All it cares about is keeping its constituents happy, in this order:
(1) Big business
(2) Voters
And since voters are so easily manipulated and so individually insignificant, big business interests are consistently given much higher priority.
Re:NYT article is a joke (Score:2, Insightful)
It's funny how you make several claims without backing any of them up. The only instance I'm aware of where we (alledgedly) killed innocent civilians is when we lobbed a missile into a pharmacuetical plant in the Sudan. That was a mistake and was obviously a breakdown in our intelligence gathering. We did not massacre civilians in Desert Storm. We can't guarantee the safety of civilians in a *WAR*, but we do everything we can to avoid civilian causualties. I'm ALSO unaware of us killing innocent civilians in Afghan. What the hell are you talking about??
We impose sanctions (occasionaly blockades) in order to break a country. That's the whole point. If millions of civilians are starving, why the fsck doesn't the leader make concessions with us?? Their leaders are the ones allowing them to starve, not us. Get your head out of your fairly-tale ass.
As for supporting corrupt governments, you have to look at them in context. We had the choice of supporting these smaller dictatorships or letting the Soviet Union run them over. Our goal in the Cold War was to bring the communist Soviet Union to it's knees. To do so, we had to keep it from gaining more territory.
And finally, we do not support terrorism. You are out of your fscking mind if you believe that, Mr. Coward. We do not massacre innocent civilians nor support such acts. Period.
Re:Iran... How Ironic... (Score:2, Insightful)
Where's the proof?
Is it only coincidence that there is dramatically less starvation in capitalist countries (the starvation rate in the US, for example, is zero) than in other countries?
Poor, displaced farmers are more vulnerable to droughts etc. than rich farmers, for one thing.
It's not just "rich" farmers that are less vulnerable. The problem with anti-capitalists such as yourself is that you only see two categories "rich" and "poor". A middle class farmer is dramatically better off than a poor farmer. Capitalism is what provides an escape for the poor farmer to become a middle class farmer, and yes, a rich farmer.
Where you don't have capitalism, all you have is the "poor masses" and a very few extremely wealthy people that have been chosen among themselves.
Yet dogmatic "free market" views always seem to be based on ignorance, or worse, self-contradictory.
I don't have to be "dogmatic", I only have to look at the success record of capitalism, and the abject failure of, say, the Soviet Union.
Re:Not much different, probably (Score:3, Insightful)
You'd lose that bet about the cops, but your first point is dead on. Mid-air hijacking is no longer a feasible option in America. From now on, the moment an attempt is made, every able-bodied passenger on the plane would bum rush. You'd see feats of heroism verging on suicidal -- and why not? Unless they stop the hijackers, they know they're dead anyways.