More Links And Updates On Terrorist Attacks

The attacks last Tuesday on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon have brought a flood of submissions about the continuing news and events, including ways you can help the continuing rescue efforts. Below are some of the ones we've received lately.

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

[Ikari Gendou]

"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."

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.

Yeah...

[VValdo]

I thought about something like this-- like a special ID number each pilot has to type into a security pad every 20 minutes to maintain control of the aircraft; typing the wrong code signals the control tower that something is wrong and would give control to the tower...

Then I realized that if the control towers can take control of the plane, the terrorists will just go for the control towers....

Not to mention-- maybe someone with more flight experience can help here-- I'd imagine it'd be pretty damn hard/expensive to build an auto-landing system into an airplane-- one that isn't controlled at all by a person... I remember reading the military had some spy planes that could take off, fly, and land without a pilot... anyone know anything more about this?

W

Re:Emergency Autoland

[TWR]

What's necessary is a "suicide switch", which sends out a signal to the authorities, and flies the plane in the direction of the nearest ocean. No override without a command from the military. When the plane runs out of fuel, it will crash into the ocean. Awful for the people on-board, but it will remove planes as a weapon.

Circuit breakers being pulled should be made irrelevant. Just put it in the baggage compartment, not in the cockpit, or bury it in a place which can't be accessed while the plane is in-flight.

-jon

Low tech solution

[rjnerd]

Yes, some modern autopilots can land the plane, but I prefer a much simpler soultion. Whats wrong with a wall? Just put a bulletproof bulkhead betweeen cabin and cockpit. Give the pilots their own entrance, bathroom and coffeepot.

Not revolutionary at all. Apparently El Al has two sets of doors to the flight deck on all of its planes.

Of course we can expect them to do something very different in the next attack. If nothing else, passengers and crew will not sit quietly should someone take control of the plane.

-dp-

Re:Low tech solution

[Telek]

If nothing else, passengers and crew will not sit quietly should someone take control of the plane.

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.

Another advantage of sending money

[Russ Nelson]

Another advantage of sending money is that it helps get the lower Manhattan commercial infrastructure going again.
-russ

view from the UK

[Anonymous Coward]

I think US citizens should watch this week's (Real Video) [bbc.co.uk] edition of Question Time [bbc.co.uk] on the BBC (should be there until the 20th).

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"

Re:view from the UK

[sql*kitten]

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.

As a Brit who as worked, lived and travelled extensively in the United States, I was shocked and disgusted by what I saw on Question Time. The BBC is widely known to be left-wing biased in its view, even known as the "Ministry of Propaganda" by some. The audience was chosen with this in mind, to support the prejudices of the producer, it was clear that the host (David Dimbleby, IIRC) was unable to control the crowd.

I would like to apologise on behalf of the country, but you must understand that the freedom of speech defended by the UK and the US does grant freedom even to those who show no gratitude for it. There are people even here in London who genuinely rejoiced at the news, altho' why they are living here and not in one of the world's many Islamic states seems to have escaped question. Probably because the media are terrified of being accused of racism, but race is nothing to do with it, it's about belief.

Public sentiment, to the extent that I am able to judge it, it wholly different. The British people tend to know about terrorism, we once had the IRA attempt to blow up Canary Wharf (the nearest thing we have to the WTC). We support the US without hesitation in your time of need, just as we did in the Gulf, and just as you have supported us in the Falklands and elsewhere in the world.

But, if I may, perhaps US citizens will think twice now before supporting NORAID.

Re:view from the UK

[beanerspace]

If it's harder for these extremists to paint the US as evil, the number of recruits they get will drastically decrease.

Make sense?


Not really. I mean, I'll look in the yellow pages, but I'll tell you now, I'm going to be hard pressed to find kindergardens that will teach my baby how to use an AK47. Point is, do you think the type of mind that would train their children such things would care if they had a legit excuse or not ?

As for blind revenge. NO, this isn't about revenge. It's about not making the same mistake the last time we faced pure evil. In case you don't remember (or care), it had to do with someone making a deal to sell out the Czechs in return for "Peace in our Time".

Jimminny Cricketts, how many lives did that cost us ?

Re:view from the UK

[Anonymous Coward]

Not just the Kyoto treaty. The Anti-ballistic missile treaty, the Anti-Biological weapons Treaty, the Palestinian observer force, the cancelation of third world debt and the relaxation of sanctions against Iraq. The US supports none of these things while the whole rest of the world does. The only reason the US gives for not supporting these things is that "it is not in the US interests". That to me indicates a self interested almost selfish attitude to international relations, which in my opinion and many people in the world does nobody any good, not mention breeding very strong anti-US feeling.

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.

Canadian Red Cross

[rakerman]

In Canada you can donate to the Canadian Red Cross online at Canada Helps [canadahelps.org].

Why they did it...

[gloth]

I believe that any explanation of the "why" behind the terrorist attacks that does not include the conflicts in the middle east just doesn't cut it.

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.

Re:Why they did it...

[TWR]

As Benjamin Netanyahu has said, "The Arabs do not hate the West because of Israel, they hate Israel because of the West."

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:Why they did it...

[Tachys]

Israel is arguably the best place in the Middle East to be a Muslim.

Not according to this article [salon.com]

And not according to the UN Racism conference. [cnn.com]

Re:Why they did it...

[TWR]

I will not disagree that Israel has its problems. While one should hold Israel to the standard which its founding father, David Ben-Gurion, wanted it to be held ("A light among the nations"), as nations go, especially young democracies, Israel is astounding. But that doesn't mean that Israel shouldn't be more egalitarian, while remaining primarily, a Jewish state, providing Jews a return to the home they sorely missed for nearly 2,000 years.

By comparison, fifty years into its existance, the US was killing Indians and arguing over slavery. Anti-immigrant hysteria was beginning. It took until nearly the US' 200th birthday before Black Americans had the unimpeded ability to vote across the country. Indian rights are still abysmal.

And, as you mention, Turkey, which is about 30 years older as a democracy and hundreds of years older as a country, is the closest thing to Israeli-style democracy. Not surprisingly, Turkey is Israel's closest ally, after the US.

If the Palestinians had accepted the peace treaty proposed by Ehud Barak, or even offered a counter-proposal, things would be different in Israel today. But they didn't, and now that the world has seen Palestinians dancing in the streets at the destruction of the WTC, they'll be lucky to get a penny in funding from the First World, much less support for a state. As Abba Eban once said, "The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity."

-jon

Re:Don't believe this jewish _liar_

[TWR]

And, like all cowards and intellectually bankrupt maggots, you not only attack the messenger and refuse to post under your own name, but you also bring up issues which aren't even under debate.

Who cares if prostitution is legal in Israel? It's legal in the Netherlands. Where's your moral outrage against the Dutch? Oh, that's right, they're not Jewish, so you don't care.

And anti-prostitution laws are stupid, anyway. As George Carlin once said, "Selling's legal, fucking's legal, why isn't selling fucking legal?"

Antisemites like you just can't stand the fact that Israel is a success, while your country and the countries and cultures that espouse your philosophies are shitholes. While you and your countrymates are destined for the ash-heap of history, Israel and the West will be around for a long time.

-jon

NYT article is a joke

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:NYT article is a joke

[FFFish]

I don't know that it's so much whether you get to decide whether to keep pretending...

...the news media gets to decide whether you keep pretending.

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:NYT article is a joke

[greenrd]

From WW2, through Cuba, Vietnam and Iraq, the USA has clung to the farcical idea that you can win hearts and minds by bombing and starving a population back to the stone age.

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.

Those photos from around the world...

[Tim Doran]

...(last link) were amazing.

Small comfort to the victims, I'm sure, but the world shares in their grief.

Every time I think I'm getting numb to this tragedy, I run across something that drives it home in a new way. Thank god... I don't want to be numb right now.

Re:Those photos from around the world...

[websensei]

I hear you, my friend.

For those having a hard time loading the (enormous) page, I found this one image

[arstechnica.com]
http://arstechnica.com/wankerdesk/01q3/war/pales ti ne.jpg

particularly moving.

It is two Palestinians, weeping for the victims.

It is of utmost importance to remember that the atrocity was committed by a handful of lunatics, not the peace-loving Islamic community at large....

Re:Those photos from around the world...

[ekrout]

Feel free to hit up http://www.students.bucknell.edu/ekrout/images/911 _In_America/images/gallery/ [bucknell.edu] for a comprehensive and fast "Mourning" image gallery.

Fighting last Tuesday's war today

[Russ Nelson]

"safe mode"?? Can we please stop fighting last Tuesday's war today? Nobody ever thought that they'd ever fly an airplane into a building using knives to hijack the airplane. Okay, we now know they will. There's a dozen ways we can stop them from doing *that*.

The question is "What are they going to do *next*"?
-russ

Not much different, probably

[Ghoser777]

They could easily pull the same type of attack ina week or so. We won't have air marshalls on planes for a while, and I'm sure they're not going to have steel bolted cockpit doors for quite some time, so terrorists could use theur same old strategy again. Why reinvent the wheel when you already have something that works.

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

[Russ Nelson]

No, the same thing will never work again. Everybody except flight 93 expected to be held for ransom. From now on, you can expect passengers to fight for their lives. You can bet your bottom dollar that there are armed plainclothes police on every flight, with orders to shoot to kill.
-russ

Re:Not much different, probably

[frankie]

you can expect passengers to fight for their lives. You can bet your bottom dollar that there are armed plainclothes police on every flight,

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.

News plans for rebuilding the World Trade Center

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is the just released design for the new World Trade Center [kissmykosherass.com]. We will rebuild.

Iran... How Ironic...

[idonotexist]

I have recently been struck, no --- my attitude towards Iran has been completely changed as a result of these unfortunate events. I have read the Iranian response to the tragedy, seen Iran close its borders, read suprisingly pro-US archived articles/speeches of the Iranian government, understood the current and popular Iranian president is very western and democratic, and saw year old photos on CNN's site of young Iranians who admire US culture. In addition, in the linked opinion piece by an Iranian journalist, the Iranian states:

"I keep asking people that when the U.S. found it necessary, it retook Kuwait from Iraq in three days. 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? Why doesn't it stop this primitiveness that has emerged in modern times? Does it not have the power or does it lack the incentive? I have already found the answer....Afghanistan has no precious resources such as oil and it does not have a surplus oil income like Kuwait. I hear another answer too. If the United States supports the Taliban for a few more years, the ugly image that will be portrayed to the world of an eastern ideology, will make everyone immune to it like modernism in Afghanistan. If the revolutionary and reformative interpretations of Islam are equated with Taliban's regressive interpretation, then the world will become forever immune to the expansion of Islam."

Certainly Iran is no white knight. Certainly Iran is no black knight. Even Iranians have appealed for the US to help and have warned of the Taliban. I will not be surprised, no --- I will expect, given the track record of the US and other nations in Bosnia and Kosovo, the world will aid the Afghan people. The world will provide food, medicine, water and shelter. Establish, and some will argue a puppet, legitimate and more peaceful Afghan government. I think this will be as much as a humanitarian mission as it will be a hunting expedition.

Re:Iran... How Ironic...

[Reality Master 101]

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:Iran... How Ironic...

[jflynn]

"all they have to do institute freedom and democracy."

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...

[zpengo]

On an interesting note, there's an article up at my site called "Remember Qaddafi?" (link in my sig) that shows that the now-forgotten leader of Libya has, despite all the American antagonism in the past, given some remarkable comments. Well worth reading.

Re:Iran... How Ironic...

[Trepidity]

Well of course the other reason Iran opposes the Taliban is that they belong to a different ethnic group. The majority of Iranians belong to the same ethnic group as the deposed previous government of Afghanistan, who now constitute the "Northern Alliance" anti-Taliban fighters, while the ethnic group of the Taliban is a minority in Iran.

Re:Iran... How Ironic...

[sql*kitten]

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? Why doesn't it stop this primitiveness that has emerged in modern times?

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.

Re: How to prevent air hijackings

[Jeremi]

The author comments that an openable steel door in the aircraft would not be enough to stop hijaakers, as the pilots would be induced to open the door by threats from the cabin. Last week I would have agreed; after this Tuesday, however, I think most pilots would just disable the intercom system (so they don't/can't hear the hijackers' demands anymore) and land the plane. Even if the hijackers threatened to kill every passenger on board, that's still better than giving them control of the plane.

Re: How to prevent air hijackings

[inburito]

Sorry to say this, but... Your perception is clearly blurred by the recent events.

How many of the last 50 hijackings have ended in a suicide mission accomplished by the hijacker?

I would have to say roughly 4. Unless the hijackers are clearly prepared to die and have no other intentions than mass destruction of notable targets the chances of resolving the crisis in a manner that results in the least amount of loss of life are great. You follow their demands to a reasonable extent and perhaps land the plane and refuel etc.. Special forces come in and zap the hijackers and end of story..

Suppose you didn't comply and the hijackers killed few passengers. Would you want to live with that if the other (very likely) option would have been a peaceful resolution? And wouldn't that require all of the airline passengers to agree that their life is expendable upon hijacking and that the airline is released of all responsibility? I doubt that that will ever happen..

Out of all the hijackings in my recent memory (aside last 4) there has been a happy ending and most of the people survived. 90% of the time people performing these stunts are complete amatuers put in a desperate situation. A lot of times these people don't even harm anyone. It seems that only the extreme islamic militant groups are the ones that might be inclined to perform activites such as last weeks.

It is more than likely that there will be new security regulations in airline industry and that possibly these will involve pilots willingness to co-operate with hijackers(which has previously been 100% co-operation to prevent any unnecessary loss of life). However, out of recent memory it is certainly assertable that most hijackings have a peacefull ending and that changing the current way of dealing with hijackings will likely result in less secure flying enviroment(from passengers point of view). Changing the current code of conduct should be done with extreme caution and fully informing the passengers.

p.s. I personally take roughly a dozen intercontinental flights a year. Next one in two weeks(unless us airports close again, I'm flying from east coast).

Re: How to prevent air hijackings

[tswinzig]

Sorry to say this, but... Your perception is clearly blurred by the recent events.

Blurred? I'd say FOCUSED!

These people have forever changed the way we deal with hijackers of large vessels. We must now treat them all as if they wish to use the vessel as a guided missile. This means exactly what the original poster said -- seal of the pilots no matter what, perhaps give them a way to disable everyone outside the cockpit, etc.

Trust me, once non-suicidal hijackers realize that this is going to become the normal course of action, they will soon give up the hijacking of large vessels. What would be the point?

The Psychic Aftermath of the WTC Disaster

[websensei]

I found this to be of some help in understanding people's reactions. Not a fan of pop psych and glib oversimlification, but it seems accurate to me. I experienced the "window" he mentions, Tuesday and Wednesday in particular, with heightened perception... more recently I'm simply grateful to be alive. And incredibly sad. What a terrible terrible waste. Anyway I wanted to share this for those that haven't seen it.
Peace.

The dazed look on the faces of those surviving the blasts in New York is the face of psychic numbing. This numbing is the normal reaction we experience when we are suddenly and deeply overwhelmed with events that are more than we can handle. We begin to "space out," and at the same time, shut down outer stimulation because we have taken in more than we can possibly manage. It's like the governor on an appliance that shuts down or turns off when it is in danger of falling apart.

The effects of psychic numbing will be like a rock thrown into a pond and the ensuing ripples. The closer you are to the epicenter of the tragedy, the worse your numbing may be.

Here's what to expect: "spacing out," losing your train of thought, as you find yourself dazed, unable to focus attention; having to have things repeated to you because you are lost in thoughts; sensations of tingling or numbness in the extremities; nervous habits; poor sleep and bad dreams; catastrophic images being replayed in the mind; fear and an unwillingness to stray too far from places of safety and security; , outrage; guilt an shame that one is not reacting like one should; and for some, morbid fascination with the gory details of the events.

Even while numbness sets in, something else happens. A mental "window" opens for a period of time that shocks us into an appreciation of our existence in a more poignant way than our everyday awareness allows for. We become more sensitized to the simple beauty of our being alive and the importance of those who matter to us. Suddenly the important things in our lives jump forward in bold relief. The window tends not to stay open for too long, as we slowly drift back into our common mentality.

Here's what you can do: Allow your feelings to be experienced and expressed. Be gentle with yourself and those around you. Make room for others to have different reactions than you do, understanding everybody copes a bit differently. Do not expect to be functioning at your normal level for a while and take on only responsibilities that you can handle. And use the "window" to let in the deeper truths of your existence.

http://www.thestreet.com/markets/stevenhendlin/100 01043.html

From
Shrink Rap: The Psychic Aftermath of the WTC Disaster

By Steven Hendlin, Ph.D.
Special to TheStreet.com
09/13/2001 08:33 AM EDT

Here Come The Nukes

[cybrpnk]

I really believe we are going to use a nuke before this is all over to show everybody thet they mess with the USA on our own soil at their peril. Check out this from today's "talking heads" on TV (from www.drudgereport.com):

*** BEGIN DRUDGE REPORT

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld this morning refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons in America's coming battle with terrorists.

Appearing on ABC's THIS WEEK, Rumsfeld was asked if a possible tactical nuclear strike would be used.

"Can we rule out the use of nuclear weapons?" questioned ABC's Sam Donaldson.

RUMSFELD: You know, that subject--we have an amazing accomplishment that's been achieved on the part of human beings. We've had this unbelievably powerful weapon, nuclear weapons, since what 55 years now plus, and it's not been fired in anger since 1945. That's an amazing accomplishment. I think it reflects a sensitivity on the part of successive presidents that they ought to find as many other ways to deal with problems as is possible.

DONALDSON: I'll have to think about your answer. I don't think the answer was no.

RUMSFELD: The answer was that that we ought to be very proud of the record of humanity that we have not used those weapons for 55 years. And we have to find as many ways possible to deal with this serious problem of terrorism.

And if, Sam, you think of the loss of human life on Tuesday and then put in your head the reality that a number of countries today have other so-called asymmetrical threat capabilities--ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, cyber warfare--these are the kinds of things that are used in this era the 21st century. And a germ warfare attack anywhere in the world would bring about losses of lives not in the thousands but in the millions.

*** END DRUDGE REPORT

I've got to admit that I actually think in this case a single nuke should be used precisely for deterrent effect on future terrorist attacks. Certainly the current state of affairs is supportive of nuke use - obvious reason, probable support of US citizens, no threat of immediate nuclear retaliation, isolated target with limited collateral (fallout) damage, profound psychological impact on everybody everywhere. They have an anti-litter slogan in Bush's home state that says "Don't mess with Texas". Dubya's already re-wrote that in his head to be "Don't mess with US".

The problems I've got is that frankly, there isn't a target in Afghanistan that's worth a nuke. These people have endured so much war over the past twenty years that it's gonna be hard to find a before and after picture site where you will be able to tell that much happened. PLUS, the real problem with Afghanistan is that there are already 2 million or more people in refugee camps located in Pakistan and Iran who don't like the Taliban any better than we do - how is nuking their enemy supposed to give them land or food or shelter? This dislocation of massive numbers of Muslim people - Palastinians or Afganis or whoever - is the root problem in this whole mess in the first place. What we really need to do is spend some of this $40 billion in the war chest to help the mind-numbing poverty that is creating a pool of suicide bombers in the first place - but that would look like capitulation, so don't look for the Peace Corps to be on the fromt lines just yet. That's a damn shame, because somehow it IS the key to solving this mess once and for all....

Having said all of that, my money is on Kandahar as Ground Zero. My only question is whether they will allow an evac time prior to the flash. You heard it here first....

Re:Here Come The Nukes

[AntiNorm]

I really believe we are going to use a nuke before this is all over to show everybody thet they mess with the USA on our own soil at their peril. Check out this from today's "talking heads" on TV (from www.drudgereport.com):

And with all the countries out there that have their own nukes -- especially Middle Eastern countries -- that will be an open invitation to start a worldwide nuclear war.

Re:Here Come The Nukes

[dachshund]

I've got to admit that I actually think in this case a single nuke should be used precisely for deterrent effect on future terrorist attacks... The problems I've got is that frankly, there isn't a target in Afghanistan that's worth a nuke.

Just to elaborate on this, as a resident of what is probably the most nuke-vulnerable city in the US. A couple of points:

1. There are very few tactical uses for a nuclear weapon that cannot be accomplished with a large number of conventional weapons. Especially in a country like Afghanistan. Tactical nukes might make sense as a last-ditch army-vaporizing defense, but that's a different war.

2. Even somebody like Bin Laden should realize that there is little to be gained from a nuclear attack on the US (fingers crossed.) I can only assume that Bin Laden's goal is to instigate a broad-scale American military campaign that will strengthen his following in the middle east. Incidents such as the embassy bombings, and even the horrible attack on Tuesday, can be explained to angry people who have been the victims of American bombing. A nuclear attack is a different story. For all that Bin Laden can say about American behavior in the Middle East, he can't say that we've ever engaged in genocide (though he might love it if he could say this.) It would seriously undermine his support, probably drive every sane person in the area to truly revile him... I can only assume that this wouldn't benefit him in any way.

Also, Bin Laden probably realizes that the one thing that could truly destroy him and his cause is broad-scale nuclear retaliation from the US. While a conventional campaign might kill thousands, it's likely that Bin Laden's people will see this as a recruiting bonanza, not a serious military loss. But a full scale nuclear response by the US could throw a serious wrench into his plans, even wipe him out. If he chose to escalate from that point, he could find his war rendered moot. I would assume that Bin Laden wants to needle us enough to bring on a retaliation, not complete inhilation.

3. Which brings me to my final point: why we shouldn't initiate a nuclear confrontation. It's not in Bin Laden's interest (I hope) to start a nuclear war. He may be crazy and willing to shed blood, but he wants there to be a middle east left when the jihad is over. But if we do go nuclear, it'll only be a matter of time before we can count on response in kind. Or put it this way... If we want to go nuclear, we'd better be prepared to go all the way. Otherwise, we're guaranteed to lose at least one city in the next few years-- somebody, maybe not even Bin Laden, will find a way to do it. Whatever you may feel about the US, nobody believes that we're going to initiate a decisive nuclear attack against the region (which contains many countries that are currently on our side, but might not continue to be.)

Going nuclear first is madness. Tactical nukes are unnecessary. I can only assume that the people in charge realize this as well.

Re:Here Come The Nukes

[Alpha State]

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.

Nuclear weapons are not designed for this problem

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

The nuclear bomb, purely from the perspective of weaponry, is a agent of mass destruction. It is meant for conventional war theaters, with large army divisions concentrated in few places, or it can also obliterate whole cities and make entire countries unlivable for years.

From a more intelligent standpoint however, the nuclear arsenal is really only a dissuasive force that keep large ennemy countries (read USSR) from making rash military decisions. Moreover, it is quite proven that the atomic fire has a very pronounced psychological impact that conventional bombing doesn't have, but in fact conventional bombing is deadlier than nuclear bombing : many more people died in Germany in a matter of days due to conventional bombing at the end of WWII than in Japan due to the two atomic bombs.

So, I fail to see where nukes apply to combat terrorism : do you know a single place the size of a large city that is populated only by terrorists, with the added advantage of being free of innocent civilians in a 20 mile radius around it ?

Using a nuclear arm on even a small terrorist training camp (which is the largest concentration of terrorists you'll ever see) is very dumb indeed.

Re:Here Come The Nukes

[cybrpnk]

Actually, I am very aware that Pakistan has nukes and I actually believe that is one of the reasons we might use one in Afghanistan. India has had nukes since 1974 and recently tested one that was in a militarily deliverable form. This goaded the Pakistanis into testing their own (first) nuke shortly thereafter in the late 1990s. Now the Indian subcontinent is probably the closest to the brink of anywhere. Except for very isolated Chinese and French tests, nobody has tested observable above-ground nuclear tests since 1962. We have all forgotten just how horrible and powerful these things are - all we do is talk about them. If we use one three hundred miles from Pakistan in Kandahar, the Pakistanis will be the first on the scene to see what happened - and it won't be lost on them that India could do the exact same thing to Karachi if the two of them don't stop bickering about Kashmir. The psychological impact of a US nuke warshot will be intended to send a message to many others besides the Afgans, and the Pakistanis may well be at the top of that list.

This is actually the same kind of twisted logic many people believe was the real reason we dropped a second nuke on Nagasaki - that it wasn't a message to the Japanese, it was a message to the Russians. No, Hiroshima wasn't one-of-a-kind so don't gamble with invading a shattered western Europe to see whether or not we have still more...

Plus, up intil now Dubya's sole foreign policy initiative has been the Missile Defense Shield, which his administration has ranted about endlessly to the exclusion of all else. We've flat out told the Russians we're backing out of the ABM treaty and have already started bulldozing trees in Alaska for the first interceptor site. Now, if Dubya blasts a crater in Kandahar, the world becomes a much more dangerous place for nukes - so it becomes harder to argue against the need for a Missile Defense Shield Dubya has been pushing for all along.

Plus, it's just plain old PR. We can't just shoot off more cruise missiles - been there, done that, so what. We can't have an extended ground presence in any of these warzones - we'd get eaten alive just like the Soviets. So Dubya's got to do something SPECTACULAR, something TOUGH, something PRESIDENTIAL, just to look good...

Militarily, nuke use doesn't make sense - Afganistan just isn't a worthy target and it would destabilize the worldwide nuke situation. My point is that I think nuke use will be used for POLITICAL purposes, not military ones ... and that's the scariest reason of all.

Links: Hope, Reason and Senselessness

[goingware]

This is one of the most hopeful things I've read in some time:

• Usman Farman [editthispage.com]

This is a voice of reason that needs to be listened to:

• Letter from an Afghani-American [craigslist.org]

This Op-Ed piece at Yahoo is one of the most frightening things I've come across, the fact that someone like this can get published on such a major site shows that something is wrong with America:

• This is War [yahoo.com]

A Sikh gas station owner was murdered. It was not known if this was motivated by hatred of Muslims but it is suspected (the victim had received threats). Sikhs are not Muslims, but Sikh men wear turbans and beards and are mistaken as Muslims:

• Man questioned in shooting death of Sikh [cnn.com]

Curiously, Sikhs in India are calling for the U.S. government to educated Americans on how to distinguish Sikhs and Muslims. Why? So the racists can know who to shoot? How about toning down the hateful hysteria?

• Sikh leaders angry and stunned over attacks [timesofindia.com]

In general The Times of India [timesofindia.com] has been giving much better coverage of the events than I've seen in American media.

k9

[mr100percent]

The K9 rescue dogs also need socks, as they walk over glass and stuff, so the socks and 'high-top shoes' are appreciated too.

Auto-land already at NASA

[mr100percent]

The current space shuttle at NASA has an 'auto-land' system, which can be activated by the crew(mission specialists) if the pilot and shuttle commander are somehow incapicated.

However, it has not actually been used, only simulated, that I know of. I believe NASA tried to improve all the contingency plans around the time of the Challenger accident.

Could the airlines do better? Sure, maybe a ground flight controller using live telemetry could take over the plane, but it wouldn't be too hard for a pilot to disable it, I imagine the hijacker could cut a circuit breaker or otherwise override the controls.

Re:Auto-land already at NASA

[Detritus]

The Shuttle can't be automatically landed. The landing gear can only be deployed by the crew. Landing the Shuttle without the landing gear deployed is considered to be non-survivable.

terrorist or suicide cult ?

[beanerspace]

Here are yet more links, regarding the terrorist attack. Only, these links are in response to a question I have ... are we actually dealing with a radical sucide cult here ?

Yeah, I know, sounds wacky. However, considering the planning and fanaticism behind last tuesday's acts ... and considering that the Teliban has about as much in common with Islam, as Heaven's Gate did with Christianity. Are we actually up against a group that preaches taking their lives, along with others, is a path to paradise ?

Here are some links on the subject. Decide for yourself.

Chronology of Suicide Cults [csj.org]
Doomsday, Destructive Religious Cults [religioustolerance.org]
Suicide Makes Ten Deaths Among Guru's Followers [watchman.org]
More Than 200 Die in Uganda Cult Mass Suicide [rickross.com]
Aum and Terrorism [gospelcom.net]
Suicide Cults The End Of The Century [tamu.edu]
AUM SUPREME TRUTH [geocities.com]
A party, prayers, then mass suicide [rickross.com]
Lessons to be Learned: Heaven's Gate Tragedy [watchman.org]
Cults [leaderu.com]

Re:terrorist or suicide cult ?

[Sentry21]

are we actually dealing with a radical sucide cult here? ... Are we actually up against a group that preaches taking their lives, along with others, is a path to paradise?

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

Making Money With The Bombing

[zulux]

Somthing interesting: http://www.msnbc.com/news/629380.asp?0si=- [msnbc.com]

Synopsys:

NBC News has learned that investigators in Europe and the United States are examining whether Islamic fanatic Osama bin Laden may have financed Tuesday's terror assault on America by stock trades in European exchanges in the days before the attacks.

I Don't Usually Say "I Told You So"

[istartedi]

But... I told you so. [slashdot.org] (this additional fluff added to dodge the postercomment compression filter).

Die Hard With a Vengeance

[Bruce Willis]

Does anybody else think this is more and more resembling the "Die Hard" series?

Die Hard (1): skyscraper in LA
Die Hard (2): airport in Washington
Die Hard (3): "terrorism" for a profit motive (... and a Cameo appearance of bombs in a school [cincinow.com])

For all we know, this might not even be Bin Laden behind all this, but just a very cunning and ruthless businessman, who somehow managed to convince a couple of Islamist fundamentalists to work for him...

uh, minor problem people

[Lord Omlette]

A friend pointed me at this [worldnetdaily.com]. Very basically: they're looking at the use of nukes. Dear God I hope you people are talking to your congressmen and senators.

The Israel Taboo

[Baldrson]

This is an excellent analysis of why the terrrorists attacked the WTC."

That New York Times "analysis" fails to mention Israel even once. One needn't be a "virulent antisemite" to wonder at such a glaring omission.

A relevant film

[tshak]

You may not all be fans of Will Smith (I am), but the movie "Enemy of the State" should be seen by every American. They should ask themselves, "Do I really want to live like that?" I used to think that movie was based on an extreme imagination. Now I pray it stays as such.

Placing Blame

[JohnG]

This whole thing has been crazy. So far Jerry Falwell has said we deserve this because gays and pagans exist, Pat Robertson has said we deserve it because porn exists, poeple right here on Slashdot are blaming the whole thing on Capitalism, France and Germany are saying that somehow our Military Headquarters being bombed is NOT an act of war. There's been a large outcry of support from people and leaders all over the place, but it still amazes me how lowlifes can use a disaster like this to further their own agendas. There were three year olds on those planes. They were neither gay, pagan, or porn stars and in my not so humble opinion any God that will kill an innocent 3 year old (and thousands more innocents) because somewhere someone is having sex with a member of the same gender does not deserve to be worshipped.

Re:Placing Blame

[JohnG]

Well, you are correct about ignoring him, such blatant stupidity just REALLY annoys me. No good trying to clue in his sheep though, the type of religous fanatics that buy into his bull are to weak minding to think for themselves. It's sad, really.
Still, I'll be rocking happily in the 2nd row of the upcoming Alice Cooper "Descent to Dragontown" tour. It wasn't until the remark about how we "deserved this" that I realized just how much Alice's song "gimme" fits Falwell and his ilk.
I think KISS said it best though: "And while we're praying for salvation, preachers yeild unto temptation."
You are right though, Falwell is similar to the taliban, he preaches extreme religous intolerance. Luckily he hasn't taken to terrorism yet. :)

"We will root out the evil-doers"

[FFFish]

Or whatever Batman-like thing ol' Dubya said. Nice sentiment, cheezy words. :-)

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:"We will root out the evil-doers"

[circletimessquare]

Americans have usually yawned at the terrible plight of people in far off countries with evil regimes or in deeply rooted cycles of violence and conflict. Then Tuesday happened. What happens in Israel and Afghanistan doesn't seem so far away anymore, does it?

If anything, the horrible event Tuesday (I worked at 5 World Trade until Tuesday) is an incredible opportunity to export American concepts of freedom and liberty.

What I mean is that it is clear today that the plight of everyday Afghanis is something we should have paid closer attention to while the British, and then the Russians, and then various warlords, tore that poor place to pieces. Kuwait had oil to export, so boy did we care. And now it seems Afghanistan has something export after all now to, doesn't it? Its own suffering.

We can't go there and tell a Muslim country "alright, you will now all behave as Americans do." Yeah right! American decadence is a symbol of moral decay to a large part of the Islamic world. But we do say to them: "You will treat your people- your women, your minorities, other religions, with respect." And if they don't? Well, maybe last week that was disturbing but forgettable. This week? Time to land the troops!

We changed the German and Japanese constitutions after World War II didn't we? So they were not involved in megalomaniacal Imperialism or building ovens to incinerate millions of Jews, right? Why can't we insist: Every country in the world must respect basic human rights and freedoms or suffer OUR consequences!

It is clear civilization is under attack wherever in the world it is in decay. If we don't recognize that, the rot grows, the decay grows... insane suicide cults of Islamic fundamentalists seem more appealing to a youth because he can't get a job because his country's economy sucks. Maybe last week we were like "oh, it's so complex, whatever we are to do?" Today the average American is more likely to care about that disgruntled youth, that ancient greivance, that cycle of violence.

We either let areas of rot and decay in the world export terror to us, or we export freedom and liberty to them.

And touchy issues and grey areas- the plight of women under Sharia law, for example, suddenly seems more black and white. Intolerance is intolerance, pure and simple, whatever the form. I don't think it is a "cultural difference" to treat women worse than in the West. Where is that said in the Koran? Sharia law is not Islam.

Maybe the people of the World Trade Center towers gave their lives so that others in the world could live better lives. They better have died for that reason. Because if we don't make sure that lesson goes into effect, more innocents will die.

Wake up people. This is a war. Kudos to Rage Against the Machine, Bulls on Parade: "the frontline is everywhere." Civilization versus rot and decay. And you either fight it now like a crazed motherfucker, or sit around watching rental movies and playing video games and watch the World Trade Center happen again.

Plain and simple. War comes to middle America. We must remember why this country is great. Not because we can drive around in SUVs. But because of some pieces of paper a bunch of dudes wrote about 225 years ago that guaranteed our basic rights. We are not perfect, by any means, but we're damn close, closer than many other parts of the world.

Costa Rica is a wonderfully peaceful country. They have no army. More Costa Ricas, less Afghanistans. It will take many decades to put that in effect, but at least the lesson is clear and the need is urgent to do that.

It's all about the Benjamins

[tswinzig]

Franklin, that is.

They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Let's hear it for Taco and the boys

[Simon Brooke]

Since this is - probably - I hope - the last time we discuss this on Slashdot, I'd like to say how well I think Slashdot's done through this crisis. News on Slashdot has been timely, useful, accessible when many of the 'big' news sources on the web fell over. Furthermore, Slashdot has been mostly right about facts on this one - both in what the editorial team has posted and in what others have contributed.

It has allowed for the expression of a wide range of views - far wider than we would have seen from any single conventional news site - and many of the views (even ones I don't agree with) have been well expressed.

It's also interesting to note the drop in the volume of Katz-bashing we've seen. I mostly read and often agree with what Jon writes, and I've often suspected that a lot of the Katz-bashing is ritualistic pack behaviour (k001 dud3z 645h Katz - me b45h Katz, me k3wl). But Katz was there, on the ground, reporting what he was seeing and feeling, and it seems people respected that.

So, congratulations, guys. I hope that we don't see too many more real world news events so big that they become News for Nerds; but it's great to know that when one does, my favourite news site will handle it well.

How much blood is enough ?

[q-soe]

As sickened and saddened as i am by the whole thing, the murder of innocents i have to stand and look at the USA (im in Australia) with something of an attitude of fear and horror.

The thing is that yes 'someone' commited a horrific crime on the US, and that means someone should be punsished, but what level of punishment ?

How many people must die to assauge your grief? 2000, 10000, 50000, 100000, 1 million ? whats enough blood.

I seen people on here and in interviews in your streets who think and believe that you should use nuclear weapons to 'solve' this ? on who ? who do you blow up first ? Afghanistan will likely be the first target but whos the last - i mean there will still be arabs in palestine, do you kill them, what about the Iraqi's, The Iranians ? Hey there are muslims in India, Indonesia ?

What are we talking here - Genocide ? the Germans did that but they used ovens didnt they .

Im not criticising the need for justice but i am condemming the mindless calls for revenge. This sort of action needs to be taken in the cold light of day and soberly considered. There may be legitimate targets - Bin Laden defintely, but these can be dealt with safely and easily (otherwise what are all your vaunted Intelligence ans special forces organisations good for ?)

Would it not make sense to be humane and show the world that democracy and christianity stands for compassion and control - the massive carpet bombing, invasions and land wars wont solve the problem, innocent deaths will add to them and make a much bigger problem.

So i urge you all to think before plunging headlong into a war that could kill many many innocent people and maybe plunge the world into another world conflict. The very people you want to kill in Afghanistan have no TV, no freedom, no rights and most have no food or money or any of the things you take for granted - yet you want to kill them for something 1 fanatic did for whatever misguded reasons ?

Being a beacon of light and hope to the world does not involve the murder of innocent people, the US has set itself up to be the kingdom of hope for many - the only way that the US can be the statesman of the world is to act like it now, show the world they are civilised and intelligent people who can think without revenge and act with restraint.

if not then god help us all.

I've got server space / bandwidth if required...

[shri]

I've got server space and bandwidth required for those who have archives / personal sites which cover the recent incidents at the WTC / Pentagon. Drop me an email on [e-mail] [mailto] if you want a sub-domain on crisisforums.com a site that I've setup a few days ago, primarily to help the hundreds of Indians who were involved in this tragedy.

In the mean time.. we're still looking for my wife's cousin who works for Instinet and was at the WTC Tower 1/100th floor at the time of the strike. His photo is here [crisisforums.com]. Please email us if you have more information.

Comments from Bruce Schneier

[pointwood]

Bruce Schneier comments on this and also includes good quotes from others in his latest Crypto-Gram newsletter, which can be found here [counterpane.com].

Reprisal With the Military

[west]

The best quote that I heard regarding US military reprisals (don't know the source) was:

It's about as useful as trying to bomb street gangs in Los Angeles.

And about as ethical.

"Echelon warned of attacks" - German intelligence

[JPMH]

According to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, one of the most famously serious newspapers in Germany, warning singnals about the attck were picked up at least three months ago by the Echelon surveillance network.

Telecom Paper (Holland) gives this English-language summary [paper.nl]:

Echelon gave authorities warning of attacks

Monday September 17, 2001.

U.S. and Israeli intelligence agencies received warning signals at least three months ago that Middle Eastern terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack important symbols of American and Israeli culture, according to a story in Germany's daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ). The FAZ, quoting unnamed German intelligence sources, said that the Echelon spy network was being used to collect information about the terrorist threats, and that U.K. intelligence services apparently also had advance warning. Within the American intelligence community, the warnings were taken seriously and surveillance intensified, the FAZ said. However, there was disagreement on how such terrorist attacks could be prevented, the newspaper said. Echelon is said to be a vast information collection system capable of monitoring all the electronic communications in the world. It is thought to be operated by the U.S., the U.K., Canada, Australia and New Zealand. No government agency has ever confirmed or denied its existence. However, an EU committee that investigated Echelon for more than a year just last week reported its belief that the system does exist.

Re:Watching the news tonight...

[Dr. Awktagon]

A good percentage of the American people surveyed said they will be patient until the right people are found.

Thank goodness, I say. I was quite surprised.

The last thing we need is American forces going in there, killing people out of rage or revenge. There are a lot of diplomatic things to do as well.

America needs to come out of this showing that it knows what to do, that it can do the right things, and that it can rise above the mentality of terrorists.

Dear G.W. Bush: please take your time and think everything through. I know you're not to skilled about these things, but the people around you are so listen well.

As for the union stuff, I thought they were turning away unskilled workers because that pile of rubble is also a crime scene and needs to be handled more delicately.

NYC is the most closed union shop you can imagine

[Russ Nelson]

I'm surprised this hasn't happened earlier. New York City is the most closed union shop you can possibly imagine. A number of trade shows refuse to exhibit at the Javits simply because you can't touch anything in your booth. If you want an extension cord plugged in, you can to pay a union electrician to do it. It's insane.
-russ
p.s. it's a crime [quaker.org], not a war. Expect resolution to take years -- that's the nature of criminal cases.

Re:Watching the news tonight...

[einhverfr]

I've been watching news for the past 3 hours tonight, and I must say, what is going on? as of this morning everything was "let's go get'em" Now it seems that we arent going to actually do anything. They are saying that this could take years or decades. What the hell is that all about?

What has happened is that some people have woken up and realized that a ground-war in Afghanistan is serious business. (Joking line about ground wars in Asia...)

Sersiously, I think that it would be extremely difficult to infade Afghanistanand would likely take years or decades if the Soviet experience is worth anything. It will mean a lot of dead and wounded on both sides before it is done.

Re:Watching the news tonight...

[dgroskind]

they are saying that NOTHING is going to happen

These two articles from the Daily Telegraph give a fairly detailed descriptions of the military preparation that is underway:

SAS to play key role in capturing bin Laden [telegraph.co.uk]

SAS to join American special forces [telegraph.co.uk]

Both articles describe a scenario involving cruise missles and air strikes followed by special forces brought in by helicopter. One article says the assault could begin within a week.

Re:Watching the news tonight...

[einhverfr]

Referencing your sig, the thing to be woried about here is that old age, treachery, and terrain advantage will always overcome youth, skill (including technology) and numbers. Afghanistan has a history of successfully repelling foreign invaders...

Re:Watching the news tonight...

[letxa2000]

Afghanistan has a history of successfully repelling foreign invaders...

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:

1. There is no lack of resolve on the part of U.S. politicians, nor the U.S. population, to let the military win.
2. No country in the world is willing or able to help Afghanistan. Perhaps Iraq would like to, but there is no way they can. Every other country is either neutral or aligning with the U.S. in supporting retaliatory, military strikes. But, unlike the Soviet invasion, there will be no-one to help them this time.
3. Afghanistan's few friends have, grudgingly or under pressure, sided with the United States. Afghanistan has no friends that will help them.
4. Every country on Afghanistan's border would like to see the Taliban go down, except maybe Pakistan.
5. Regardless of whether or not Pakistan really wants to see the Taliban go down, Pakistan has sealed Afghanistan's borders, turned off their oil supply, and will allow attacks to be made from their territory. Pakistan knows this is not the time to oppose the U.S., and they would rather have Afghanistan as an enemy than the U.S. right now. Good choice.
6. The Northern Aliance, the active opposition in Afghanistan, has been fighting the Taliban since it came to power. They are, themselves, Afghanis and have stated they would welcome an American attack against the Taliban. Not all of Afghanistan will be fighting us, just the Taliban.
7. If the Taliban military was so deadly, they would have long since exterminated the opposition. They haven't been able to do that--I don't think they are going to be able to do any better against the strongest military in the world.

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:Watching the news tonight...

[sconeu]

\i{and don't forget Libya...}

Either Qaddafi is an incredible actor, or he didnt' do it. After the attack, he called on all Muslims to aid the US, regardless of the politics involved.

Re:Watching the news tonight...

[SlashGeek]

"... just killing Bin Laden won't do jack... other leaders will rise up."

Although, killing "just" Bin Laden (and a few of his closest followers) would be a good start. Yes other people will rise up, but as always within such hostile organizations, leadership is paid for in blood. The insuant fighting within the organization would not only thin their numbers slightly, but more importantly help to expose the organization as a whole. Where they are operating, what other groups in the world may have interestes in Bin Laden's operation, the size of his "armies", etc. The confusion and distraction of the power struggle will also weaken their power to both threaten and react to threats. I think taking out Bin Laden and his top ranking officials straight off is the best thing we can do right now. Picking off the rest of his followers will just be a matter of following the blood trail as they kill each other for power.

Re:Watching the news tonight...

[KilljoyAZ]

There's an interesting article in the Washington Post about how to attack a decentralized network of terrorists and how most of the tactics aren't really all that new. Check it out here [washingtonpost.com].

A 100 Megaton bomb does surprisingly little damage

[Futurepower(tm)]

"Just make the whole Middle East a parking lot.."

As I've mentioned before: The laws of Physics are against this. Nuclear bombs work on cities. In the countryside, a 100 Megaton bomb does surprisingly little damage. The damage spreads only about 15 miles from the center of the blast.

In the mountains, as in Afghanistan, the energy of a nuclear blast would be deflected upward.

Nuclear blasts also make all the air everyone breathes radioactive. Thus everyone is punished, even people who haven't been born yet.

I hope you will read, Limbs of no body [iranian.com], one of the stories referenced in the Slashdot story above. The people of Afghanistan are among the most unfortunate people in the world. Here is a quote from the article: "But why didn't anybody except UN High Commissioner Ogata express grief over the pending death of one million Afghans as a result of severe famine?"

Unhappiness breeds war. Maybe if we had fed these people, they would not support terrorism. If we had gone in with our billions 20 years ago, and helped in a big way, would there be problems now? I think not. Why so much enthusiasm for killing and so little for helping?

Wars fought in Afghanistan, and their outcomes:
British, 19th century -- British DEFEATED.
British, 19th century, 2nd conflict -- British DEFEATED.
Russian Imperial Army, 19th century -- Russia DEFEATED.
Soviet Red Army, 1979 -- Russia DEFEATED.

Wars fought in Vietnam, and their outcomes:
Some I don't remember -- They were DEFEATED.
French, 20th century -- France DEFEATED.
U.S., 20th century -- U.S. DEFEATED.

I presume that your enthusiasm for war comes from the fact that you are thinking of watching it on television. But suppose it was you who lost a limb. Suppose it was you who was starving. Would you feel differently?

The weapons makers and the military and the media owned by weapons makers have encouraged you to believe lies about war. A new war would be long and expensive, and that's what the weapons makers want.


What Should be the Response to Violence? [hevanet.com]

Re:A 100 Megaton bomb does surprisingly little dam

[btg]

As I've mentioned before: The laws of Physics are against this. Nuclear bombs work on cities. In the countryside, a 100 Megaton bomb does surprisingly little damage. The damage spreads only about 15 miles from the center of the blast

I admire the rest of your sentiments, but you're really wrong about the above.

I've read several of the UN reports on the effects of Nuclear Weapons, which tend to use a 1Mt (ONE. Not One hundred.) device as an example. Even with a single 1Mt airburst, "immediate" fallout can deliver a lethal dose of radiation for something like a hundred miles, depending on prevailing winds. This effect is directly proportional to the size of the blast. That means that we're talking about an uncontrollable swathe of lethal windborne dirt hundreds of miles in length.

This is NOT "surprisingly little damage".

For weapons of this size, most of the immediate deaths in a desert detonation will be from blast and heat. The lethal range for direct radiation exposure would be well inside the lethal blast radius.

The "standard" fallout (much smaller particles) will tend not to be radioactive enough to kill people in the short term, but a detonation of a 100Mt device would have effects that are, quite simply, incalculable - increased cancer risks, birth defects, increased infection rates for just about everything - you name it. The fallout will darken skies in the region for days.

While we're in a happy mood, it is also possible for the explosion to trigger spontaneous precipitation, called a "rain out", which would happily kill anyone that got wet.

Now, the war-guys will be talking about tac-nukes, in the few hundred kiloton range. They'll ask you to believe that the damage will be localised. The truth is that they have no idea, and the independant research strongly suggests otherwise.

Believe me - the damage from a nuclear detonation cannot be contained in either time or space, and it's infeasible that the damage could be restricted to military target. Hell, it's infeasible that it could be restricted to one COUNTRY, in that region.

Please, please. Do not think about nukes.

I completely agree with what you said.

[Futurepower(tm)]

I completely agree with what you said.

I was speaking of physical damage only. The damage from radioactivity from a nuclear detonation punishes everyone in the world for centuries.

The intent was to demonstrate that even huge bombs don't stop fighting in a mountainous area. Those who have watched too many war movies think that bombing is more powerful than it is.

I was trying to demonstrate that many people have a profound ignorance of war. The people of the U.S. cannot be said to have agreed to war when they are agreeing to something they don't understand well.

Oh, well, I didn't do a very good job of achieving my intent. Thanks for making things clear.

My guess is that life is miserable for both.

[Futurepower(tm)]

"I'm curious as to whether anyone knows if there is a significant difference in the quality of living between people living under Taliban rule and those living in northern Afghanistan."

I'm curious about that too. My guess is that life is miserable in both places.


What Should be the Response to Violence? [hevanet.com]

Re:A 100 Megaton bomb does surprisingly little dam

[Wavicle]

I wondered if we couldn't try something like removing the pro-terrorism government in Afghanistan and then do something to revitalize the nation's economy (sort of a rebuilding of Japan type of thing) and aid them in their drought so that the citizen's of the country don't hold so much animosity towards us.

The winning of hearts and minds thing always sounds good on paper... In reality I don't think there is anything we could do to make those people happy. If we did help them, the other countries around them would declare them an American puppet and probably start sending in suicide bombers.

"Undefined skirmish" is like "surgical strike".

[Futurepower(tm)]

Whoa, I hope I never see a war, then.

"Undefined skirmish" has such a nice ring to it. It reminds me of "surgical strike".

When the U.S. government bombed the pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, it was called a "surgical strike" in the United States. But suppose you lived in Sudan, and every day when you went to work you passed the pharmaceutical plant. One day you passed by and the plant was gone! I suppose that would make you feel terror. Does that mean the U.S. government is a terrorist organization? Hmmmh.

No, "own" as in "it is theirs".

[Futurepower(tm)]

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:Economic Idea

[Chakat]

Unfortunately, your theory has a few flaws. The most glaring is the fact that although the US economy is chugging along at a very, very slow growth rate, it is still growing, thus, not in recession. Things were much, much worse economically under Jimmy Carter, or even the post cold war pararecession of Bush Sr. However, because of this attack, the US is almost guaranteed a recession for a couple of quarters before rebounding. Second, and probably more importantly, if it ever leaked out that the US government had any part in the attack, there'd be rioting so bad you'd probably be able to see the smoke up there in Canada.

Nice conspiracy theory, though. I give you 4 Art Bell's out of a possible 5.

Re:Economic Idea

[TWR]

Not only are you a moron, you are sick, sick moron.

First of all, the recession in 1981-1982 was far, far worse. So was the recession, post Gulf War. Technically, the US isn't even recession right now. So this would be a pretty fucking stupid thing to do right now.

Secondly, how is it that the 10 billion journalists haven't uncovered any hole in the current theory, that a bunch of fucks working for Osama Bin Laden did this and have been planning this for 5 years? Do you think that this "secret" US government agency somehow managed to convince 5 known anti-American terrorists to get on each plane?

Finally, this attack has completely ruined all of Bush's plans. Missile defense is looking like a really pointless idea now. There will need to be tax INCREASES to fund the military. And his isolationist policies are now looking mighty quaint. So this "secret" agency would have to be out to fuck the President's official policies.

How dare you even propose this concept. You should be ashamed of yourself.

-jon

Re:Economic Idea

[Ridge2001]

Finally, this attack has completely ruined all of Bush's plans. Missile defense is looking like a really pointless idea now.

You are very much mistaken [nytimes.com], according to the New York Times.

How dare you even propose this concept. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Why do these theories anger you so? Right now CNN and the rest of the mainstream media are generally promoting the immolation of various muslim peoples around the world based on evidence which is no more credible than the various conspiracy theories going around. Should CNN be ashamed of itself?

Re:Economic Idea

[TWR]

Why do these theories anger you so?

They anger me because it says that, for dubious political gain, the US government slaughtered 5,000 of its own citizens. They say this without a shred of evidence, just more of the mindless hatred of the US government which has been the hallmark of the lunatic fringe, both right and left. It diverts attention away from the real problem, the real people who we KNOW did this, who everyone KNOWS did this.

People who are making up these conspiracy theories are doing it because while the KNOW in their heart of hearts who did this, they can't bring themselves to accept that people that they have supported did it. So they make up fairy tales to delude themselves, and try to pass them on, hoping that they might have company in their delusions.

based on evidence which is no more credible than the various conspiracy theories going around.

Oh horseshit. The evidence for Bin Laden's involvement is well-known. He has means (hundreds of millions of dollars, thousands of followers), motive (he has repeatedly said that he wanted the WTC to come down. His group bombed it 8 years ago, and has performed synchronized attacks in the past.), and opportunity (19 known followers of his were on the plane, and flight manuals in Arabic were found in their rooms). If you weren't a fucking moron, you'd consider this a slam-dunk case.

What is your evidence for the US government doing this? Huh?

-jon

Re:Economic Idea

[Ridge2001]

There are a few pieces of evidence implicating the US government, or individuals within the US government.

• On September 11, someone allegedly threatened the president with codes indicating inside knowledge of the president's whereabouts [independent.co.uk]. If this story true, it means there is a traitor somewhere at a high level in the administration. If it's false [counterpunch.org], it means that the government is deliberately leaking false information, in an attempt not to make the president look bad.
• There is some evidence that there were warnings of the attack:
  Security heightened at WTC, Bin Laden warnings, State Dept. advisory [independent.co.uk]
  Echelon warnings [newsbytes.com]
  Israeli intelligence [telegraph.co.uk]
  San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown [sfgate.com]
  A crazed Iranian in Germany [yimg.com]
  A US army base in New Jersey [counterpunch.org]
• Circumstantial evidence of the US training terrorists [almartinraw.com].

Granted, there is not a lot of evidence here. But in the last few days the government and the media have been threatening and accusing a lot of people, such as the Lebanese and Palestinians [nypost.com], Iraq [go.com], Pakistan [telegraph.co.uk], or all of these at the same time [washingtonpost.com]. Although there is no credible evidence against any of these people, nevertheless they are targets of speculation.

So why is it unreasonable to speculate about the US government?

Re:His name is Usama bin Laden not OSama

[Dr. Awktagon]

Actually, his name is not displayable in a Roman character set!!

Re:His name is Usama bin Laden not OSama

[Russ Nelson]

He can't even spell his own first name? Yeah, I do that from time to time, too. My high school diploma says "Russell Niel Nelson". And nobody believed me when I blamed it on lysdexia.
-russ

Re:His name is Usama bin Laden not OSama

[chill]

Either, both.

Names in Arabic, Farsi and other Middle Eastern languages are frequently spelled differently when translted to English, depending on the translator.

Check the news archives for the spelling of Libya's leader:

Khadaffi
Kadaffi
Qadaffi
Qadafi
Gadaffi
Ghadaffi

I've seen all of the above used by various "big name" news sources.

Same with bin Laden -- Usama or Osama depending on who does the translating.

In all honesty -- "Walking Corpse" is probably more accurate.

Think of the Taliban as the Nazis....

[Russ Nelson]

Think of the Taliban as the Nazis. Think of Osama bin Laden as Hitler. Now think of the Afghani people as the Jews in the concentration camps.

Still want to bomb Afghanistan?

Why do you want to do this? To destroy their homes? The Russians already did that. To destroy their schools? Done. Their hospitals? Done. Any more bombs are just going to bounce the rubble.

Sorry, but the solution is to treat this as a crime, not an act of war. They WANT us to treat it as an act of war. Why should we do what they want? We should instead do what a free country does: presume innocence and convict based on the evidence.
-russ

Re:Think of the Taliban as the Nazis....

[iomud]

I agree with you on one hand but on the other its hard to reconcile the crime with the way it was committed. Multiple targets highly orchestrated, planned years in advance with essentially weapons of mass destruction, the equivalent of one kiloton of tnt. Not exactly a truck full of fertilizer though it's damage and effects felt just the same. I think the method of attack certainly makes me feel like this was worse than Oklahoma. I think the nation understands that we must be patient while we gather evidence and investigate. Had this been an act of a government the attack would have been an act of war, that's something that is also difficult for me to reconcile along with possible support from other nations who aided the attackers. Its almost like an attempt for a rogue nation to claim absolution, send in some "terrorists" who "we don't support" in order to get away with mass murder. Granted that hasn't not proven to be the case but it doesn't sound improbable at all.

Re: Think of the Taliban as the Nazis....

[Russ Nelson]

If I had a URL to it, I would have posted it, eh wot?
-russ

Re:Safe mode?

[reverius]

If the plane still doesn't work in safe mode, you can use the "Command Prompt Only Plane".

It has no engine. Plus, you have to be blindfolded when you're in it.

But at least you'll still be in the sky for about 40 seconds.

Re:Remember

[AntiNorm]

Nice coming from someone in a so called Christan country. What was that line in the bible, something about "thou shall not judge", but hey lets just ignore that and go and kill as many people as possible in the middle east, that will fix the problem.

The same Bible also contains a passage advocating "an eye for an eye" in terms of punishment for crime.

Re:Remember

[PD]

The Bible that I read had two references to drinking your own urine, and also says that god will rub shit in our faces unless we do what he says.

No, I'm not making this up.

So much for the Bible.

Re:What about privacy issues?

[rodgerd]

Not a theoretical scenario, either - Echelon and French security networks have both been used to pass commercial information to "friendly" companies. NSA and CIA apologists put some time into defending using national security systems to plunder allied country's companies and provide the details to US companies.

Perhaps if the spooks were doing their job instead of making Lockheed shareholders richer, there might be fewer corpses in NYC.

But that's alright, just give them more money and remove those pesky Congressional oversights that were put in place to try and stop the CIA hiring terroists and funding dictatorships. Then we can go back to the good ol' days of the CIA funding the likes of the Shah of Iran. That didn't have any downside, did it?

Re:The answer is oil

[JohnG]

Quick question that maybe those more knowledgable of world affairs than I can answer, if these countries are producing such massive amounts of something as valuable as oil, why are they so dirt poor. Or should I say, why are their citizens so dirt poor?
I'm sure crush will chime in here saying it's all because of the evil capitalists, but I think you would have to put alot of blame on the governments of the countries themselves.

Re:odds

[s390]

Pakistan tested _one_ nuke, mostly to keep up with India. Why do you think they backed down so quickly when presented with the US ultimatum?

Pakistan literally created the Taliban in Afghanistan - now they're being called to account, and brought to heal. It was made clear we'd go _through_ them to get to the Taliban and wipe out that illegitimate theocracy. Pakistan doesn't want to be first under the rain of fire that will follow in that region.

Re:The Al-Qeada are useing _uncrackable_ encryptio

[Catbeller]

They don't need uncrackable crypto to fly a plane into a building. Just flying lessons and a preordained date.

The destruction of civil liberties on the net is not happening this week because of the evil Taliban. It is happening because the advocates of Carnivore et al are opportunists using patriotism to get what they wanted all along.

They aren't going after the Taliban, they are going after US.

We're fucked.