Most UK papers have the same picture, though the captions are different.
Just to put this new thread at the top of the page.
2. rubberducky - 9/12/2001 9:52:25 AM
so...
how does a nation cope with all of this. will a sense of normalcy ever be established in America again?
was this another Pearl Harbor? as an American who only has Desert Storm to remember, can we go to war with a faction? with a insane group of people who are basically cultists? is it a war we can win?
share all your thoughts about September 11, 2001 here. where were you and what were you doing? where you affected by the bombings in a personal way? if so, how?
3. jonesatlaw - 9/12/2001 9:55:38 AM
Nothing in my life to date has scared me more than seeing AF One over Omaha. I saw it fly over my house as I brought my son home from school. I grew up expecting that if the president went to the underground that I wouldn't live out the day.
I'm glad they brought him here before going back to Washington. Screw political appearances, security comes first. It's a new scary world, but I'm not vaporized. I am very sad, and very angry. We will survive these attacks scarred more in psyche than in body.
There is no way to conduct terrorism on this scale without a large orgainization and if not the assistance of a nation, at least tolerance. Bin Ladin cannot be hauling around his millions in suitcases. He can't be obtaining the weapons and conducting the training without the knowledge or approval of host states. They must be punished as complicit in the terror. This must be attacked at all levels. By small scale actions, spies on the lowest level, and by massive military intelligence gathering and retaliation.
4. rubberducky - 9/12/2001 10:01:09 AM
here's another question:
how fair is it to bomb and destroy a country like, say, Afghanistan for the actions of someone not even a member of their government?
i am not saying don't go after such a country, but how much will be too much? what if the mastermind has touched several countries? are we willing, as a nation, to go to war with a large section of the world to stop this madman, assuming he can be -- couldn't this turn into another Vietnam?
5. Macnas - 9/12/2001 10:01:36 AM
I'm really wary of posting here, I feel that my foot will get jammed in my mouth and I'll say something that will hurt someone.
I went out last night with a mate of mine and we watched the telly repeat over and over, from different angles and perspectives the WTC being destroyed.
"Pinch me or something, this is a bad dream" said Mick. I felt the same. When I was first told of the incident I honestly thought it was a hoax, a bad taste joke of some kind. The enormity of it all, it was just dreamlike.
I called my brother later on, even though he lives on the west coast for gods sake. He said all are loaded for bear, he's got his pre-ban items to hand, he doesnt know what will happen next.
I had a few drinks too many, I should have been a bit drunk, but I wasn't. The disbelief seemed to negate the alcohol. The world wide implications the acute suffering in New York, it was and is overwhelming, and I am far away from you all.
Tell me what is going on now, what happened to you.
6. Indiana Jones - 9/12/2001 10:12:37 AM
To answer the questions:
1. Yes, America will be normal again. This is an external enemy using different weapons against us, but they are not the Nazis. This is not the Civil War. They're not even the Russians. I hope we're still able to take a better punch than was delivered yesterday, or our society is tissue paper.
2. We are at war, so it's useless to ask whether we can go to war. We have no choice. And if you are in a war, between victory and defeat there is also no choice.
7. jexster - 9/12/2001 10:13:09 AM
This is going to be the roughest time. The stories of the dead and the bereaved will pour out without no suspects identified or retailiation meted out.
8. jexster - 9/12/2001 10:14:37 AM
without suspects....
9. jexster - 9/12/2001 10:15:20 AM
can we go to war with a faction?
Barbary pirates
10. Rama - 9/12/2001 10:16:57 AM
Over and over, I have heard people say that it doesn't seem real: that it seems it must be a hoax or a movie.
It strikes me as much more like a Pearl Harbor event. The result of Pearl Harbor was the first use of atomic weapons to end a war.
I think the result of "World Trade Center" will be a new type of foreign policy, where using national sovereignty as a shield for international terrorism, and its flip side, supporting international terrorists as a means of foreign policy, will no longer be accepted as other than an act of war.
11. theDiva - 9/12/2001 10:18:26 AM
Flight paths of hijacked planes
12. Indiana Jones - 9/12/2001 10:18:27 AM
Isn't the West the only fool who follows that notion anyway?
13. jexster - 9/12/2001 10:18:47 AM
The military command center in Colorado's Cheyenne Mountain, responsible for U.S. air defenses, received word just 10 minutes before the first aircraft struck the World Trade Center that a American plane had been hijacked
14. jexster - 9/12/2001 10:22:09 AM
What notion? Declarations of war?
I am not sure we've followed that notion very well.
In any event, the constitution was written for an age of nation states and even at the time war was waged against non-nations (in the Western sense) - indians and Barbary pirates come to mind.
15. JRoth - 9/12/2001 10:22:28 AM
There is incredible activity in the security community. Some heads have already been effectively removed. The current buzz is that Bin Laden could not have done this by himself or solely with his immediate organization. This operation took years to setup. I anticipate that he had assistance from freelance operatives- possibly ex-Eastern European- who organised crucial aspects of this exceedingly complex operation. Bin Laden's support and infrastructure in the US is too closely observed and penetrated to have had planned and executed this assault. A parallel and compartmented organisation was used. I repeat that this parallel group was led by highly professional operatives who probably motivated by old animus as well as material incentives.
Kissinger is right: The full response must eradicated the sources of the terrorist network- including those states known or even suspected of complicity or support. This strategy will take years to implement and will engender a new set of criteria by which Americans judge friend and foe.
16. jexster - 9/12/2001 10:22:39 AM
Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) was preparing to call for more military spending at a news conference at the time of the attacks.
"This is a failure of the U.S. intelligence system, caused by a lack of resources and by complacency," he said. "Today, our government failed the American public."
Amen.
17. Indiana Jones - 9/12/2001 10:25:39 AM
jexster: I'm talking about the notion that national sovereignty is a shield for protecting terrorists.
Instead of violating national sovereignty to be global good cop, it's time for some self defense.
18. jexster - 9/12/2001 10:28:05 AM
The U.S. government has strong evidence from multiple sources that the suicidal terrorists who carried out yesterday's catastrophic attacks in New York and Washington were connected to Saudi fugitive Osama bin Laden, who previously was linked to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, senior officials said.
U.S. Intelligence Points to Bin Laden Network
SFO newsconference: No flights by noon are possible given new security guidelines, in opinion of Airport Director.
19. rubberducky - 9/12/2001 10:28:39 AM
hopefully, the NMD money will go to beefing up our intelligence systems
20. AceofSpades - 9/12/2001 10:38:16 AM
Yeah. We don't need NMD. No so-called "rogue nation" would be CRAZY enough to launch a major attack on an American city which could be easily traced back to them.
Right, rubberfucker?
I mean, it's not like we've unraveled the WTC mystery in a scant 24 hours.
21. alistairconnor - 9/12/2001 10:40:21 AM
The planes-as-bombs scenario poses a serious problem with respect to nuclear power stations.
Yes, they are designed to withstand the impact of a plane crash. Specifically (in France), the impact of a Cessna or of a Lear jet.
Not of a 747 full of fuel.
22. AceofSpades - 9/12/2001 10:40:32 AM
PS-- an NMD would have had no problem knocking a slow-moving PLANE out of the sky.
23. Indiana Jones - 9/12/2001 10:41:47 AM
24. vw - 9/12/2001 10:42:07 AM
Shut up Ace. Some of us are still waiting to hear about what really matters... where our friends are and why we haven't heard from them yet.
The last fucking thing we need to hear is your knee-jerk, unthinking, ignorant “bomb the sand niggers” bullshit.
25. CalGal - 9/12/2001 10:42:09 AM
I think NMD is orthogonal to increased security and a more aggressive response, but no one will ever be able to say that it will protect us from every eventuality again.
26. rubberducky - 9/12/2001 10:43:07 AM
whatever Ace. the fact of the matter is, if we keep on top of these things, a 'rogue nation' couldn't get nukes pointed at us, much less get off a shot, without our knowing.
one of the things that is sad about this is that pro-NMD defense people will further entrench themselves as will the anti-NMD people and we'll get further from any agreement rather than closer.
27. Jenerator - 9/12/2001 10:44:27 AM
I watched an interview with the leading Osama Bin Laden expert Yoram Schweitzer who is fairly certain that OBL was responsible for the WTC and Pentagon bombings. He also believes that Iran might be a financial partner.
The link I provided (do a simple websearch on google, too) provides a great archive of research on OBL.
28. Indiana Jones - 9/12/2001 10:45:58 AM
vw: The reason why you have to wonder where your friends are and why you haven't heard from them yet is your enemy. Not Ace.
29. judithathome - 9/12/2001 10:46:13 AM
the NMD money will go to beefing up our intelligence systems
That's what I suggested yesterday and concerned ridiculed me for it.
Boy, airport security at Logan is coming under fire on CNN...evidently, two women found an abandoned knapsack in the terminal and took it to security and they reacted in a rather blasé manner, telling them to call some number and report it and they didn't even bother to look in it!
30. rubberducky - 9/12/2001 10:47:51 AM
PS-- an NMD would have had no problem knocking a slow-moving PLANE out of the sky.
sure, Ace, okay.
we are going to blow our own plane sky out of the sky with OUR OWN CITIZENS on it.
that'll happen. you've watched one too many Steven Segall movies.
31. Jenerator - 9/12/2001 10:48:37 AM
These are the topics in this website of his:
Suicide Bombings August 7, 2001
The “Bin Laden Principle” August 4, 2001
The Search for Justice: July 17, 2001
Bin Laden Productions, Ltd. June 28, 2001
Iranian Transnational terrorism May 24, 2001
Osama Bin Laden - Threat or Myth? May 5, 2001
A Necessary, if Unsavory, Policy April 24, 2001
The Matter of Osama bin Ladin April 17, 2001
The Al-Aqsa Intifada: April 4, 2001
Massive Response or Surgical Strike? February 20, 2001
The Immediate Lessons of the Lockerbie Verdict January 31, 2001
The ‘Afghan Alumni’ Terrorism November 6, 2000
Does Bin Laden Pose a Threat to Israel? August 22, 2000
Suicide Terrorism: Development & Characteristics April 21, 2000
Osama bin Ladin and the Egyptian Terrorist Groups June 25, 1999
Bin Ladin vs. the West:
Round Two January 10, 1999
The Lessons of Lockerbie December 21, 1998
Responding to Terrorism--the American Dilemma September 2, 1998
Abu Nidal - The Sooner the Better August 25, 1998
Osama Bin Ladin: Wealth plus Extremism Equals Terrorism July 27, 1998
The Arrest of Mohammed Rashid - Another Point for the Americans June 7, 1998
32. AceofSpades - 9/12/2001 10:48:41 AM
"I think NMD is orthogonal to increased security and a more aggressive response, but no one will ever be able to say that it will protect us from every eventuality again."
No one ever said that BEFORE; why the fuck would they say it "again"?
Fucking idiot.
Yeah, Cal, we claimed that NMD would protect us from "every eventuality," such as ship-smuggled bombs and planes and missiles never detected by radar. We just figgered it would be some sort of magic. Operated by leprechauns, perhaps.
""Shut up Ace. Some of us are still waiting to hear about what really matters ... where our friends are and why we haven't heard from them yet.
The last fucking thing we need to hear is your knee-jerk, unthinking, ignorant “bomb the sand niggers” bullshit. "
Shut up you stupid little uneducated haus-frau whore. I'm one of the people waiting to hear from absent friends, you dumb cunt.
And by the way, bitch: We're going to bomb the sandniggers, and it's going to have been a long time coming and it's going to feel good. The only questions are "Conventional, fuel-air, or nukes?" and "How many countries, one, two, or seven?"
Eat me, you stupid bint.
33. judithathome - 9/12/2001 10:49:52 AM
an NMD would have had no problem knocking a slow-moving PLANE out of the sky.
But it couldn't read the minds of the terrorists flying it into the WTC...could it?
34. vw - 9/12/2001 10:50:23 AM
The reason why you have to wonder where your friends are and why you haven't heard from them yet is your enemy. Not Ace.
Please. I am not a two-year old. But apparently Ace and others like him are. For it is people with a two-year-old’s mentality that wants to make everyone “hurt” when they hurt.
I want the people that did this to suffer. I want every individual who financed a ticket, trained a pilot, provided transportation or held a weapon to suffer for this. But desiring the detonation of nuclear weapons and horribly murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent, powerless and ignorant people is as barbaric and as ultimately senseless as the bombing yesterday.
35. AceofSpades - 9/12/2001 10:50:54 AM
"we are going to blow our own plane sky out of the sky with OUR OWN CITIZENS on it. "
No, fag. We're just going to let the plane plow into another city, asshole.
PS, Fag: The air force wanted to scramble jets to shoot the planes down but there wasn't enough time.
I guess you didn't hear that, right?
Probably too busy being "understanding." Or perhaps too busy getting fucked up the ass.
36. ronski - 9/12/2001 10:50:55 AM
My guess at this point is two countries, no nukes.
37. judithathome - 9/12/2001 10:51:23 AM
Jeez, Ace, you're really comforting in a crisis.
38. Francis Urquhart - 9/12/2001 10:51:37 AM
bint?
39. AceofSpades - 9/12/2001 10:52:24 AM
It means "Cunt" in Britain.
40. vw - 9/12/2001 10:52:51 AM
Shut up you stupid little uneducated haus-frau whore.
At least get it right... I have seveal degrees ... so I'm an ivory tower educated cunt.
Despite your ignorance, stupidity and unthinking desire for meaningless revenge, I'm sorry that you too are waiting to hear. I wouldn't wish this agony on anyone.
It's horrible ... I have called every phone number there is to call and still know nothing.
41. AceofSpades - 9/12/2001 10:53:05 AM
"Please. I am not a two-year old."
Mmm-hm.
42. Jenerator - 9/12/2001 10:53:19 AM
Anger therapy works for me sometimes.
43. ronski - 9/12/2001 10:53:32 AM
Curiously, it is also a woman's name in Muslim countries.
44. Jenerator - 9/12/2001 10:55:07 AM
vw,
Did you hear the "rumor" on Fox news that the pilots were trained here in the US at an International flight school. Do you still want the innocent Americans who trained these terrorists to be punished?
45. CalGal - 9/12/2001 10:55:42 AM
Ace,
Don't be an ass. Of course proponents have touted it as the be all end all; that's what they said to justify the price tag.
46. Oceans11 - 9/12/2001 10:56:40 AM
> I'm one of the
people waiting to hear from absent friends, you dumb cunt.
Karma's a bitch.
47. rubberducky - 9/12/2001 10:56:50 AM
Re: Message # 35, AceofSpades.
No, fag. We're just going to let the plane plow into another city, asshole.
you really are hopeless if you think we're gonna blow our own plane out of the sky if there is the slightest hint that we can get our people out. (hint: can't determine that in space)
PS, Fag: The air force wanted to scramble jets to shoot the planes down but there wasn't enough time.
exactly why it wouldn't be shot out of the sky from space.
Probably too busy being "understanding." Or perhaps too busy getting fucked up the ass.
eh, at least i get some from my significant other. the way you masturbate all over theMote, i suspect it isn't that often you do.
48. ronski - 9/12/2001 10:59:03 AM
The U.S. is not going to up the ante with nukes, just as it refused to do so in Vietnam. But there will be massive retaliation. It is a given. The question only is where.
49. Francis Urquhart - 9/12/2001 10:59:10 AM
I'm pretty sure that this is the part where Denzel Washington implores, "Don't you see? Don't you see? They got us fighting amongst ourselves."
50. glendajean - 9/12/2001 10:59:24 AM
The next thing ... if it comes ... could be one of those weapons of mass destruction. Not an a-bomb, but some biological poisoning.
This is very scary.
Today on the Today Show, they had survivors talk about the falling bodies, people who jumped in groups of two or three, holding hands. The heat and smoke was too intense.
51. judithathome - 9/12/2001 11:00:07 AM
Do you still want the innocent Americans who trained these terrorists to be punished?
Don't fall into the trap of attacking those who have different opinions than you. You know that's not what she meant.
52. AceofSpades - 9/12/2001 11:01:05 AM
"Don't be an ass. Of course proponents have touted it as the be all end all; that's what they said to justify the price tag."
Name one such proponent, liar; then supply the quote.
Stupid dipshit.
53. ronski - 9/12/2001 11:02:39 AM
Is it time for us to start getting anthrax shots? To stockpile some cipro or doxycycline in our homes?
54. AceofSpades - 9/12/2001 11:03:33 AM
"The U.S. is not going to up the ante with nukes, just as it refused to do so in Vietnam"
Well, we're not going to invade, and conventional bombing would be a pin-prick, Asprin factory affair.
What's left, precisely, Ronski?
As mentioned earlier, champion pussyboy William "Dickless" Cohen brought up the nuclear option on Nightline, shocking Ted "Wifey" Koppel. And Cohen brought it up as more than a farfetched possibility.
55. AceofSpades - 9/12/2001 11:04:42 AM
"Don't you see? Don't you see? They got us fighting amongst ourselves."
Yeah. We can't do this, or they win.
56. mgleason - 9/12/2001 11:05:09 AM
There's a rumor from Venice, FL that the sheriff's department has surrounded a house containing a man said to have trained one or more of the hijackers to fly.
57. ronski - 9/12/2001 11:07:15 AM
Ace,
You're right, Cohen and others are talking about it. But it still is raising the ante, and I doubt this administration has the balls to do it.
They can inflict a lot of damage by carpet bombing, is my guess.
58. RustlerPike - 9/12/2001 11:09:56 AM
Most UK papers have the same picture, though the captions are different.
59. CalGal - 9/12/2001 11:11:14 AM
Exactly (to the carpet bombing). I think we can do a lot of damage; wasn't it Vonnegut who always harped on the Dresden fire bombing?
60. AceofSpades - 9/12/2001 11:12:39 AM
"They can inflict a lot of damage by carpet bombing, is my guess."
You can't really carpet-bomb a Stone Age nation like Afghanistan -- or Vietnam -- and expect it to have much impact.
Advanced nations rely on the sort of buildings and amenities which, if destroyed, disrupt civilization. Primative nations don't.
What are we going to do, bomb each wheat field and goat in the fucking country? Because that's pretty much all a stone age country needs.
61. AceofSpades - 9/12/2001 11:13:39 AM
"wasn't it Vonnegut who always harped on the Dresden fire bombing"
Dresden had these things called "buildings," "vehicles," and "power plants" which burn when you blow them up.
62. Francis Urquhart - 9/12/2001 11:13:44 AM
Ace
I think that the retaliation may very well include combat troops of the variety that can be inserted and evacuated within a short period of time. Let's face it. Conventional bombing has its limitations, and the cruise missiles are becoming almost passe'. They have their uses, but the best actions are those where the military is inserted after the artillery has softened the belly of the beast.
Ronski is correct. Cohen must have been loopy.
63. Francis Urquhart - 9/12/2001 11:15:14 AM
Vonnegut wrote Slaughterhouse Five with Dresden as the backdrop to his novel.
64. Indiana Jones - 9/12/2001 11:17:01 AM
I don't think you take nukes off the table. Not at this point.
If nothing else, let the enemy think about it for a while.
65. PsychProf - 9/12/2001 11:17:08 AM
Ace...I hope the best for your downtown friends and colleagues.
Prof
66. AceofSpades - 9/12/2001 11:18:36 AM
"I think that the retaliation may very well include combat troops of the variety that can be inserted and evacuated within a short period of time."
Ah! You mean lightly-armed paratroopers! Pefect! Another Mogadishu Special!
I'm glad to see such innovative military thinking here! I can only hope GWB is getting counsel of similar quality!
"Vonnegut wrote Slaughterhouse Five with Dresden as the backdrop to his novel."
I know. I read it. Ten times. Whom you were sharing this with I'm not sure.
67. RustlerPike - 9/12/2001 11:18:57 AM
I posted this in I&P:
Ace:
Well, what's done is done: 1991 was 1991. This is ten years later, Vietnam was a long time ago, and you can do this without nukes, but you'll have to be willing to lose some servicemen. That's all. You can't do everything from the air, you know. You call the Arab terrorists cowards, which they are, but they are at least willing to die for their cause. You risk getting branded as cowards too if you are consistently afraid to risk ground confrontation.
68. ronski - 9/12/2001 11:19:32 AM
Remember what Schwartzkopf has been saying on the tube, that in Iraq the U.S. tried to minimize civilian casualties, but the difference between us and them (the terrorists) is that they want to maximize collateral damage. It's the whole point of terrorism.
The nukes on Japan had a strategic value, and most people understand that today. The Dresden fire bombing had none, and among the few who remember it there is still unease that such a thing was permitted (and yes, I do believe the German nation, including my blood relatives over there, bore responsibility for letting Hitler come to power).
Nukes in the mideast will have no strategic value. It will just suggest to people that nuclear weapons are to be used as if they were no different than conventional weapons. But they are different.
This administration will not want to go down in history as the one which made nuclear warfare acceptable.
69. Jenerator - 9/12/2001 11:21:27 AM
I think that humiliation would be far more effective in dealing with Afghanistan.
Capture all leading terrorists groups (insert Mohammed -------- here) surround the capitol with troops, dismantle the Taliban completely, uplift the strict Islamic codes.
Hell, fly an American flag there too.
70. Indiana Jones - 9/12/2001 11:22:37 AM
ronski: I'm not saying use them. I'm saying don't immediately discount the possibility.
And this administration doesn't want to go down in history as several magnitudes worse than Jimmy Carter's either.
71. ronski - 9/12/2001 11:23:05 AM
My point about Schwarzkopf is that he still represents the thinking in the Pentagon today, which is measured and cautious. People with such a mindset are not going to introduce nukes back into the world.
72. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/12/2001 11:24:18 AM
Diva- Thanks for the link.
It seems as if one of the planes simply flew to the Hudson River and followed it south.
The audacity and simplicity of this act was awesome and malevolently ingenious.
I found Maureen Dowd's contrast of NY & DC compelling:
" . . .For much of the day we weren't sure where the president was. There were statements floating in from him from various secure zones in the air or underground. The vice president was out of sight. We didn't know where the first lady was. The secretary of state was in the air somewhere. The Capitol had been evacuated. Congressional leaders had gone off to a bunker somewhere. The Joint Chiefs of Staff could not be immediately accounted for. The C.I.A. and F.B.I. were stunned. Most vividly at his post was Donald Rumsfeld, who helped rescue victims at the Pentagon and stayed all day in the smoky command center. "
73. Francis Urquhart - 9/12/2001 11:24:55 AM
Ace
I was sharing it with the world. As for your fear of Mogadishu, your thoughts as to the ineffective nature of carpet bombing are true, but they also rebut your likening the use of combat troops against non-urban terrorist camps to the use of combat troops in Mogadishu, a city.
I understand your enthusiasm for the nuclear option, but it is not going to happen, and the second most-effective rooting out of terrorist cells will be massive bombing followed by shooting the numbed enemy right between the eyes.
It may even be so important that we - gasp! - risk casualties.
74. AceofSpades - 9/12/2001 11:25:17 AM
"Remember what Schwartzkopf has been saying on the tube, that in Iraq the U.S. tried to minimize civilian casualties, but the difference between us and them (the terrorists) is that they want to maximize collateral damage. It's the whole point of terrorism. "
Wrong. that's not what he said.
He said that in Iraq, we had tried to minimize CD, because it was a "normal war." He contrasted that to the instant case in which the terrorists deliberately attacked defenseless civilian population centers. Then he called them "Bastards," and then he hinted that the same Marquis de Queensbury rules were ergo no longer in effect.
75. ronski - 9/12/2001 11:26:11 AM
Indy,
Yes, but the fact remains that in the Mideast they probably can't believe the U.S. would use nukes any more than I can.
My guess is that even if the U.S. were itself the victim of a nuclear weapon, such as the horrible case scenario of a suitcase bomb, the government would hesitate with a direct nuclear attack on several mideastern states, again, not wanting to reintroduce nukes as a regular weapon of war.
76. Francis Urquhart - 9/12/2001 11:28:12 AM
Indy
Nukes are nowhere near the table. They are not even in the building.
77. AceofSpades - 9/12/2001 11:28:51 AM
"I understand your enthusiasm for the nuclear option, but it is not going to happen"
Okay, that's your speculation.
My speculation is that it is being hotly debated right now. My speculation is that Bush is being told that conventional bombing will just result in more Asprin factories and downed telephone polls. My speculation is that he is being told that a full-fledged invasion of a landlocked nation, with no air bases, ground bases, or ground or water routes to supply/insert the troops is fucking ludicrous. And my speculation is that he keeps wondering, "Okay, now why can't do the one thing that would actually be effective?"
78. ronski - 9/12/2001 11:29:04 AM
Ace,
Whatever. It's not going to happen. Schwarzkopf wouldn't advise using nukes in an unconventional situation either, and neither will his successors. Bush won't do it.
79. AceofSpades - 9/12/2001 11:30:28 AM
And FU is thinking like Clinton. "How can we punish the terrorists specifically, directly responsible for this ONE incident?"
That paradigm has changed. Bush says that there will be "no distinction" between terrorist and haven-state. I believe him.
80. Indiana Jones - 9/12/2001 11:31:49 AM
ronski: Most of the time in the Middle East there are also oil fields to consider, and (always) that we would be using nukes against "nonwhites" again, which would reinforce the notion that we're racist.
Afghanistan has no oil fields.
The fact remains that in the Mideast they probably can't believe the U.S. would use nukes any more than I can.
This is actually an argument for not taking them off the table. States that sponsor terrorism need to be disabused of this opinion.
Perhaps apocryphal, but I remember reading an account that during the Iran hostage situation some Soviet embassy personnel were also threatened (because of Afghanistan?). Someone in the Kremlin notified the Iraqis something to the effect "In 20 minutes, there could be no Baghdad," and that was that.
I think it's a wrong signal for any of our first reactions to this attack to be laying out things we won't do.
81. Jenerator - 9/12/2001 11:32:57 AM
Is Afghanistan the aspirin producing capital of the East?
82. ronski - 9/12/2001 11:33:04 AM
I believe Bush too about there being no difference, but he will be told that making nuclear weapons a routine use of war is still unthinkable, or if at least thinkable, undoable, because of greater consequences.
83. Indiana Jones - 9/12/2001 11:34:18 AM
BTW, ronski and FU, whereas PE claims to be the biggest communism hater at the Mote (which I strongly dispute), I doubt few are more loathe to use nuclear weapons than I. In the NMD discussion I mentioned that I would use them only ir our national survival is/was at stake.
84. Francis Urquhart - 9/12/2001 11:34:36 AM
Ace
My counter-speculation is that if Bush made the decision to use nuclear weapons, he would risk the resignations of his entire National Security team and his secretaries of State and Defense. I also speculate that were Bush to air interest in the option, his father would smack him in the mouth.
That said, what I speculate is being hotly debated is a military action on a large scale that presumes American casualties, though nowehere near the thousands we have suffered already.
And if you plan a military action with the expectation of casualties (as opposed to the puss bag Yugoslav campaign, where we wet our pants because three jokers were captured for three days), your options increase dramatically.
85. Indiana Jones - 9/12/2001 11:34:45 AM
ir = if
86. jexster - 9/12/2001 11:35:37 AM
Lawrence Eagleberger said last night that he, speaking only for himself, would, if it were found that Osama was responsible and Afganistan were hiding him, he'd take out their largest city.
87. AceofSpades - 9/12/2001 11:35:43 AM
Greater consequences?
Such as what?
Such as two of our cities being bombed, Ronski?
Consequences just went out the window. They played their hole card; they got nothing left to threaten us with.
1) Seize the oil fields of Iraq and Yemen
2) Nuke Iraq and Iran's weapons, labs, and nuclear power plants
3) Then go to work on Afghanistan.
88. jexster - 9/12/2001 11:35:46 AM
Lawrence Eagleberger said last night that he, speaking only for himself, would, if it were found that Osama was responsible and Afganistan were hiding him, he'd take out their largest city.
89. Indiana Jones - 9/12/2001 11:35:49 AM
Check that: Afghanistan has no significant oil fields that I'm aware of.
90. ScottLoar - 9/12/2001 11:36:25 AM
Nuclear weapons! In what dimension do you people live? Incineration of a continent! Kids. That's what is posting here, just kids.
91. ronski - 9/12/2001 11:36:39 AM
I agree with the leader of my party and of Her Majesty's government, as I always do.
92. Francis Urquhart - 9/12/2001 11:37:25 AM
Ace
You are wrong. Clinton would not commit ground troops under any circumstances. Moreover, the retribution will be of all who were involved, may have been involved, are near those involved, and who harbor and or assisted those involved. To each subset, an option can be assigned (from cruise missiles/air strikes in and on Kabul [or Yemen or the Sudan or Bagdhad, or all] to air, missile and combat troop attacks on havens for Bin Laden and his associates).
93. AceofSpades - 9/12/2001 11:37:42 AM
No, they don't. It's not worth the blood and treasure required to invade.
It is worth, however, eighteen or twenty surplus tactical nukes.
94. jexster - 9/12/2001 11:38:12 AM
Good God who cares about oil?
If its Iraq, Iran, UAE - massive retaliation full stop.
95. jexster - 9/12/2001 11:39:53 AM
My priest told me this am that the Chief, Depty Chief, & Chaplain of NYFD were killed along with the other 350 or so firefighters.
To me one of the more tragic stories among tens of thousands.
96. pseudoerasmus - 9/12/2001 11:40:43 AM
Message # 83
Indiana Jones, you may dispute it all you like, but others' communism hatred is mostly theoretical. I have seen the work of communists firsthand.
By the way, I seriously doubt the Kremlin threatened to nuke Iraq since Iraq was a Soviet ally in 1980.
You may doubt the
97. ronski - 9/12/2001 11:40:59 AM
Greater consequences such as the entire fucking world turning against us. And you know that I don't particularly care what a bunch of Euro-leftists think of us for the most part. But incinerating a large part of the Middle East and then trying to run it for a while is simply not on the table. Bush 41's New World Order is based on cooperation, not unilateralism. Bush 43 will follow in his father's footsteps here. The signs are clear. All the gov types are talking about working with our allies.
98. AceofSpades - 9/12/2001 11:41:26 AM
FU,
Riiiight. We're going to have a conventional bombing campaign and invasion of six or seven countries simultaneously.
It's not doable.
Nukes are the only way. We can't wage a ground war, because then OPEC turns off the oil, and this nation begins a 45 day countdown until we run out of oil. And that means our Armed Forces stop in their tracks.
FU, please explain how we will mount these massive campaigns with no fuel for our tanks, ships, and planes.
99. jexster - 9/12/2001 11:41:47 AM
FBI has executed search warrant on flying school in Venice, FL.
100. Indiana Jones - 9/12/2001 11:42:39 AM
jexster: The oil is of secondary importance to retribution at this point, but don't kid yourself re "who cares about the oil?"
Without oil it would be Hutus and Tutsis and who gives a damn.
101. mgleason - 9/12/2001 11:43:01 AM
Ah, NBC is reporting that FBI agents have taken away eight to ten boxes of documents from the Venice Flying School, where two Arab men are said to have been trained. They apparently said that they were cousins, giving a home address in Hamburg, Germany.
102. AceofSpades - 9/12/2001 11:43:45 AM
"Greater consequences such as the entire fucking world turning against us. "
Oh... those "friends" who would turn against as the moment we're attacked and involved in a war.
Shit, I don't wanna lose FRANCE!!!
103. Indiana Jones - 9/12/2001 11:43:52 AM
pseudo: Iran, not Iraq. It may have been apocryphal, as I said, and it was not an "official" threat in any event.
104. ronski - 9/12/2001 11:44:03 AM
Is there anyone in the administration who is arguing for nuclear weapons? Can anyone think of anyone who might be?
105. AceofSpades - 9/12/2001 11:45:43 AM
Russia still hates Afghanistan.
Apart from the radiation -- and shit, don't they let out enough radiation themselves -- I don't know that Russia would be too terribly broken up if we nuked Afghanistan's fifteen largest "cities."
106. ronski - 9/12/2001 11:45:57 AM
I don't give a shit about France either. I know how to cook and don't need them. But Bush is not going to do this alone. We're talking about frigging nuking a country here, not signing some silly ass global warming treaty.
107. Rama - 9/12/2001 11:46:43 AM
And there is no such thing as "NMD money".
108. AceofSpades - 9/12/2001 11:46:45 AM
"Can anyone think of anyone who might be?"
Rumsfield.
And as to Fey Francis' point:
If Colin Powell quits, I'd consider that a win-win situation.
109. Indiana Jones - 9/12/2001 11:47:09 AM
ronski: What has been done to us is more serious than a treaty as well.
110. ronski - 9/12/2001 11:48:13 AM
Indy,
Granted.
111. ScottLoar - 9/12/2001 11:49:24 AM
Nuclear weapons on WHO? Osama Bin Laden? Shit, we can't even find the guy, we can't even penetrate into any of the workings of the Afghan leadership pro or anti-Taliban let alone get close with a guy who is seen as the guru of terrorism against the Great Satan; the US cannot now identify the country of origin of the terrorists let alone prove which country provided assistance and of what form if indeed a "country" was involved; no organization has stepped up to credibly prove they were responsible. And idiots talk of nukes?! Nuke what?
112. jexster - 9/12/2001 11:50:08 AM
WRT - The Retaliatory Future, worth noting from an LAT article....
European Union External Affairs Commissioner Chris Patten called the assault "an act of war by madmen" and said it was the worst attack on the United States since the 1941 bombing of Pearl Harbor. "This is one of those few days in life that one can actually say will change everything," he predicted.
George Robertson, secretary-general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, said in Brussels that the attacks "constitute intolerable aggression against democracy and underline the need for the international community and the members of the alliance to unite their forces in fighting the scourge of terrorism."
113. judithathome - 9/12/2001 11:50:47 AM
They played their hole card; they got nothing left to threaten us with.
You don't know that; this time 2 days ago, you wouldn't have guessed they had that "hole card".
114. ScottLoar - 9/12/2001 11:51:06 AM
This is ridiculous. There is now no US response against a target because there is not yet a target despite the rants in this thread.
115. AceofSpades - 9/12/2001 11:51:34 AM
"We're talking about frigging nuking a country here"
Last time a country attacked us out-of-the-blue, we nuked them. Twice.
Pearl Harbor death toll-- 2,680 Military personnel
WTC/Pentagon death toll-- most likely 15000+ civilian personnel
Does that put it in perspective at all?
This attack caused more deaths than:
the revolutionary war
the war of 1812
the three or four bloodiest battles of the civil war
Korea cost us only 33,000 lives. Yesterday -- one fucking day -- cost us 15,000.
Nukes are off the table?
Oh no they're fucking not. They were considered in Korea.
116. jexster - 9/12/2001 11:51:46 AM
Scott - If Larry Eagleberger's voice is being heard in Bush's counsels, nuke Kabul.
117. mgleason - 9/12/2001 11:51:56 AM
The two men trained at the Venice Flying School attended from July 2000 through January of this year, training on multi-engine planes, but not jets. The FBI also raided an apartment belonging to one of the men, who apparently surfaced on a passenger manifest, on the east coast of FL near Hollywood.
118. judithathome - 9/12/2001 11:52:54 AM
We knew who the enemy was at Pearl Harbor.
119. AceofSpades - 9/12/2001 11:53:52 AM
"And idiots talk of nukes?! Nuke what?"
Asshole. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NUKING AFGHANISTAN, NOT BIN LADEN. Which is obvious, if you fucking read, MORON. Aren't you the fucking idiot who once contended it was "impossible" that a sniper could kill a terrorist?
Bin Laden is NOT the issue. It is broader than that. If we think "Bin Laden," we lose. The enemy are those seven Arab states which finance terrorism. Bin Laden is just one of their employees.
120. jexster - 9/12/2001 11:54:13 AM
Yea 2000 or so military casualties at PH...
Yesterday was, in truth, one of those days that will change everything....all notions of the use of force and proportionality of response lie in the WTC rubble.
121. ScottLoar - 9/12/2001 11:54:23 AM
Jexster, I don't believe Lawrence Eagleberger said he would "take out Afghanistan's largest city" and if he did he's a damned idiot to accuse Aghanistan of complicity without proof. Just another fat man bureaucrat with a big mouth allowed an opinion on public television.
122. Francis Urquhart - 9/12/2001 11:56:11 AM
Ace
Your reliance on nuclear weapons because we are otherwise incapable is as ridiculous as your assertion that when we strike, we will strike (I presume, with nuclear weapons, as we appear to have as much as oil as Robert Shaw in The Battle of the Bulge) six or seven nations with those nuclear weapons.
I will admit that I have not offered my comments with an eye toward attacks on six or seven nations. But the idea of a modern Holy Crusades is attractive.
You seem to be suggesting a war on all terrorists, indiscriminate and massive, at a time when we are so weak that we have only 45 days of oil. Will this include the IRA and Basques?
How long do you imagine it would take us to seize what oil we neededin the evnt of an OPEC shutdown?
If you proffer any more than 72 hours, you'd be wrong.
123. AceofSpades - 9/12/2001 11:56:21 AM
Scott Imbecile:
We already know Afghanistan is complicit. They have harbored and protected bin Laden FOR EIGHT FUCKING YEARS.
It doesn't matter if bin Laden is behind this attack (although he is).
124. Raskolnikov - 9/12/2001 11:56:38 AM
"The nukes on Japan had a strategic value, and most people understand that today. The Dresden fire bombing had none"
The Russians were engaged in an offensive, and the Germans were using Dresden as a rail hub for shipping troops and supplies in defense. As I recall, they asked the other allies to bomb Dresden for that reason. You can question the scope of the attack (although such things require us to ignore the context of WWII), but I think it was a valid military target.
125. jexster - 9/12/2001 11:56:45 AM
Yes he did, twice in fact, on Nightline and yes he is fat.
126. Andonly - 9/12/2001 11:56:57 AM
I hear there were Arabs dancing in the streets in...Parsippany, NJ. This supposedly sparked a riot. Can't locate any hard news about it.
127. christipeters - 9/12/2001 11:57:09 AM
A couple of the reports from here - http://monitor.airsecurity.com/ :
5:11a UNCONFIRMED: Taliban offer to consider extradition of Osama bin-Laden
10:10a Intercepted calls between bin-Laden backed persons discussed hitting two U.S. targets.
10:25a Unconfirmed. U.S. airspace will not reopen at noon eastern as previously announced.
10:29a At least one Middle Eastern student missing from Embry-Riddle University (a flight school) in Daytona Beach, Fla
10:50a No word as yet on when US airports will reopen.
(times are Central Time Zone)
128. ScottLoar - 9/12/2001 11:57:24 AM
AceOfSpade, nuke Afghanistan?! And the seven Arab state that sponsor terrorism? Thank God you are relegated to being a law school student posting in an obscure forum. But, you've always been quick to prove your masculinity; just stick to talkin' dirty with your girlfriend, okay?
129. JRoth - 9/12/2001 11:58:29 AM
As a matter of routine the NSC scenarios will include nuclear options. That won't happen unless the situation becomes much clearer and the responsibility better resolved.
Obviously we can demand that the Taliban deliver OBL and then use their refusal as causus belli.
While speaking of the failure of the intelligence services (and it was), don't forget the emasculation by the Clintonites in '95. Without onerous reporting requirements we can't use as sources anybody who has 'blood on their hands'. However, domestic cops do it all the time....
130. ronski - 9/12/2001 11:58:33 AM
Considered in Korea and not used, and never considered again. Mind you, I think there is a difference between using small tactical nuclear weapons on a terrorist base camp and nuking a capital, but I doubt even the former is going to be done.
Of course, I have been wrong once or twice in my life, if I remember correctly.
131. Francis Urquhart - 9/12/2001 11:58:35 AM
By the way, everyone, for a decent and timely political/nuclear thriller, rent Rod Lurie's "Deterrence" tonight.
132. jexster - 9/12/2001 11:58:40 AM
"It doesn't matter if bin Laden is behind this attack "
Ludicrous, vicious, ridiculous, imbecilic, and par for the course.
133. mgleason - 9/12/2001 11:58:55 AM
Eagleburger really shot off his mouth in the interview I saw on ABC. He certainly spoke without much rein on his emotions.
134. ronski - 9/12/2001 12:03:12 PM
That would be interesting about Parsippany, if true. And very dangerous.
There have been no reports of Arabs dancing in Brooklyn, where there are many Arabs. And many Jews.
135. AceofSpades - 9/12/2001 12:03:42 PM
Um, are the peace-fairies here saying that as long as we get one man --bin Laden -- Afghanistan's people and government are off the hook for harboring him for eight years and providing him the necessary refuge for planning, recruiting, and training men for the attack?
So Kabul *shouldn't* be bombed? Why the fuck not, precisely?
PS, many of you will now speak of "blowing Kabul into the Stone Age" or whatnot. 1), it's in the stone age already, 2), conventional weapons aren't up to such a task, and 3), if your intention is to obliterate the city and its population, why fuck around with thirty flights of B-52's when one nuke accomplishes the same goal?
136. ScottLoar - 9/12/2001 12:03:45 PM
Eagleburger was wrong, is wrong, and should be publicly chastized for his irresponsible comments as a retired State Department official.
137. jexster - 9/12/2001 12:04:03 PM
Good to see ya back JR!
Its it just me or is it times of war that bring you round these parts?
138. sakonige - 9/12/2001 12:04:54 PM
You're a real comfort, Ace of Spades. I can simply imagine every American who died yesterday was just like you, and feel no regret at all.
139. AceofSpades - 9/12/2001 12:05:09 PM
I mean, if both accomplish the same goal -- and the same number of people are killed -- why should nukes be ruled out?
140. AceofSpades - 9/12/2001 12:06:10 PM
"I can simply imagine every American who died yesterday was just like you, and feel no regret at all."
Eh. Go drink some more firewater and scalp yourself, "Squaw."
141. sakonige - 9/12/2001 12:06:13 PM
Terrorists could kill a million asshole Americans like Ace and it would be a blessing.
142. ScottLoar - 9/12/2001 12:06:46 PM
Dear Ace;
No, I don't suggest or intend that Afghanistan and the people within its borders be blown up by nuclear or conventional weapons because the ruling government and perhaps the sympathies of many lay with Osama bin Laden. I don't suggest or intend that of any country. I will hold the terrorist organization and its sponsor(s)personally responsible, but not their kith and kin. Got it?
143. Macnas - 9/12/2001 12:06:49 PM
The utter destruction of Dresden was intentional, Harris made sure that it was an fire bomb attack. It became so hot that air exploded, and concrete caught fire.
I dont quite get it, what happened to all the assistance that the taliban got from the US during the war with the USSR?? the ungrateful wretches, you should annihilate them from the face of the earth with nukes, even small clever little nukes as ace has expounded will do.
That'll learn 'em eh??
144. jexster - 9/12/2001 12:06:54 PM
"peace-fairies" ..."dune coons"..."sand niggers"
Oh my!
145. AceofSpades - 9/12/2001 12:07:37 PM
Hic. Is my Interior Department welfare check here yet? Hic. I had to get a sheister lawyer to "prove" I'm a fullblooded Cherokee to earn that welfare check. Hic. And I wants my check. And my firewater.
146. sakonige - 9/12/2001 12:07:54 PM
Ace, are the friends you are waiting to find squashed just like you? That's so sad.
147. ScottLoar - 9/12/2001 12:08:48 PM
Some of you people want to put an army in the field, forces in the air and ships to sea to fight - what? What you think is The Enemy. Shit! You don't even know the name of that enemy.
148. pseudoerasmus - 9/12/2001 12:08:52 PM
One reason that nukes should be ruled out is that in next door Pakistan, the nuclear programme is headed by ethnic Pashtun military officers. Even without the official encouragement of the Pak government, they will certainly try to put nuclear technolgy in the hands of terrorists in retaliation.
I think the analyses of the viability of conventional strikes against Afghanistan is vastly underrated. The Soviet Union managed to control cities in Afghanistan. If the USA were committed to overthrowing the Taliban, it could be done. The Taliban would be driven from the cities, and the opposition Northern Alliance could be supplied and equipped to eradicate the Taliban.
149. pseudoerasmus - 9/12/2001 12:09:37 PM
...the viability...is vastly underrated.
150. ScottLoar - 9/12/2001 12:10:01 PM
Concrete doesn't catch fire; like limestone it melts as witness the old church in Dresden which blackened ruin still stands.
151. CalGal - 9/12/2001 12:10:09 PM
I think the sea change in American thinking will be that we are willing to commit troops who might actually die, as opposed to our current wailing if they have a hangnail.
152. pseudoerasmus - 9/12/2001 12:10:30 PM
If Afghanistan is responsible, that is.
But that way, the USA could the Afghan people of a scourge, while simultaneously taking revenge.
153. greystoke - 9/12/2001 12:12:39 PM
From the LA Times:
Making the rounds of the morning television programs, Powell reinforced Bush's Tuesday night pledge that the attacks would be avenged. Administration officials say their early investigation has pointed to suspected terrorist Osama bin Laden, but the secretary of state made it sound like no military response was imminent.
He said the administration was "far from selecting any particular targets for retaliation
"We have to build a case first," he said.
-----------------------------------------------
I predict that there will be lots of big talk, but no action. "Build a case" my ass. I agree with whoever said here that the first order of business is to topple the Taliban and fly the US flag over Kabul just for humiliation purposes.
How long do you suppose that would take? 48 hours?
154. CalGal - 9/12/2001 12:12:46 PM
Scott,
In less than a day, investigators have gone a long way in establishing who did this--the specific who. So what makes you think there's any rush?
155. pseudoerasmus - 9/12/2001 12:13:05 PM
Message # 152
...could help rid the Afghan people of a scourge...
156. Macnas - 9/12/2001 12:14:43 PM
hmmm, 48 hours, wonder if the russians thought the same thing...
157. Raskolnikov - 9/12/2001 12:14:44 PM
Assuming bin Laden is responsible, I am skeptical that the US can do what needs to be done without ground forces - which means we are talking about a paratrooper assault with air cover, flown over a thousand miles of hostile territory, or we need an ally who borders Afghanistan, which would almost certainly have to be Pakistan.
There is the option of nukes, but despite Ace's channelling of Curtis Lemay, I don't think that will be considered a serious option.
158. CalGal - 9/12/2001 12:14:53 PM
Grey,
If Bush & co is all talk and no action, he'll replace Carter at the head of the list of pussy presidents. The Republicans won't let that happen.
I really think the time for "show of force" response is over.
159. ScottLoar - 9/12/2001 12:15:15 PM
CalGal, haven't you read the posts in this thread? I don't fault the pace or measure of the US government; it's the kindergarten here that is throwing spitballs about and playing grab-ass and talkin' like they suppose how adults must sound.
160. Francis Urquhart - 9/12/2001 12:15:20 PM
greystoke
The response will hopefully be of such a magnitude that babies will be incinerated, an unfortunate by-product of the coming retribution.
As such, temper your lust so that, at a minimum, the incinerated babies are at least kin to the terrorists, those who harbored and/or aided them.
161. ronski - 9/12/2001 12:15:51 PM
Taking the Taliban out might be a very good idea. Using nukes to do it would not be. It will almost certainly lead to what PE is saying, a concerted effort to detonate nuclear weapons on U.S. soil. That conceivably could happpen anyway, but it is far less likely if we restrain upping the ante.
162. Indiana Jones - 9/12/2001 12:15:53 PM
PE's points about the Taliban are true. As I said about Bin Laden, even if the Taliban isn't behind this, now is the time to settle up with them as well.
It's not as though the Afghanistan "experiment" is one we want to see flourish and propagate.
163. ronski - 9/12/2001 12:17:31 PM
Indy,
Neither do the Russians.
164. Indiana Jones - 9/12/2001 12:19:50 PM
ronski: The idea of the Russians doing our dirty work is appealing, but one must take righteous revenge oneself. (Am not assuming you meant we could enlist the Russians, just making a comment.)
165. CalGal - 9/12/2001 12:20:36 PM
Scott,
Yes, but apart from Ace's "burn the sandjockeys" and Indy's "let's not rule out nukes", I don't see anything terribly intemperate. Does it have to happen tomorrow? No. But I do think it should happen soon.
BTW, I don't know if you saw my post in the other thread, but you were dead on about the method of taking over the plane. Nice call.
166. ronski - 9/12/2001 12:22:07 PM
It was more a comment. I meant that they will not have a problem with our going there and doing something.
167. pseudoerasmus - 9/12/2001 12:22:24 PM
Message # 161: It's not just that there would be a general desire for a nuclear retaliation in Muslim countries. It's more direct than that. Afghanistan is an ethnically Pashtun country. The nuclear programme in Pakistan is headed and staffed by many members of Pakistan's ethnic Pashtun minority. It is inconceivable that there would not be an attempt from this quarter to at least nuclear technology in the hands of terrorists
168. wonkers2 - 9/12/2001 12:22:47 PM
Unseating the Taliban is one thing. But nuking or otherwise killing masses of innocent Afghan civilians as was done to us would reduce us to the perpetrator's barbaric level without solving the problem. Part of the answer lies in enlisting the cooperation of the entire civilized world in dealing with terrorism. Putin and numerous other heads of state have endorsed this idea and offered their cooperation.
169. greystoke - 9/12/2001 12:23:07 PM
Cal
"I really think the time for "show of force" response is over."
I'm not sure I understand.
Francis
"As such, temper your lust so that, at a minimum, the incinerated babies are at least kin to the terrorists, those who harbored and/or aided them."
Well, I'm not advocating nuclear weapons. Nor do I want to see a bunch of Afghan civilians killed, though it would probably happen under just about any scenario.
I am suggesting conventional bombing and missling of the capital followed by a paratrooper assualt.
170. judithathome - 9/12/2001 12:23:25 PM
I don't see anything terribly intemperate
Maybe you missed a few posts...
171. Raskolnikov - 9/12/2001 12:23:33 PM
"I think the analyses of the viability of conventional strikes against Afghanistan is vastly underrated. The Soviet Union managed to control cities in Afghanistan. If the USA were committed to overthrowing the Taliban, it could be done. The Taliban would be driven from the cities, and the opposition Northern Alliance could be supplied and equipped to eradicate the Taliban."
That is what I was getting at last night, but you said they weren't a viable opposition.
It is clear that the USSR was able to occupy Afghanistan. They just couldn't pacify it. As long as our goals are more limited, we can potentially avoid repeating their fate. However, I don't know how we can conceivably do large scale military action without secure supply lines through Pakistan. How likely is that?
172. ronski - 9/12/2001 12:24:04 PM
PE,
Yes, I understand, and you make a very valuable point. I hope there are people in our administration who understand the region as well as you do.
173. Indiana Jones - 9/12/2001 12:24:59 PM
There is nothing intemperate about refusing to rule out nukes the day after Pearl Harbor II. Would you prefer our President go on TV and start saying, "We'll we're going to punish these guys. But like Superman, we're going to pull our punches, just so no one is actually killed. We're going to see if we can extradite them. You know, we got Ira Einhorn. It took us awhile, but he's coming here to face trial.
"And the people who bombed the World Trade Center the first time. Got them too. And the Lockerbie terrorists. All those folks, they're sitting in jail cells, you know. That'll teach them.
"But seriously, we're hopping mad this time. We've got a double-plus top-secret plan. No nukes, however."
Barely 24 hours after this vicious assault, as President or whoever, if I've only got one specific thing to say, it's not going to be about what we're not going to do.
174. pseudoerasmus - 9/12/2001 12:26:28 PM
It is false that Afghanistan is unconquerable. It is not holdable. There is a big difference. In the first Anglo-Afghan War, the British took all the major cities in Afghanistan and held them for a year. They just couldn't hold the country indefinitely. The same with the Soviets. They came in, took the cities, and never lost control of them. The Soviet war took place entirely in the countryside.
175. Francis Urquhart - 9/12/2001 12:26:45 PM
I generally concur with your suggestion, though I think it best to keep troops out of an urban environment. To the extent Bin Laden seeks haven in Kabul, we just bomb and bomb and bomb and bomb until he is handed over.
To the extent Bin Laden and his associates take to the road, we should use ground forces.
I disagreed with your need for speed.
176. Raskolnikov - 9/12/2001 12:27:13 PM
The chief value of nukes is as deterrence against the other side's use of weapons of mass destruction. A real worry is that if we go in with nukes, that deterrence won't exist in the future. Holders of weapons of mass destruction will face a choice of "use them or get nuked anyway".
177. CalGal - 9/12/2001 12:28:53 PM
Judith,
Excellent example of a dishonest quote. The only kind you can manage.
Grey,
"Show of force" as opposed to "actual force". I really think a response that doens't include civilians dying--as regrettable as it is--is inadequate. That doesn't mean I think they should all die, or we should be indiscriminate.
178. Francis Urquhart - 9/12/2001 12:29:14 PM
wonkers
There is no solving the problem, as the problem is the existence of soulless barbarians bent on terrorist acts against American civilians. Hostilities are not a prelude to diplomacy.
As such, we can only alleviate the problem. International commissions and yakety-yaks won't do this.
179. Indiana Jones - 9/12/2001 12:29:49 PM
Before I forget, sakonige is an idiotic, mildly insane bitch (assuming she's actually female), who doesn't understand the difference between being an oh-so-cute needling agent provocateur on a posting board and real life.
Perhaps sometime she will be face to face to someone who explains it to her. Carefully.
180. Francis Urquhart - 9/12/2001 12:30:40 PM
The first think Bin Laden and the Taliban will do is rely on Western skittishness with regard to civilian casualties and surround themselves with a protective bubble of bouncing babies.
181. pseudoerasmus - 9/12/2001 12:30:43 PM
Message # 171
Well, the Northern Alliance is not viable on its own. But if US troops removed the Taliban and ejected them from the cities, and also equipped the Northern Alliance, then the NA could take on the Taliban more effectively.
But I am certain there is no will to do the job properly, and the end result will only be putting the Northern Alliance in power in Kabul but not elsewhere in the country.
Pakistan will never ever grant space for an attack on Afghanistan.
182. judithathome - 9/12/2001 12:30:53 PM
Oh please....grow the hell up. I'll leave the floor to you so you can continue to shine.
183. judithathome - 9/12/2001 12:31:32 PM
182 is to Cal.
184. CalGal - 9/12/2001 12:35:01 PM
The first think Bin Laden and the Taliban will do is rely on Western skittishness with regard to civilian casualties and surround themselves with a protective bubble of bouncing babies.
Which is why this has to cease to be a factor--in fact, quite the opposite, if the US manages to kill bin Laden without harming anyone else, they've set the bar too high. People other than the terrorists themselves will have to die or we're still using the same priorities. Part of the point of a response is to demonstrate that our attitude about this has changed.
185. Wombat - 9/12/2001 12:36:13 PM
MacNas is confused. Taliban did not exist during the Russo-Afghan War. The US did channel funds and equipment to Islamic radicals under the belief that they would fight harder than more secular or ethnic-based groups. In this the US and Bin Laden had at very least, congruent goals, if not a formal relationship. In this, the US was shortsighted.
Over the last 150 years Britain and the Soviet Union "raised their flags" over Kabul, to no lasting effect.
There are a number of countries in the region that should face a choice: spill all that is known about the operations of Bin Laden and his followers, roll up whatever networks exist in their countries, and turn those arrested over to the US. These countries include Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, and Pakistan. Failure to do so will result in an end to the friendly relationships that currently exist, with financial and miltary consequences.
Countries that are seeking better relationships with the US must prove themselves by doing the same. If Afghanistan was truly not involved, they must prove it by turning Bin Laden over to the US. If not, the US will launch covert operations to overthrow them, assisted by US military forces as appropriate.
Countries that are declared enemies of the US, such as Iraq, had best demonstrate to our satisfaction that they were not involved, or face all-out war as a consequence.
186. mgleason - 9/12/2001 12:36:26 PM
The world is coming to an end: Fidel is offering humanitarian aid.
187. CalGal - 9/12/2001 12:37:39 PM
Wow. That's amazing. I saw last night that he offered condolences.
188. greystoke - 9/12/2001 12:37:42 PM
CalGal
OK, now I get it.
My position is slightly different. I don't see civilian casualties as a goal, or even a positive outcome from a deterrence point of view, but rather as an unavoidable byproduct of toppling a government.
189. pseudoerasmus - 9/12/2001 12:38:57 PM
I missed Macnas's post on the Taliban but Wombat is correct. The Taliban didn't even exist until 1994. The Soviet war ended in 1989.
190. Raskolnikov - 9/12/2001 12:39:45 PM
Pseudo: Then this becomes a daunting challenge of military logistics. How can the US conceivably even reach the Soviet level of occupation without an ally on the border or the possibility of an amphibious landing? I know next to nothing about the Soviet breakaways on the northern border, but what little I do know makes me skeptical they would support us either.
If so, we either have to do the entire thing through air support, routinely violating the airspace of a country that might eventually start shooting at our planes, or we have to invade a country or two to get to Afghanistan.
Not pretty.
191. HollyW - 9/12/2001 12:40:52 PM
I'm a little wigged out right now. Scores of people from communities all around me died on those planes.
I'm usually pretty good at not taking pain in that isn't directly mine--how else can you be a nurse and not flip out--but right now, I'm unraveling...just a bit.
I can't imagine I'm not the only one who feels that way. I went to work yesterday, but have not yet been out and about in the world. I'm wondering about the backlash the Arab community will be getting around here...everywhere, of course, but particularly in the Boston area, in light of what they suspect about the plot.
192. CalGal - 9/12/2001 12:41:00 PM
Grey,
I think they are an unavoidable byproduct as well, but I don't think we always have to topple a government in order to get the point across. Maybe it is necessary in this case, I don't know. I'm more interested in it as a policy issue, and in that instance I think civilian casualties are a positive outcome--but again, not indiscriminately so.
193. ScottLoar - 9/12/2001 12:41:20 PM
I wonder what century some of you inhabit.
Prescription for Fighting State-sponsored Terrorism
1) When conclusively identified, attack and destroy the state's leadership and party organization such as was tried by the US in Libya;
2) destroy the active agents wherever found (as in Paris).
Do not declare war against a country; it is the leadership, government and party apparatus which is to be destroyed not the populace, and so holding and occupying land is not the purpose.
194. CalGal - 9/12/2001 12:42:40 PM
Holly,
Andonly mentioned in another thread that there were reports of Arabs openly celebrating in New Jersey. I really hope that isn't true, because that will make things more difficult.
195. CalGal - 9/12/2001 12:44:24 PM
Do not declare war against a country; it is the leadership, government and party apparatus which is to be destroyed not the populace, and so holding and occupying land is not the purpose.
So you should never declare war against a country unless you want to occupy it?
196. Raskolnikov - 9/12/2001 12:44:40 PM
Scott: I don't think the US could, or would, settle for anything less than bin Laden's head on a plate. We can certainly attack governments, but I doubt we can effectively kill or capture terrorists solely from the air.
197. mgleason - 9/12/2001 12:45:39 PM
Holly,
I don't know anyone who was on one of the hijacked flights, but I'm still waiting for news of friends who worked at the WTC and others who participated in the rescue. It hasn't quite sunk in yet.
198. Raskolnikov - 9/12/2001 12:46:20 PM
Holly: There have already been stories of anti-arab death threats and beatings, and I recently heard about a molotov cocktail attack in Chicago.
199. Raskolnikov - 9/12/2001 12:47:31 PM
But our likely policy is beginning to sound a lot like Harrison Ford's in Air Force One, which I remember thinking was eye-rollingly naive at the time.
200. ScottLoar - 9/12/2001 12:49:21 PM
Raskolnikov;
I maintain that we needn't occupy a country to project our power nor is it desirable as doing gains nothing but exposing occupying troops to attack. My prescription (you read it?) had two aims: eradicating the state (not the country) that sponsored terrorism and that is done by killing them, and the second was killing the active agents - the terrorists - whenever found by whatever means. I doubt the 82nd Airborne as part of an occupying force could find and kill terrorists in, say, Syria. Those boys would be long gone by then to another country; look at the peregrinations of The Jackal.
201. concerned - 9/12/2001 12:49:28 PM
I posted this elsewhere, but thought it was worth copying here:
This actually happened: A Lefty has already tried to use the WTC/Pentagon terrorist attack as an argument against NMD in another forum. His 'reasoning'? Since this deadly attack didn't use a nuclear tipped ICBM, it was a guarantee that no missile attack would ever occur.
Crazy? Yes. Lefty 'thinking'? But, of course.
202. Oceans11 - 9/12/2001 12:49:45 PM
>There have already been stories of anti-arab death threats and
beatings, and I recently heard about a molotov cocktail attack in
Chicago.
Unsurprising, given Orrin Hatch's comments on ABC News last evening where he said "the goal of Muslims is to kill Americans."
203. concerned - 9/12/2001 12:52:26 PM
Re. 153 -
Looks like Powell & Co. are waiting for the terrorists to get a few more whacks in before they decide whether they'll do anything about it.
Actually, though, I read that several terrorism attempts were aborted by the US in the months before the WTC/Pentagon attack.
204. CalGal - 9/12/2001 12:52:48 PM
Rask,
I can't remember what the plot was of Air Force One--you mean the Pres' speech at the beginning?
205. CalGal - 9/12/2001 12:53:52 PM
Holly,
I keep on worrying that it will turn out I knew someone. Oddly enough, one of the gigs I applied for two months ago would have had me working in the WTC. It was filled by someone local.
206. Andonly - 9/12/2001 12:55:43 PM
"One reason that nukes should be ruled out is that in next door Pakistan, the nuclear programme is headed by ethnic Pashtun military officers. Even without the official encouragement of the Pak government, they will certainly try to put nuclear technolgy in the hands of terrorists in retaliation."
Pakistan was my first thought as well; however, I didn't consider the details you offer concerning nukes in the hands of terrorists. But in fact Pakistan couldn't do anything overt without risking a swift Indian-US alliance that would result in Pakistan's obliteration one way or the other.
"I think the analyses of the viability of conventional strikes against Afghanistan is vastly underrated. The Soviet Union managed to control cities in Afghanistan."
The Soviet Union bordered Afghanistan. Russia doesn't. To mobilize ground troops into Afghanistan from the north & west, we'd need to occupy or obtain the cooperation of the Muslim states bordering Afgh. From the south and southeast, we'd need Pak cooperation. I do not think the latter is completely out of the question, but right now I can't articulate why.
"If the USA were committed to overthrowing the Taliban, it could be done. The Taliban would be driven from the cities, and the opposition Northern Alliance could be supplied and equipped to eradicate the Taliban."
Have they used up all those cruise missiles I'm curious about the source of? Surely we've been arming them all along.
Any military analyst types care to comment on this scenario: American and NATO aircraft are staged in Turkey, fly over the Caucuses and the Caspian, continue over Turkmenistan, enter Afghanistan from the northern border, and level Kabul?
207. ScottLoar - 9/12/2001 12:56:08 PM
re Message # 195: Declaring war on, say, Libya or Syria, serves no purpose other than to serve notice the US wars on their people. That is not the desired intent. The US should state our specific targets are the leaders and party apparatus which abetts terrorism, not the nation and not the people. You can understand this distinction, yes?
208. Erin R. - 9/12/2001 12:57:01 PM
I'm sure it will turn out that many, many of us knows someone who died in the WTC. My husband knows two people.
209. sakonige - 9/12/2001 12:58:11 PM
Let's nuke them all. 
210. ScottLoar - 9/12/2001 12:59:18 PM
So the US levels Kabul, receives hearty condemnation from most of the world and most of our own people and gains what in return? A lasting legacy confirming it as the bully others claimed?
Again, attacks must be targeted on the leadership, state and party organizations only, and we must say so publicly (albeit after the fact).
211. Shannon - 9/12/2001 12:59:36 PM
I think you're right, Erin. I only have one good friend who lives in NY, and I know he's OK. But a number of people I knew in college live there, including, last I heard, one of my freshman roommates.
212. HollyW - 9/12/2001 1:00:33 PM
"Oddly enough"? I love how you put things, Cal!
213. sakonige - 9/12/2001 1:01:40 PM
What do you think, Jenerator? Should God Bless America stand tall and rid the world of these filthy sand niggers?
214. pseudoerasmus - 9/12/2001 1:03:22 PM
Message # 206
But in fact Pakistan couldn't do anything overt without risking a swift Indian-US alliance that would result in Pakistan's obliteration one way or the other.
I wasn't talking about the Pak government doing anything overt or doing anything at all willingly. I was talking about Pak nuclear technology leaking to terrorists -- leaking from independent but sympathetic Pakistanis of ethnic Pashtun extraction.
India would have no reason to strike against Pakistan just because Pakistani nuclear technology leaked in retaliation against the USA.
Have they used up all those cruise missiles I'm curious about the source of?
What cruise missiles?
Surely we've been arming them all along.
If so, then it's not obvious. The Northern Alliance is holed up in a corner of the country under siege by the Taliban.
Any military analyst types care to comment on this scenario: American and NATO aircraft are staged in Turkey, fly over the Caucuses and the Caspian, continue over Turkmenistan, enter Afghanistan from the northern border, and level Kabul?
You would be violating the airspace of Armenia and Turkmenistan, which have signed treaty obligations with the Russian Federation ceding some sovereignty over their airspace for military purposes.
215. ScottLoar - 9/12/2001 1:04:20 PM
Sakonige is crude, but she's right. And you advocating massive bombings are clueless. Just clueless.
216. pseudoerasmus - 9/12/2001 1:04:53 PM
Loar makes a lot of sense. Hasn't the USA's reason for its foreign policy always been that it is morally superior to its enemies?
217. concerned - 9/12/2001 1:05:00 PM
If the US decides that the Taliban needs to be removed from Afghanistan, I wouldn't think that tactical nuclear arms should necessarily be ruled out, although some other decisive weapon hopefully is available to the Pentagon instead.
The last thing the US needs is to become immured in a guerrilla war with Afghani hillbillys. Whatever armaments would be used, the war would need to be prosecuted quickly and decisively to fully impress the more bloodthirsty among the Muslims.
So, if the Taliban is at least partially culpable, demand that their government step down within 48 hours and produce bin Laden in shackles or suffer the consequences.
An alternative approach that might have possibilities, surprisingly enough, would be a interdiction of access. Apparently, Osama bin Laden suffers from renal insufficiency and needs to undergo dialysis on a regular basis. Since he currently goes to Pakistan to have this done, if he can be prevented from doing so for long enough, that could possibly be a factor in causing him to cave, eventually.
218. concerned - 9/12/2001 1:08:25 PM
In 209 Sakonige proposes 'nuking them all' and Loar supports that?
Given content like that, I don't feel obligated to wade back through dozens of posts.
219. Raskolnikov - 9/12/2001 1:09:33 PM
"I can't remember what the plot was of Air Force One--you mean the Pres' speech at the beginning?"
Yeah, he basically announces a US policy of treating all who harbor terrorists of enemies, and pursuing terrorists wherever they may be. I remember thinking "right, the American people would just line up to support a war against Iran, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Sudan, et al, for the purpose of saving the handful of lives lost to terrorism every year."
What happened yesterday drastically changes what the American people will be willing to support.
220. ScottLoar - 9/12/2001 1:10:53 PM
It is not only moral superiority (and the fact that I believe Americans cannot sustain unprincipled barbarity in warfare) but that projection of power does not require an 19th century occupation (which needlessly exposes troops to attack)and that the US must differentiate between the state and the nation as a people. Let me make it real simple: Kill Kaddhafi, not Libyans; eradicate Saddam and his Bathist party not Iraq; expose and bomb the Taliban government in Afghanistan if found culpable; and in doing so understand that the chances of killing Osama bin Laden or extinguishing terrorist cells are small. Other means are needed, but the first step is eradicating the state that sponsors terrorism, which is not the same as warring against the country.
221. ScottLoar - 9/12/2001 1:12:47 PM
Concerned, you are too lazy to understand it was not Loar who supports "nuking them all" as a glance at any one of my posts can prove even to the most indolent but that Sakonige's pictures with the sarcastic comment crudely but accurately caught the moral dilemma.
222. RustlerPike - 9/12/2001 1:13:23 PM
If Afghanistan being landlocked is the problem, the solution is simple: drive in through Iraq. Don't they have a common border somewhere?
223. ScottLoar - 9/12/2001 1:15:06 PM
I surely don't advocate taking on six, seven or eight countries at once. Just discover the active sponsor of this act against the US, trace the money and training, and if these terrorists received the blessing of a state then fire on its leaders.
224. concerned - 9/12/2001 1:15:18 PM
Re. 221 -
You're correct. But where did Sakonige make her worthwhile post?
225. mgleason - 9/12/2001 1:15:53 PM
A police SWAT team showed up at the Westin Hotel in Boston a little while ago. They're calling it a 'special weapons entry team.'
226. pseudoerasmus - 9/12/2001 1:16:03 PM
Rustler forgot about Iran.
227. Raskolnikov - 9/12/2001 1:17:04 PM
"If Afghanistan being landlocked is the problem, the solution is simple: drive in through Iraq. Don't they have a common border somewhere?"
No. Border states are Iran, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and a little slice of Uzbekistan.
Loar, I do agree with your statement in 220. I am just thinking about our needs to pursue the "other steps".
228. ScottLoar - 9/12/2001 1:19:28 PM
Raskolinkov, I appreciate your agreement as I fear words are beginning to fail me as the thrust of these entries continues along the lines of bomb'em, enter with troops, then shoot'em. That scenario belongs to the 19th century.
229. RustlerPike - 9/12/2001 1:20:48 PM
pe:
1) what do you prescribe as a good US reaction to the attack?
2) what do you speculate the Bushster will wind up doing?
230. concerned - 9/12/2001 1:21:50 PM
I think there is a problem with the US making outright attempts to kill heads of states.
Although Carter was generally a terrible president, his disavowal of US sponsored assassination was a good move. That's why the US should make some kinda sorta attempt to capture or have others capture individuals responsible for terrorist attacks alive.
231. RustlerPike - 9/12/2001 1:22:34 PM
Can someone post a good, yet small, map of the relevant region (to this thread)? I'd like it to include the Persian Gulf.
232. concerned - 9/12/2001 1:23:52 PM
If the perps fail to survive the US attempts to apprehend them, oh, well. At least the US is acting from a morally superior plane, particularly compared to the scum the US is dealing with.
233. concerned - 9/12/2001 1:25:36 PM
Re. 228 -
Well, at least the 19th Century is far advanced over the 12th Century mindset that the average Middle Easterner is frozen into.
234. Erin R. - 9/12/2001 1:26:09 PM
Just got another job offer. Two job offers requiring significant domestic air travel.
235. Erin R. - 9/12/2001 1:28:08 PM
And circling back to some of the earlier posts: I was paying bills in the living room when my husband came in and turned on the television. I had been trying to call American Express all morning, but couldn't get through.
236. RustlerPike - 9/12/2001 1:28:22 PM
This is my preliminary guess as to what Sharon will want to lure Bush into (assuming the Bush Admin will be listening to Israel here - not an unreasonable assumption):
1) do something that involves an indefinite stay of a lot of American troops on Mideastern Arab land. For instance, set up a base for your aircraft (from which to look for Bin Laden) somewhere in Iraq.
2) this will provoke Saddam into going to war.
3) get Saddam.
I asume the Saudis want Bin Laden dead as badly as anyone and I don't see why there should be an oil embargo.
Oh yeah, and
4) get Bin Laden too.
237. theDiva - 9/12/2001 1:29:12 PM
Pike 
238. ScottLoar - 9/12/2001 1:30:07 PM
Some of the perps will doubtlessly survive, but they are secondary to what should be the US' primary intent: conclusively and legally identifying the state sponsors of this act of terrorism and target their persons and organizations. Kill them, and like "killing a chicken to warn the monkey" serves notice to all that harbouring the terrorists puts a state at similar risk. We cannot eradicate terrorism until their state support and bases are gone, and to do that we need if not active then the passive cooperation of all countries.
239. mgleason - 9/12/2001 1:31:28 PM
This doesn't include the Persian Gulf, sorry: 
240. Francis Urquhart - 9/12/2001 1:32:11 PM
Loar is correct. The strikes must be at governmental facilities, defense installations, and political centers. But they must also be in the homes and neighborhoods of the Afghan ruling structure, much as the bombing in Tripoli targeted official buildings and areas where Qaddafi's family lived.
The attacks must also be unremitting and in conjunction with ground operations that inflict massive and maximum damage on the leadership.
And the goal should be clear and ambitious - cripple the leadership, with the first and most desirable action being death.
Indiscriminate loads dropped on Kabul is counterproductive.
241. ScottLoar - 9/12/2001 1:32:37 PM
We are not going to get active or passive cooperation by indiscriminately bombing the citizenry of a state.
242. ScottLoar - 9/12/2001 1:34:17 PM
What is wrong with you people? You've just witnessed the destruction of downtown Manhattan and you want to visit the same on Kabul? It doesn't work! Get the leaders, get the party, get the organization. You don't bomb the public!
243. Francis Urquhart - 9/12/2001 1:34:53 PM
Of course, I am of the bomb them, invade them, and shoot them school, but I agree that the "them" should be more circumscibed than anyone with the confines of Kabul.
244. Raskolnikov - 9/12/2001 1:35:18 PM
I missed the Chinese border. Not that they are likely to help us much in this.
245. RustlerPike - 9/12/2001 1:35:38 PM
Another approach would be in the lines of what Barak was saying on CNN, about going to war against terrorism the way 'our forefathers' fought piracy on the high seas (never mind that Barak's forefathers were at best the financiers who lent the British admirals money for staying solvent).
I don't like that approach. It underestimates the terrorists.
Still - that could also mean stuff like stationing a permanent presence in the Mideast and bombing Syria, Iraq, Iran, etc., constantly: different targets every week.
That would also be nice. I guess.
246. ScottLoar - 9/12/2001 1:35:42 PM
Francis, I yield to your humour.
247. pseudoerasmus - 9/12/2001 1:36:33 PM
Even if the Chinese were willing to help, the Chinese-Afghan border is useless. It's filled with 23,000+ foot peaks.
248. Francis Urquhart - 9/12/2001 1:36:44 PM
Scott
The leaders, the party, the organization will bubble wrap itself with the public. I presume that if intelligence identifies Taliban members in a specific location in a heavily populated area outside of Kabul, your policy would allow bombing of that area.
249. concerned - 9/12/2001 1:40:33 PM
How easy it will be to target tent dwelling terrorists, I'm not sure. But there's this. If the Taliban was responsible for this pure targeting of US citizens at the WTC, their primitive 'eye for an eye' philosophy would allow for the same behavior from the US. Indeed, their lack of perception would cause them to regard a too fastidious US response as a form of decadence and weakness, unless it was extremely successful in removing the Taliban.
250. ScottLoar - 9/12/2001 1:41:13 PM
Francis, of course the leadership, the party, will try to wrap itself with the public. That's exactly why I do not target the public but the leadership wherever they may be. I do not want to inflict civilian casualties as punishment and would state so after the attack and constantly thereafter but warn all - the US will seek, find and destroy until your leaders and their odious apparatus (I love Churchill) are dead and no long a threat to our nations. I said, "our nations".
251. Andonly - 9/12/2001 1:41:16 PM
"I wasn't talking about the Pak government doing anything overt or doing anything at all willingly. I was talking about Pak nuclear technology leaking... India would have no reason to strike against Pakistan just because Pakistani nuclear technology leaked in retaliation against the USA."
Oh--an 'unwilling' leakage. I see what you're saying. And yet, one wonders whether the Taliban, which must have known Afgh would be the US's first target in the event of even a suspected attack from OBL, quite willingly supported what transpired yesterday. It's one thing to harbour a fugitive; it's another to face retribution for his actions (or the actions of a group allied with him). Bearing in mind what is about to happen, are your Pashtuns so stupid as to accidentally 'lose' a nuke? We'd guess where it came from pretty quick. And then maybe we'd let India have the pleasure, if they could stand it.
"What cruise missiles?"
The ones that were reportedly fired at Kabul last night. But maybe they weren't cruise missiles? I have heard nothing more about what weaponry was used (or not used, or from what positions exactly) since the NA claimed responsibility.
"You would be violating the airspace of Armenia and Turkmenistan, which have signed treaty obligations with the Russian Federation ceding some sovereignty over their airspace for military purposes."
So? Why are you sure Russia won't simply waive any objection to our (or our allies) doing so?
252. Andonly - 9/12/2001 1:41:47 PM
Incidentally, I too have contemplated carving a path through Iran; but this would entail fighting off Iraq at the same time, I suspect.
And, obviously, Loar's preference and yours for seizing and occupying Afgh cities, purging them of the Taliban, is the most morally correct action the US could take--I would prefer it myself, along with a NATO occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. But the most moral action is not necessarily the executable one.
I trust the US will do what it can, but not more, toward an objective of achieving revenge sufficient to deter any state from supporting or harbouring a terrorist. But no matter what we do, that deterrence will be short lived, or largely illusory. Which may be better than nothing.
253. CalGal - 9/12/2001 1:43:49 PM
Well, I am of the bomb and invade school, but I've already said it shouldn't be indiscriminate. I do think that sparing civilians should not be a consideration.
Rask--I mentioned that earlier as well; American tolerance for going to war just changed dramatically.
Scott--I am just trying to figure out if you are saying that wars should never be fought against the people themselves. In that scenario, do we refrain from bombing Hiroshima because after all, it was just the government? Or are you saying this is only applicable when a state is sponsoring terrorism, and if so, where is the line drawn?
254. ScottLoar - 9/12/2001 1:45:49 PM
Leveling Kabul then trapsing troops across the wild surrounds of Afghanistan is executable?
255. concerned - 9/12/2001 1:46:04 PM
I sincerly hope that GWB doesn't try to turn any retaliation into Gulf War II. International troops or even support is not necessary; only partial regional support from critical surrounding countries would be really desirable.
The time wasted in attempts to court dozens of countries or hope for a UN vote as a measure of acceptance could backfire in a big way on GWB. Plus, the longer the US delays retaliation past the first few days, the less effective it is likely to be and the more chances for terrorist groups to strike demoralizing blows at the West during the interim.
256. Wombat - 9/12/2001 1:49:12 PM
The explosions in Kabul last night were attacks by supporters of Masoud, who was killed or injured by suicide bombers the day before. Does anyone know of his status?
257. concerned - 9/12/2001 1:49:48 PM
Scott Loar has used a lot of bandwidth inveighing against the 'indiscriminate bombing' school, yet I have not seen anybody post here since I logged in today who advocates that.
258. concerned - 9/12/2001 1:50:31 PM
Re. 256 -
I believe he is probably alive.
259. ScottLoar - 9/12/2001 1:50:33 PM
CalGal, of course wars can be fought nation against nation, people against people as in WWII, but responding to terrorism is not such an instance. I have written on and on in the last few hours about terrorism and if you've you missed my point then fault me because I don't know how else to get the point across at this time. It is not just a moral dilemma, and it also a matter of practicability. A declaration of war against, say Afghanistan, gains us nothing but grief in the end and does nothing to diminish terrorism; indeed, it would only incite and increase its advocates. I've already given a prescription to fight state-sponsored terrorism, and I'm just about exhausted over this.
260. sakonige - 9/12/2001 1:50:43 PM
We all know bad things happen in war, and I'm not going to waste any more regret on future reprisals against the US than I did on this one. The loss of 20,000 average middle-class American assholes just isn't that much of a tragedy.
261. pseudoerasmus - 9/12/2001 1:51:02 PM
Message # 251
I'm not sure you are understanding me, even though I've explained several times. I'm saying that if the USA nuked Afghanistan, individual symphathisers in Pakistan, acting independently of the government, would probably leak nuclear technology to terrorists.
...are your Pashtuns so stupid as to accidentally 'lose' a nuke?
I think so, if Afghanistan were nuked.
And then maybe we'd let India have the pleasure, if they could stand it.
Why would India do anything?
The ones that were reportedly fired at Kabul last night. But maybe they weren't cruise missiles? I have heard nothing more about what weaponry was used (or not used, or from what positions exactly) since the NA claimed responsibility.
They were not cruise missiles.
So? Why are you sure Russia won't simply waive any objection to our (or our allies) doing so?
Russia would never let the US fly over "their" air space -- even if it meant bombing Afghanistan.
262. Andonly - 9/12/2001 1:51:13 PM
"Leveling Kabul then trapsing troops across the wild surrounds of Afghanistan is executable?"
You're confusing my argument with CalGal's. The scenario I proposed (the one not entailing carving a path through Iran) is simply a retaliatory strike of some suitable magnitude. I am not advocating for it; I am resigned to the possibility of it.
263. ScottLoar - 9/12/2001 1:52:20 PM
Concerned, again, you don't read, or do read but without much comprehension.
264. Cygnus X-1 - 9/12/2001 1:53:58 PM
sakonige, 
Here's what they look like when they take off their rags.
All of your pretenses of sophistication and being above the fray don't mean shit to the dead. The game has changed. Our very way of life has been forever altered, and you just want to go take out one guy? For what, to make him a martyr to be replaced by countless others? You need to show these cockroaches and those that live with them what they're dealing with: A nuclear power. We can't fool around any more. It's time to put a stop to this. It worked once before and it will work again.
265. ScottLoar - 9/12/2001 1:53:59 PM
I leave others to weigh your protest, Adonly, against your earlier comments.
266. concerned - 9/12/2001 1:56:17 PM
Re. 263 -
Loar -
Unless you identify who you are referring to, I'm afraid my point stands.
267. pseudoerasmus - 9/12/2001 1:56:29 PM
concerned: Ace has eloquently propounded the nuking of Afghanistan.
268. Andonly - 9/12/2001 1:56:52 PM
"individual symphathisers in Pakistan, acting independently of the government, would probably leak nuclear technology to terrorists."
Technology? But this doesn't mean much. Building and delivering a nuclear device is not so simple if you have no state infrastructure behind you. How would it be hidden by these, presumably stateless, terrorists? I mean, which states would be willing to risk nuclear US reprisal by allowing such terrorists to assemble, let alone deploy, such a device?
269. mgleason - 9/12/2001 1:57:35 PM
Woolsey's back on ABC talking about the Iraqis. No coincidence, I think. His remarks are more pointed than yesterday, calling it a mistake on the Clinton administration's part to have backed off from focusing on Iraq's state-sponsored terrorism.
He keeps harking back to the WTC bombing of 1993, and the possibility that Ramzi Yussef was an Iraqi agent.
270. concerned - 9/12/2001 1:58:07 PM
As of post 263, that is. I don't see where Cal Gal or FU are being entirely unreasonable, Loar.
271. CalGal - 9/12/2001 1:59:09 PM
You're confusing my argument with CalGal's.
???
I don't think so, based on your restatement--which isn't my argument, at any rate.
Scott:
Okay, I am unconcerned about niceties like declaring war; I seemed to have missed a distinction.
You are saying
1) don't declare war on them because war is not the proper response to terrorism
2) because we aren't declaring war we should focus exclusively on the government, not inflict it on the people of the country?
I understood your recommendation as to what we should do, it was the higher level distinctions I was missing--and may still be, if I haven't nailed it this time.
272. wonkers2 - 9/12/2001 2:03:01 PM
Even the Israelis when they retaliate try to avoid killing large numbers of civilians. They use a rifle rather than a blunderbuss. And many thoughtful people don't believe this somewhat restrained retaliation isn't getting them any closer to where they want to be. Curbing terrorism is going to be a long, rocky road. And it will require the cooperation of all civilized governments. The attack was an assault on world civilization, not just on the U.S.
273. concerned - 9/12/2001 2:03:04 PM
Re. 267 -
True.
274. Andonly - 9/12/2001 2:03:37 PM
"Why would India do anything?"
From a purely emotional standpoint, to be done with Pakistan. But if your point is that there are about fifty mitigations against this sort of act, I would have to agree. It's just that I really don't know how much they'd care (until the fallout began falling on exactly half of Kashmir) if we did it.
275. Property of Jesus - 9/12/2001 2:03:39 PM
List of World Trade Center tenants
276. CalGal - 9/12/2001 2:05:04 PM
Whoops--Andonly, it wasn't your restatement (about "traipsing", it was Scott's. It was you who attributed the position to me.
277. Andonly - 9/12/2001 2:05:07 PM
"Russia would never let the US fly over "their" air space -- even if it meant bombing Afghanistan."
I guess we'll find out soon enough.
278. Property of Jesus - 9/12/2001 2:07:57 PM
Using dirty but small-yield nuclear weapons would teach the leaders of the countries involved a lesson that to harbor terrorists causes long-term problems.
279. mgleason - 9/12/2001 2:08:41 PM
ABC reports that one suspect may have been taken into custody at the Westin in Boston, another either wounded or dead. These are apparently cab drivers.
280. concerned - 9/12/2001 2:14:57 PM
Re. 278 -
The WTC/Pentagon terrorist attack has settled one question in my mind in the affirmative:
Are there people with the ability and will to detonate nuclear devices on US soil as unprovoked terrorist acts?
I think the question devolves to the one similar to that which PE and Andonly dealt with, which is whether enough infrastructure exists for such individuals and groups to obtain them in the first place.
I believe the answer will soon be, if it isn't already, 'yes' to this also. I read that Osama bin Laden is anxious to get his hands on biological and nuclear weapons.
281. Raskolnikov - 9/12/2001 2:15:33 PM
Cal: Scott's point is just that our war aims are very different here than they were in World War II. Japan and Germany were expansionist threats with lots of internal support for their governments. Eliminating those threats required the surrender and temporary occupation of those countries, and pretty much a total war strategy.
In this situation, our goal is not the elimination of a threat by the Afghanistan military and people, but a threat that comes from terrorist groups that their government supports. Our war aims and strategies need to change accordingly, and there is no sense, and a lot of potential harm, in engaging in military acts similar to those we used against Germany and Japan.
282. mgleason - 9/12/2001 2:16:51 PM
Now they say that two females and a male were taken into custody, and the hotel and block were evacuated due to a possible bomb.
283. OhioSTOPAS - 9/12/2001 2:18:11 PM
One thing I think President Bush ought to do is to urge everyone to return to business as usual, like Mayor Giuliani has done. It can only give satisfaction to the killers - and even encourage future terrorisam - to see Americans wringing our hands and cancelling public events, whether out of sorrow or (worse) out of fear. The President needs to say that returning to our normal routines is not disrespecting the victims but rather frustrating the aims of their killers.
284. Andonly - 9/12/2001 2:20:26 PM
I wonder whether west coast cities are likely to be targeted next, or if this stuff is all aimed at the eastern seaboard.
285. Indiana Jones - 9/12/2001 2:21:09 PM
"Worst is still to come"
The United States is paying the price for its anti-Islamic policies but the "worst is still to come", the leader of a Pakistani religious group said Wednesday.
286. CalGal - 9/12/2001 2:25:10 PM
Rask,
Thanks. I wouldn't argue that our aims and strategies need to be the same, and I haven't argued for engaging in military acts similar to those we used in WWII.
But it's not like this is the first instance of terrorism, or the first time we've had to consider civilians. We've been considering them for some 20 years; they have traditionally been a major reason for restraint. That approach is not working--understandably, the civilians of those countries don't really give a damn about us and our restraint.
Thus, I see no reason why we should prioritize their lives and safety.
287. Raskolnikov - 9/12/2001 2:27:59 PM
I don't think anyone is talking about prioritizing their lives and safety. They are mostly talking about the lack of a priority for *taking* their lives and safety. If the Taliban are odious enough to hide behind a wall of schoolchildren, they are the sons-of-bitches, not us.
288. theDiva - 9/12/2001 2:30:36 PM
Stopas
forgive me if you've mentioned this already, but did you talk to the Princess of Ohio yet? How is she?
289. concerned - 9/12/2001 2:31:07 PM
Re. 287 -
If the Taliban are odious enough to hide behind a
wall of schoolchildren, they are the sons-of-bitches,
not us.
Was there really any question in your mind about that?
290. CalGal - 9/12/2001 2:33:08 PM
Rask,
I thought--but could be wrong, there were a lot of posts flying about--that Scott took issue with my comments about civilians. Namely, that I think we will have failed if we take bin Laden while still prioritizing the lives of civilians in the affected countries--ie, sending in a sniper to kill bin Laden and a few pals.
291. Andonly - 9/12/2001 2:33:14 PM
"One thing I think President Bush ought to do is to urge everyone to return to business as usual, like Mayor Giuliani has done."
Absolutely not. People have not grasped yet that we are all in danger, that the danger may be ongoing, that it isn't over yet and isn't going to be over for some time.
People shouldn't go back to business as usual. People should be mobilizing ourselves to protect our children, at least in public places, and to be on guard against attacks on Muslims in our communities.
I received a call from the superintendant of schools this morning in response to a message I had left at our town hall. He probably only called me back because he somehow got the impression I was a) a representative of the Muslim community or b) a member of the national emergency preparedness team.
Basically, the guy hasn't really started to deal with this issue at all. My call apparently made it clear that he would need to start responding to local concerns. I'm sure others in the community are thinking about this stuff too, and I am urging evryone I see to speak up and ask what we are doing to protect ourselves now and in the days and weeks to come.
These pricks, or less fully equipped monsters, are fully capable of hitting school buses and daycare centers--ask Rustler.
292. Indiana Jones - 9/12/2001 2:33:38 PM
If the Taliban are odious enough to hide behind a wall of schoolchildren, they are the sons-of-bitches, not us.
My understanding is, that to get one pilot to open the cockpit door, the terrorists began slitting the throats of flight attendants.
293. CalGal - 9/12/2001 2:33:44 PM
Sigh--eg, not ie.
294. OhioSTOPAS - 9/12/2001 2:34:08 PM
Diva: She's fine (although unnerved like everyone else in New York or Washington). She was in class on East 71st street when the attack occurred. My wife and I knew she wouldn't be near the WTC and weren't worried, although it was a relief to hear from her later Tuesday morning.
295. Raskolnikov - 9/12/2001 2:36:40 PM
"Namely, that I think we will have failed if we take bin Laden while still prioritizing the lives of civilians in the affected countries--ie, sending in a sniper to kill bin Laden and a few pals."
No one disagrees with you. Getting rid of bin Laden doesn't eliminate state-sponsored terrorism, or at least punish those who sponsor it.
296. theDiva - 9/12/2001 2:37:05 PM
Stopas
I'm sure it was a relief. Thanks for the update.
297. Indiana Jones - 9/12/2001 2:38:06 PM
Midway Airlines lays off 1,700
The company said in a statement that the action was being taken ``with the recognition that, following the recent terrorist attacks, demand for air transportation is expected to decline sharply.''
``We are deeply troubled by the impact this action will have on our customers, employees, creditors and community. Unfortunately, we simply do not have the resources necessary to permit us to reorganize in this environment,'' the statement said.
298. theDiva - 9/12/2001 2:40:37 PM
oh shit.
299. rubberducky - 9/12/2001 2:41:14 PM
Re: Message # 291, Andonly.
Absolutely not. People have not grasped yet that we are all in danger, that the danger may be ongoing, that it isn't over yet and isn't going to be over for some time.
while true, it doesn't mean that we, as a nation, don't start to move on with our lives. life doesn't stop. learn the lessons and forge ahead. OH was right on.
300. Wombat - 9/12/2001 2:41:20 PM
I hope an Iraqi connection is established. That would be justification to finish what the Gulf War started.
Concerned:
What was also demonstrated was that the mode of delivery need not be an ICBM in order to cause an appalling amount of damage. I would hope that these attacks move NMD down the list of immediate defense spending priorities.
301. CalGal - 9/12/2001 2:42:02 PM
No one disagrees with you. Getting rid of bin Laden doesn't eliminate state-sponsored terrorism, or at least punish those who sponsor it.
Actually, there are a fair amount of folks who disagree with me. I don't think Scott was one of them, though.
302. concerned - 9/12/2001 2:43:55 PM
Re. 300 -
Wombat:
How do you see significant defense spending as relates to suppression of terrorist activity? It would seem that that falls more under improving security and intelligence, not weapons systems.
303. Property of Jesus - 9/12/2001 2:44:13 PM
Of course there is a Iraqi connection, Wombat. Take it to the bank.
After all the people in power in America are Bush, Cheney and Powell.
304. CalGal - 9/12/2001 2:45:22 PM
I was wondering when that would happen. US Airways is probably next. My dad is working at American now; I wonder if they'll lay people off?
It would be mildly ironic if the only two surviving airlines were the ones that were targeted.
305. concerned - 9/12/2001 2:45:32 PM
Re. 301 -
Name some.
306. mgleason - 9/12/2001 2:46:55 PM
ABC reports that Ari Fleischer stated that the gov't has reason to believe that the White House was the target of the plane that crashed into the Pentagon, and that AF1 was also a target.
307. CalGal - 9/12/2001 2:50:56 PM
Well, the Pentagon plane did seem to turn sharply at the last moment to take out the Pentagon. I wonder what their rationale was?
308. theDiva - 9/12/2001 2:52:13 PM
where did I read someone (eyewitness?) say they thought at first it was headed for the WH?
309. judithathome - 9/12/2001 2:52:21 PM
and that AF1 was also a target.
I hope concerned sees this....
310. christipeters - 9/12/2001 2:54:07 PM
1:19p Rash of bomb threats against U.S. businesses and sympathizers in Cape Town, South Africa since yesterday. In northern Nigeria, where most of the population is Muslim, there have celebrations involving small numbers of people over yesterday's attacks.
1:00p Latest ATCSSC advisory from the FAA's ATC Command center in Virginia: "ATCSCC Advisory
ATCSCC ADVZY 010 DCC 09/12/2001 NAS STATUS UPDATE MESSAGE: CURRENTLY THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM (NAS) IS IN OPERATION FOR MILITARY, LAW ENFORCEMENT AND MEDICAL EVACUATION FLIGHTS ONLY. THE RESUMPTION OF NORMAL OPERATIONS IN THE NAS IS EXPECTED TO BE A LENGTHY PROCESS WITH NO ESTABLISHED TIMELINE. ONE OF THE STEPS REQUIRED IS TO DETERMINE THE STATUS OF EACH AIRPORTS' SECURITY AND OPERATIONAL READINESS. COORDINATION WITH AIR TRAFFIC AND MILITARY FACILITIES MUST BE ACCOMPLISHED TO RESUME NAS OPERATIONS AT AIRPORTS IDENTIFIED AS MEETING THE SECURITY AND OPERATIONAL CRITERIA. WHEN IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT A SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF AIRPORTS CAN RESUME OPERATIONS A NATIONAL TELCON WILL BE CONDUCTED. THE RESUMPTION OF NAS SERVICES AND PLANNING CONFERENCES WILL BE ANNOUNCED VIA COORDINATION WITH EACH ARTCC AND PUBLISHED ADVISORIES."
12:56p FBI has found the flight data recorder ("black box") from the aircraft that crashed near Pittsburgh, PA
311. Absensia - 9/12/2001 2:55:22 PM
CNN has sent out a bulletin saying the head of the Taliban has specifically asked the US government not to bomb Afghanistan. The request came from Islamabad, Pakistan.
I don't think the Pakistan government would give Afghanistan aide for terrorists or supply nuclear information, et al. Pakistan has to walk a thin line here. It wants to be on good terms with the US, it is trying to establish better ties with India, does not want any more problems with Afghanistan and is still flooded with Afghanistans fleeing the country, and also has Iran and Iraq as neighbors. Both Iraq and Iran have tried to pressure Pakistan to be less pro western. Also, it is to India's political best interest to try to draw Pakistan into this, as everyone knows.
312. mgleason - 9/12/2001 2:56:27 PM
Interesting. ABC managed to ask Colin Powell about Fleischer's statement, and he said, 'Ari said that?' and refused to comment further beyond saying that he'd heard the same.
313. glendajean - 9/12/2001 2:59:05 PM
Their rationale could have been that they overshot the White House and the Pentagon was a second choice.
314. Absensia - 9/12/2001 2:59:50 PM
A friend from here, who is a black box expert was notified yesterday they wanted him in D.C. asap. He is often used when flights go down.
Frankly, I think much of the west coast, or at least the North West is still numb and can't understand it all. It seems more as if it was a mid air disaster. Terrorism just "doesn't happen" in the US. As far as west coast targets, although Boeing HQs have moved, the plants are here, and as are naval bases and submarine bases, and the "word" has always been that if there was war, Seattle would be one of the first hit.
315. rubberducky - 9/12/2001 3:01:56 PM
maybe they knew the gig was close to up and changed plans mid-flight to try and get the Pentagon versus the near certainty of defeat at the White House.
don’t wanna die for nothing, don’t ya know.
316. mgleason - 9/12/2001 3:01:57 PM
Yeah, GJ, because the side of the Pentagon they hit isn't where all the big guns have their offices.
317. Åse - 9/12/2001 3:03:42 PM
I'm still a bit in the "This is a bad Testosterone summer movie" mode, and wouldn't be surprised to see the WTC standing tomorrow.
It is shocking and numbing.
318. Absensia - 9/12/2001 3:05:09 PM
Indy,
The Jamiat Ulema-e-Islams are a very conservative anti West group who also criticise the Pakistani government for being Pro West. Such groups seem prevalent in those muslim countries who are at least friendly to the US. They don't speak for the governments of the countries but they are frightening.
319. theDiva - 9/12/2001 3:06:50 PM
Ase
yes, I keep expecting to wake up and find the world as it was.
Last night I dreamed a 727 headed straight for my house and instead crashed nose first into the pavement about a block away.
320. CalGal - 9/12/2001 3:09:00 PM
I had dreams of dead people all night--bloody and burned. It surprised me, because I haven't felt consciously affected at all.
321. glendajean - 9/12/2001 3:09:40 PM
The White House would be the smallest target of those hit. Maybe the pilot lost his nerve. If you were short, you hit a park, and if you overshoot it you hit a park (or eventually the Washington Monument). Coming from the north, the pilot sees he's not going to get it direct and looks over and sees the Pentagon sitting there like a big bull's eye target. Just speculation on my part.
322. glendajean - 9/12/2001 3:10:33 PM
All the buildings around the White House are fairly short. There is a 12 story height limit for the District, so it's not like buildings are going to be up in the sky at plane level like Manhattan.
323. PelleNilsson - 9/12/2001 3:11:26 PM
NATO is considering to invoke the clause that says that an act of war against one member requires concerted action by all members.
I another development Arafat has donated blood to aid the victims.
Both items reported by BBC just now.
324. mgleason - 9/12/2001 3:13:57 PM
Yes, Colin Powell made reference to NATO's deliberations in his statement.
325. glendajean - 9/12/2001 3:14:06 PM
Arafat is in a position of any of his gestures against the terrorists not being taken too seriously. "I am shocked that there is gambling in this establishment."
326. CalGal - 9/12/2001 3:16:00 PM
I disagree with that last, GJ. Arafat's concerns are local; has he ever been part of the faction that is anti-American? They are two different groups, as I understand it.
327. glendajean - 9/12/2001 3:22:24 PM
Arafat has a long history as being a terrorist, and for being quite cavalier prior to his taking office whenever civilians have been hurt in terrorist attacks.
But my original point was less an judgement than a description. I doubt if many people outside Palestine take his comments or actions in a meaningful way, primarily based on long-term perceptions of him.
328. CalGal - 9/12/2001 3:25:47 PM
Even if so, consider the impact his actions have on the Palestinians who are celebrating in the streets.
329. PelleNilsson - 9/12/2001 3:29:06 PM
Glenda
Of course. He's frantically trying to recover from the debacle of Palestinians beeing filmed celebrating in the streets. If you look closely you will find that the US is his only friend.
330. pseudoerasmus - 9/12/2001 3:31:11 PM
The Taliban may be willing, finally, to hand over Usama bin Ladin. But it's also possible that the Taliban don't know where he is. It's been reported in the Pak press that Usama bin Ladin moves from camp to camp across Afghanistan with millions of dollars worth of sophisticated communications equipment.
331. mgleason - 9/12/2001 3:40:35 PM
Rumsfeld just gave a strange statement to the effect that loose lips sink ships.
332. theDiva - 9/12/2001 3:41:19 PM
rut ro.
333. Wombat - 9/12/2001 3:45:06 PM
In answer to Concerned's question a while back on defense related funding priorities, two obvious areas would be reconaissance drones and building up stockpiles of "smart" weapons. Real time intelligence will be vital if there is any hope of tracking Bin Laden down. If sustained military action is needed, smart weapons will best suited for it.
334. Toenails - 9/12/2001 3:47:13 PM
Speaking as one who was none-too-pleased with the results of last November's election, I must state that I have been heartened and much-encouraged by the apparent competence and level-headedness demonstrated in the public utterances of our Secretary of State, our Secretary of Defense, and, yes, our President, in the wake of this attack.
Talk may be cheap, but their reactions, so far, have been appropriate, measured, and first-rate.
335. ronski - 9/12/2001 3:48:03 PM
Perhaps he was alluding to not wanting to tip the U.S.'s hand about retaliation.
Berry Berenson died on one of the planes. The same one the Angells were on.
336. OhioSTOPAS - 9/12/2001 3:49:25 PM
"Speaking as one who was none-too-pleased with the results of last November's election . . ."
It was DECEMBER'S election that was the problem.
337. CalGal - 9/12/2001 3:49:54 PM
Yeah, I just read that. Marisa Berenson's sister; I didn't know any of her own work.
338. mgleason - 9/12/2001 3:51:40 PM
Yikes, she was married to Tony Perkins.
339. Erin R. - 9/12/2001 3:53:17 PM
Passenger lists are at msnbc. I looked--I imagine they would not release the names of the suspected hijackers.
340. OhioSTOPAS - 9/12/2001 3:54:20 PM
But I agree with Toenails that the situation has been handled well by the President and the Cabinet (although as noted above I think the President should do more to urge a resumption of societal routine). In particular, our leaders have refrained from rashly making specific promises of retribution. In that regard, I'm reminded of the well-handled China/surveillance plane matter.
341. RustlerPike - 9/12/2001 3:55:15 PM
Arafat would donate both kidneys if asked to, I think. His whole strategy has collapsed, it seems.
342. pseudoerasmus - 9/12/2001 3:57:28 PM
Massud was attacked by Algerian suicide bombers.
343. theDiva - 9/12/2001 3:58:32 PM
they ran those lists on CNN this morning; on one of those planes was a 2 year old and a 4 year old.
344. OhioSTOPAS - 9/12/2001 3:58:48 PM
Here's some real wishful thinking: Maybe Arafat's (apparent) revulsion at this horrible act, committed (almost certainly) in supposed furtherance of Arabic and/or Muslim interests, will give him the heart and the balls to stand up to his radical constituents.
345. Erin R. - 9/12/2001 4:01:04 PM
I saw that, Diva. I flew out of Logan with my husband and two-year-old a few months ago.
346. PelleNilsson - 9/12/2001 4:01:39 PM
Rustler
Yes. Exit the Palestinian who suffers under the Israeli yoke. Enter the Palestinian who dances on the graves of innocent Americans.
347. mgleason - 9/12/2001 4:02:44 PM
Arafat appears to be increasingly irrelevant; they keep him around because he's the face of acceptable Palestinian struggle, but his days must surely be numbered.
348. judithathome - 9/12/2001 4:03:52 PM
Has anyone heard anything about the head of Intelligence in Saudi Arabia quitting abruptly yesterday? A friend called and mentioned this, wondering if I'd heard anything about it...
349. CalGal - 9/12/2001 4:05:46 PM
Ohio,
I don't know. I really don't know that this was pro-Arab/Muslim so much as anti-American. It's somewhat like saying the arsonists should be held responsible for McVeigh, or something. Arafat may be a thug, but has he ever really despised America? Maybe he has and I've missed it.
350. LimeGirl - 9/12/2001 4:06:49 PM
I really don't see why we need to wait for any confirmation that OBL was connected to this before we start demanding that the Afghanistan government turn him over. He's already wanted for other terrorist acts, and it's time to let them know that we're done with this crap, and that they need to turn him over or risk the concequences.
And the same goes for any other known terrorist, harbored by any other country. They need to be turned over to the US, or the countries harboring them need to pay.
About bombing Afghanistan, it's silly to think that nuking their countryside and killing lots of civilians will be better than taking out their major government centers. The government doesn't care at all about its people, it cares about itself. You're not going to gain anything by killing lots of civilians in the rural areas.
351. CalGal - 9/12/2001 4:08:30 PM
Exit the Palestinian who suffers under the Israeli yoke. Enter the Palestinian who dances on the graves of innocent Americans.
Yes, that's true. I am still astonished (and repelled) by the celebrating. Is it really universal, or is it the equivalent of a large city in Rhode Island popping the cork while everyone else is upset? But surely if it were that, Palestinian leaders other than Arafat would be stepping forward, chastising the people, folks on the street would be looking for news cameras to tell the world that the jerks were the exception. And yet I've seen none of that; has anyone else?
352. mgleason - 9/12/2001 4:10:39 PM
No, all the others I've seen on TV or whose remarks I've read have used the opportunity to express the pious sentiment that they hope that the US will see the error of its pro-Israeli ways.
353. robertjayb - 9/12/2001 4:11:00 PM
Jimmy Breslin's street scenes...
354. Erin R. - 9/12/2001 4:12:49 PM
I haven't seen any Palestinians other than Arafat condemning the attacks.
Airports are tightening security for flights over the next few days. No knives of any kind will be allowed on planes. Only ticketed passengers will be allowed into the gated areas. Armed sky marshals will be on every flight.
355. CalGal - 9/12/2001 4:13:27 PM
MG,
I suppose they think that the acts were done on their behalf? That's the kind of self-centered thinking I'd expect. Anyway. It's really pretty pathetic.
356. Cygnus X-1 - 9/12/2001 4:13:44 PM
Anyone recognize these names from American Airlines Flight 11? Are these just coincendental names?
Jeffrey Coombs - Horror movie actor
Robert Hayes - Of Airplane & Airplane II fame
Paul Friedman - "The voice of Wrigley Field"
Carlos Montoya - Musician
357. judithathome - 9/12/2001 4:14:40 PM
Is that the world famous classical guitarist Carlos Montoya?
358. CalGal - 9/12/2001 4:16:48 PM
Airports are tightening security for flights over the next few days.
More than a few days, I'm thinking. It will take some time for Americans to get sick of the increased security.
The other possibility is that we will reregulate air travel and set the business model 30 years back--expensive travel again. I'd rather we get sick of the long lines, frankly.
I think the marshalls are a terrible idea; I wish I could find the piece I read about how they cause more problems.
359. mgleason - 9/12/2001 4:16:51 PM
It sure sounds that way, CG, and it doesn't seem to have occurred to them that it isn't the safest thought to share.
360. PelleNilsson - 9/12/2001 4:18:18 PM
Most Palestinians on the West Bank are simple people. They believe they will be delivered by their own steadfastness, i.e. Intifada II, or by Saddam or by somebody else, and that a weakened America is good for them. It is one of the great crimes of Arafat's (and the other leaders) that he hasn't told them what the real situation is.
361. CalGal - 9/12/2001 4:19:19 PM
Oh, shit. Robert Hayes? He's not a big star, but he was funny in the Airplane movies.
362. concerned - 9/12/2001 4:20:17 PM
How is it that you think the marshalls (sic) are a 'terrible idea'? Such precautions would have prevented yesterday's disaster.
363. concerned - 9/12/2001 4:22:02 PM
Avoiding tragedy sounds anything but 'terrible' to me.
364. Erin R. - 9/12/2001 4:22:03 PM
msnbc is reporting that passengers in the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania tried to overpower the hijackers.
365. ScottLoar - 9/12/2001 4:22:29 PM
re Message # 360: Simple, yes, because it requires only faith to become a powerful truth. I remember a former member of the Chinese communist party telling me that having truth in your hand is a powerful, very powerful feeling.
366. concerned - 9/12/2001 4:23:32 PM
Re. 364 -
Probably the heroes on that flight will never be recognized.
367. Absensia - 9/12/2001 4:24:35 PM
CNN mailed out a news announcement saying the US was reaching out to Russia and Pakistan for help in dealing with all this. Hmmm, does that mean approval for airspace entry? I fear missiles et al..there was a lot of fall out from the Gulf war, as far as illnesses later discovered, cancer increases by people in neighboring countries, et al.
It will be interesting to see if the actual pilot was still in control when the jet crashed in Penn. That would perhaps mean he or she deliberately crashed it, rather than go for it's intended target.
368. CalGal - 9/12/2001 4:24:36 PM
Concerned,
If a pilot could snap his fingers and materialize one out of thin air only when needed, a marshal would be fine. Other than that, I think it's the wrong approach. In the short term it won't much matter, though.
369. Erin R. - 9/12/2001 4:24:53 PM
A company called placeware is offering free web conferencing for companies and government officials. Perhaps web conferencing will really be the wave of the future?
I liked Robert Hayes.
I like long lines and air marshals, if they prevent my plane from being crashed into a large building.
370. ronski - 9/12/2001 4:25:20 PM
Carlos Montoya the flamencan guitarist died in 1989.
I liked Hayes and Coombs.
371. ronski - 9/12/2001 4:26:11 PM
Air marshals, armed to the teeth, are fine with me, the more the better.
372. CalGal - 9/12/2001 4:26:19 PM
Abs,
Yes, there has been some speculation about that for a few reasons. I've wondered if the three people rushed the hijackers, the pilot took back the plane, and then...why crash it? Something would have had to happen. Didn't someone report they had found the black box? They should be able to find the voice recorder as well.
373. Raskolnikov - 9/12/2001 4:27:00 PM
What has been shocking to me is how little the terrorists and their sympathizers seem to understand Americans, even those who were evidently living among us during the Pearl Harbor hoopla last spring. No one with any understanding of US history would think that an attack of this scale would convince us to back off, or re-think our Mideast policy except in a way hostile to their interests.
374. CalGal - 9/12/2001 4:27:39 PM
Erin--if flying becomes extremely expensive, there won't be long lines. But there will be a lot of things lost as a result.
I couldn't find Coombs name in the IMD. What was he in, Ronski?
375. Erin R. - 9/12/2001 4:27:39 PM
I would imagine it would be a very chaotic scene. Who knows who was at the controls and for how long?
376. concerned - 9/12/2001 4:28:32 PM
Re. 368 -
CalGal -
I agree that air marshals would create inconveniences, of course. My idea for a better long term solution would be to go to 'fly by wire' airliners which have control assumable by ground control.
That way, hijacker scum would know up front that they couldn't do anything in a plane that they couldn't accomplish in a McDonalds.
377. ronski - 9/12/2001 4:28:40 PM
Rask,
Do they care? I mean, do they think that their actions will change policy or do they just want to kill Americans and Israelis? I think the latter as much as the former.
378. ScottLoar - 9/12/2001 4:29:20 PM
What shocks me is how little most understand about Americans and their resolve, as they somehow confuse those television and movie caricatures of US life as reality.
379. ronski - 9/12/2001 4:29:28 PM
Animator, Dead Man Walking, a host of horror films, Babylon 5 on TV, etc.
380. Erin R. - 9/12/2001 4:29:39 PM
msnbc is confirming the Pennsylvania story, from a transcript of a cell phone call.
381. CalGal - 9/12/2001 4:29:56 PM
Rask,
If you go along with Pelle's notion that these are a simple people, it is possible they thought our tepid responses to prior attacks was a sign of weakness. So this attack, obviously, would push us over the edge into pure cowardice.
I dunno. They aren't too bright. I haven't seen much reaction from any other mideast country yet.
382. pseudoerasmus - 9/12/2001 4:30:37 PM
NATO has unanimously invoked Article V, declaring that the attack on the USA was an attack on all member states. This is the first ever such invocation.
383. ronski - 9/12/2001 4:30:54 PM
We misjudged Viet Cong resolve in bombing Hanoi.
384. CalGal - 9/12/2001 4:31:42 PM
Erin,
A more recent phone call? There is already the one about the husband who called his wife and said three of them were going to try to take over.
385. ScottLoar - 9/12/2001 4:32:09 PM
Not enough that NATO, "Western" countries all, acts as one. That's not where the problem lies.
386. Erin R. - 9/12/2001 4:32:22 PM
Let's face it: we have let these terrorists get off relatively easy in the past.
387. concerned - 9/12/2001 4:33:08 PM
Re. 373 -
It says a great deal about their own psychology, however, and what to expect from the attitudes which permeate the Muslim middle east with their perpetual internecine wars, plotting and backstabbing.
388. glendajean - 9/12/2001 4:33:23 PM
re: NATO.
We always thought that would be used when Soviet tanks rolled into West Germany. Thankfully, that day never came.
389. ronski - 9/12/2001 4:33:38 PM
Bush will go with NATO. He will not wait for an Arab coalition as his father did in the Gulf War. He will try to get one, but if the Jordanians and such balk, he will go ahead anyway.
390. Erin R. - 9/12/2001 4:33:49 PM
Cal: yes, that's the one.
391. CalGal - 9/12/2001 4:34:17 PM
Um, I swear I just looked up Dead Man Walking and see no Jeff Coombs. Babylon Five either. Am I still misspelling?
392. ScottLoar - 9/12/2001 4:34:29 PM
Viet Cong are literally "Vietnamese Communists" from the south and so bombing Hanoi meant more to the North Vietnamese than to the southerners. But I get your point, and counter with the notion held by North Vietnamese regulars attacking during the Tet Offensive that they would be met in places like Hue as liberators and drive the US enemy in the sea just like the propaganda posters depicted.
393. ScottLoar - 9/12/2001 4:35:43 PM
I saw an overgrown field about the size of a football field in which a company of North Vietnamese regulars were cut down by US typewriter queens and military police.
394. Erin R. - 9/12/2001 4:38:14 PM
More arrests: in Virginia this time.
395. ronski - 9/12/2001 4:40:52 PM
I believe that is a different film, a cheapo horror flick with the same name.
Here is his site: Jeffrey Combs
Since it looks like the spelling is different on the manifest, it may not be the actor after all. I dunno.
396. ronski - 9/12/2001 4:42:46 PM
Scott,
Yeah, I know. I was using short hand. But tis true that people believe all sorts of crap in war.
397. OhioSTOPAS - 9/12/2001 4:42:46 PM
And I very much doubt that the "Robert Hayes" on one of the doomed flights was the "Airplane" actor.
398. Erin R. - 9/12/2001 4:43:59 PM
Guess we'll find out in the days and weeks to come.
399. ronski - 9/12/2001 4:45:13 PM
But several high ranking U.S. executives died, and one celebrity photographer on her way back to L.A..
Cellar probably knew her.
400. Absensia - 9/12/2001 4:46:20 PM
Judith, #348
I couldn't find anything about the Saudis' head of intelligence quitting abruptly, but did see that the Saudis' had abruptly cancelled high level talks with the UW military, on Sept. 11. The reason given was the US support of Israel.
401. Absensia - 9/12/2001 4:51:19 PM
Judith, #348
I couldn't find anything about the Saudis' head of intelligence quitting abruptly, but did see that the Saudis' had abruptly cancelled high level talks with the UW military, on Sept. 11. The reason given was the US support of Israel.
402. judithathome - 9/12/2001 4:51:52 PM
Thanks, Abs!
403. Absensia - 9/12/2001 4:52:02 PM
Judith, #348
I couldn't find anything about the Saudis' head of intelligence quitting abruptly, but did see that the Saudis' had abruptly cancelled high level talks with the UW military, on Sept. 11. The reason given was the US support of Israel.
404. Absensia - 9/12/2001 4:53:21 PM
Hmm, posted a messaged, clicked on post..(I checked) and it didn't show...did it twice more...grrr..hmmm, will this show? and NO, didn't click on home.
405. MaxMacks - 9/12/2001 4:54:19 PM
rumor will fly like locusts
406. Absensia - 9/12/2001 4:55:34 PM
strange, see my immediate comment above. I've noticed that no one's posts may show for 30 mins or so...then suddenly there are a lot, posted over the 30 minutes...this doesn't happen all the time, but has been happening to me in the last few days off and on.
407. iiibbb - 9/12/2001 5:23:35 PM
Air Marshals could be helpful I suppose, but they are still a centralized target... if you overcome them, you are in the same boat as the tragedies.
However... what if non-lethal weapons were allowed by general passengers on flights? Tasers for instance. If 10% of the passengers were so equipped, what would terrorists do against a throng of resistance from people they can't identify ahead of time?
If resistance that is decentralized is the most difficult for a projected power to overcome.
408. concerned - 9/12/2001 5:29:21 PM
It occurred to me that the history books will hardly ignore what happened yesterday. The first part has already been written (so to speak):
"For the first time since 1812, the American Capitol has come under attack with the following result and significance...."
and the conclusion to this sentence has yet to be determined.
409. Indiana Jones - 9/12/2001 5:38:35 PM
Has anyone mentioned the possibility of having a tank of knockout gas that could be made by the pilot to flow through into the cabin the same way oxygen can flow into the dropdown masks?
And then have an airtight cockpit door on the plane along with a separate oxygen supply for the cockpit.
410. CalGal - 9/12/2001 5:41:34 PM
what if non-lethal weapons were allowed by general passengers on flights?
Oh, yeah. That would work. We'd just make them swear they weren't terrorists.
Indy--that idea has come up before now in discussions like this. Unlike some of the other plans, it doesn't seem to cause as many problems as it fixes, but once terrorists knew about it, they'd just compensate.
411. EricCartman - 9/12/2001 5:44:00 PM
The actor from the Airplane movies is Robert Hays, actually. So it probably wasn't him after all.
Though it would have been morbidly ironic....
412. Indiana Jones - 9/12/2001 5:45:36 PM
Cal: It would be pretty hard to sneak a tank of oxygen on board with you, I would think.
It would require, however, telling pilots that regardless of what occurs in the cabin they are to rely on the gas and not open the door. At least that way, the hijackers would never be able to rely on a plan working. That is, they can think they'll take hostages and force the door open in the few moments before the gas affects them. But they would have no way of knowing that the pilot will ever open it.
After yesterday's events, I think a policy of not opening the door is more reasonable than the other.
413. CalGal - 9/12/2001 5:47:56 PM
I already thought they did have a policy to not open doors. It's a pretty common scenario.
They'd just get creative about oxygen masks--or, for that matter, teach terrorists how to hold their breath for six minutes. (g)
414. concerned - 9/12/2001 5:50:37 PM
Re. 412 -
Or, if a remote interlock (from ground control) can disable the opening of the cockpit door, then the coercive powers of hijackers would be reduced.
415. CalGal - 9/12/2001 5:50:59 PM
That said, it won't do a lot of good to close the barn door now. That's what I find really sad about all of this--flying may change forever and while in the short term no one will mind (after all, who'll miss the crowds?), in the longer view I think it can only be a negative result. And for what? Terrorists don't pull this shit on a whim. Whatever walls we put in place, they'll come up with something else--or move on to another, more lax form of travel. Bomb bridges at rush hour, for example.
It's not that I don't think we should take some basic steps, but most of the stuff suggested simply won't do much good. No more curbside checkin? Like this has ever caused a hijacking?
416. CalGal - 9/12/2001 5:54:04 PM
I like the control from the ground--but then you've just changed the focus of the attacks.
417. concerned - 9/12/2001 5:57:14 PM
Re. 415 -
I don't see the long term effects on flying as seeming particularly obtrusive to the passengers.
There's quite limited scope, barring the use of nuclear devices, for terrorists to replicate this scale of damage within the US at any single future date.
In several ways, the terrorists were quite lucky yesterday in their efforts.
418. concerned - 9/12/2001 5:58:19 PM
Re. 417 -
IMO, of course.
419. CalGal - 9/12/2001 6:00:15 PM
Concerned,
If more security means fewer flights a day, it ups the cost of travel. Higher paid security staff increases the cost of travel (although that, of all of them, is one I agree with).
I believe Europe has far more expensive air fare than we do? I wonder how much of that is due to their increased security.
420. sakonige - 9/12/2001 6:01:38 PM
Has anyone mentioned the possibility of having a tank of knockout gas that could be made by the pilot to flow through into the cabin the same way oxygen can flow into the dropdown masks
Actually, I was thinking a quick-acting, deadly nerve gas and gas masks smuggled aboard would be a effective substitute for knives if the security or the victims became difficult to handle.
421. sakonige - 9/12/2001 6:04:19 PM
Why take changes with killing just the crew and threatening the passengers? Kill 'em all immeadiately.
422. sakonige - 9/12/2001 6:04:49 PM
chances, I mean.
423. sakonige - 9/12/2001 6:06:07 PM
They could probably cut the number of terrorists needed per plane to two, if they did that.
424. concerned - 9/12/2001 6:07:53 PM
Nah. Just give the terrorists the poison up front, if they're willing to identify themselves...
425. Property of Jesus - 9/12/2001 6:08:04 PM
The President is leaving the White House right now and heading to the Pentagon to inspect the damage.
I can hear helicopters flying over Georgetown.
426. Property of Jesus - 9/12/2001 6:08:11 PM
The President is leaving the White House right now and heading to the Pentagon to inspect the damage.
I can hear helicopters flying over Georgetown.
427. CalGal - 9/12/2001 6:24:27 PM
Palestinian reaction
According to this piece, the celebrators were the minority, the rest were at best guilty of Schadenfreude (sp).
428. iiibbb - 9/12/2001 6:27:55 PM
Message # 410
It's just a thought... no need to be dismissive.
Even if the terrorist 'promissed' abd had tasers too... how would the overcome _everyone_... A bunch of guys jump up and declare they're taking over the plane... and then they find taser wires coming from every direction?
They'd have to fill up half the plane with terrorists or charter the whole flight.
re: Cockpit doors... they simply can't be opened for anyone. Either the key or combination is transmitted to the point of arrival or a key accessed from outside the plane. 3rd pilot in the cockpit in case something happens to the pilot and copilot. Escorted to the plane by armed bodyguards, and no passengers or crew are allowed on the plane until the cockpit is closed.
429. CalGal - 9/12/2001 6:34:21 PM
iiibbb,
Well, it was a dismissable thought. (g)
Seriously, anything that can be done with tasers in terms of overwhelming terrorists can be done by a group of determined people.
430. Absensia - 9/12/2001 6:35:10 PM
Apparently the stock market won't open until Friday, the earliest, but probably Monday.
431. CalGal - 9/12/2001 6:37:53 PM
The clearing house or something for NYSE was in the WTC, I heard.
432. jexster - 9/12/2001 6:42:53 PM
Interesting article in the SF Chron...
Former Agent Says CIA Is Blind
433. amax - 9/12/2001 6:48:02 PM
From what I understand, the complaints he had pretty much can be applied to the entire agency.
434. Absensia - 9/12/2001 6:54:58 PM
I still don't understand why the CIA didn't at least check out the statements bin Laden gave to a reporter in the UK a few weeks ago about this coming down. I thought the info was sent to the US by England's security office.
435. jexster - 9/12/2001 7:00:15 PM
Important Notice for DNC Members
Tuesday, September 11, 2001
The Democratic National Committee's annual fall meeting, scheduled to take place September 13 through September 15 in Miami, Florida, has been canceled due to today's tragic events.
Throughout our history, the American people have always come together in times of crisis. That strength has rarely been needed as much as it is now.
There are no partisans today, only patriots. As leaders in your community, I know that you will join with your fellow citizens to demonstrate our solidarity as American people and to express our sympathy for those Americans whose lives were taken today. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families facing unfathomable loss.
- Terry McCaulife, Chair of the DNC
436. jexster - 9/12/2001 7:06:01 PM
This is NEARLY funny ...Damn I need to laugh!
A Brooks Brothers clothing store became a morgue...
Became??
437. jexster - 9/12/2001 7:10:05 PM
BRUSSELS, Belgium -- In a strong show of support, Washington's NATO allies declared today that the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington can be considered an attack on the whole alliance if it turns out they were directed from abroad.
The United States got the backing for any military action from its 18 NATO partners if it is determined that Tuesday's attacks were committed by foreigners, NATO Secretary-General Lord Robertson said.
438. Erin R. - 9/12/2001 7:17:28 PM
I have found lax enforcement of the locked cockpit door rule. I've gotten on planes many, many times when the cockpit door is open at some point.
439. Erin R. - 9/12/2001 7:20:31 PM
From CNN:
Hunt widens in Florida
In Florida, various people were questioned as the hunt led to aviation schools in that state.
At least 10 FBI agents searched two side-by-side houses in Vero Beach and took one man into custody for questioning.
The immediate neighborhood was temporarily evacuated after FBI agents knocked on doors and said there was a bomb scare. Residents have been allowed back in their homes.
Little information was available after the nature of the search.
Landlord Paul Steineling said he rented the house to Adnan Bukhari, a man who said he was a commercial pilot from Saudi Arabia. The man, who lived with his wife and three children, said he was attending a local flight school.
The family, the landlord said, moved out over the weekend.
440. ronski - 9/12/2001 7:29:38 PM
The market has its communications and such intact, but civilians cannot be allowed in the area unless they are helping with the search, or live there. Probably Monday.
I think there are probably people still alive in the debris right now, by the way. Not many, but a few.
441. judithathome - 9/12/2001 7:34:36 PM
I've linked in the major network coverage sites in the TV thread.
442. Absensia - 9/12/2001 7:42:57 PM
Hmmm, I wonder if there is a Saudi connection. They did cancel their meeting with the US on the 11th, citing displeasure with the US's support of Israel. And it is common news and has been reported now that a lot of Saudi pilots get trained in the US.
443. judithathome - 9/12/2001 7:44:45 PM
And here is a link to an article about a conversation with the highjacker on Flight 11 out of Logan.
An American Airlines pilot stayed at the helm of hijacked Flight 11 much of the way from Boston to New York, sending surreptitious radio transmissions to authorities on the ground as he flew.
Because the pilot's voice was seldom heard in these covert transmissions, it was not clear to the listening air-traffic controllers which of the two pilots was flying the Boeing 767. What is clear is that the pilot was secretly trying to convey to authorities the flight's desperate situation, according to controllers familiar with the tense minutes after Flight 11 was hijacked.
The pilot was apparently triggering a "push-to-talk button" on the aircraft's yoke, or "wheel" – a feature that enables pilots to have their hands on the controls while communicating, the controllers say. By doing so, the pilot gave controllers a way to hear much of what was said and other noises in the cockpit. His ability to do so also indicates that he was in the driver's seat much of the way to the plane's fiery rendezvous with the World Trade Center.
444. ronski - 9/12/2001 7:47:22 PM
Terrorists are recruited from all over the Arab world. The Saudi elite regularly scolds the U.S. over support for Israel, but still depends on the U.S. in many ways. The U.S. ignores the Saudis' bankrolling of the PLO and less savory groups because they are still something of an ally. The Islamic fundamentalists would love to see the princes go. We would not want that to happen. It is a mutually beneficial but uneasy relationship.
445. ronski - 9/12/2001 7:52:53 PM
When I say we of course I mean the U.S. government. Whether the Saudis are any real benefit to us I don't know. But the chance that they could be replaced by a much more militant anti-Western group with access to incredible wealth is indeed chilling.
446. Erin R. - 9/12/2001 8:37:32 PM
Wow. msnbc has names and a photo of the terrorists.
447. Absensia - 9/12/2001 8:55:16 PM
Ronski,
I was mostly being tongue in cheek. You are right of course. And once the prince has scolded us, he
comes for a visit and has a great time, doing all the things he forbids his people to do. But, it's better to have him, than who might succeed him.
448. Absensia - 9/12/2001 8:56:40 PM
Thanks for the link, Judith. A powerful article.
449. Absensia - 9/12/2001 8:57:22 PM
I think this whole thing about security is BS...several airports have been cited for being lax. A friend went through Denver airport on Sunday...she had her entire sewing kit in her backpack..in a metal box, with scissors, a knife, etc. in it..she wasn't even asked to open her backpack.
450. Erin R. - 9/12/2001 9:03:20 PM
http://msnbc.com/news/627125.asp?cp1=1
Not sure if this will make a link, but there you have it.
451. judithathome - 9/12/2001 9:05:13 PM
Okay, this is the last one for me tonight. I want to go to bed and pull the covers over my head after reading this one on another forum:
BBC America had an interview with a guy... sit down for this one.
He was in one of the towers. 52nd floor, perhaps. The first plane hit above him, he made it to the ground. Eventually managed to call his family to let them know that he was okay.
They had to inform him that his sister had flown out of Boston that morning, and was on one of the flights that flew into the WTC.
452. Erin R. - 9/12/2001 9:07:13 PM
Oh my God.
453. CalGal - 9/12/2001 9:12:12 PM
Oh, no.
454. Absensia - 9/12/2001 9:16:08 PM
And, not only was it his sister, but also his young neice.
455. Erin R. - 9/12/2001 9:17:10 PM
Oh God.
456. Erin R. - 9/12/2001 9:24:46 PM
Giuliani has requested 6,000 body bags from the feds.
457. clydefo - 9/12/2001 9:46:58 PM
I've seen members of Congress and others worshiping and praying to a God
whom, according to their own non-rational supernatural beliefs, had the power to prevent this horror. They don't seem to be able to come to grips with the fact that this is an attempt by another organized religion to drag civilization back into the Middle Ages so that they can take control. This is Jihad.
458. Erin R. - 9/12/2001 9:50:06 PM
Not everyone thinks that God has the power to prevent these types of things.
What's your point?
459. Stumbo - 9/12/2001 9:59:51 PM
Night school, eh, Clyde?
460. clydefo - 9/12/2001 10:07:56 PM
My point is that organized religion is the bane of mankind; something that 21st century man has not yet come to understand.
461. Jenerator - 9/12/2001 10:08:21 PM
Faith gives people hope. Hope causes people to persevere. Looking to God for hope and perseverance is completely understandable and rationable Clyde.
Also, I don't consider radical Muslim extremsists as representatives of an organized religion. There's no real theological organization in zealotry.
462. Jenerator - 9/12/2001 10:09:44 PM
Organized religion isn't the bane of mankind; human nature is.
463. jexster - 9/12/2001 10:19:33 PM
I am gettin tired of continuous TV coverage. I want baseball! I want Passions
Whenever this Reality TV shit happens, a recurring question to me - how will the networks justify their decision to stop showing endless replays? When? Which will be the first?
464. jexster - 9/12/2001 10:20:56 PM
Heartening sight at SF State quad today....
A bunch of students yelling "Donate to the Red Cross" "Help the Needy!" "Dollars for the Innocents!"
Fuckin peace-fairies!
465. jexster - 9/12/2001 10:21:30 PM
They had a barrel of money at 11 am
466. ronski - 9/12/2001 10:22:34 PM
The sadness of this is unending. I have been deeply troubled today. As have you.
I live in a beautiful, idyllic spot. I saw the bees this morning, honey bees and bumble bees, foraging among the blue-lavendar blossoms of native asters and baskets of scaveola. I wanted to scream at them, don't you know what has happened?
I find myself thinking about eternity, and beyond.
I fear the next attack will be a nuclear weapon on our soil.
467. Absensia - 9/12/2001 10:26:00 PM
Here is a comment someone posted somewhere else today. She has a relative in the Navy who's ship was ordered out of port yesterday:
"his wife said he was able to get her a short e mail this morning, telling her to take the "navy" stickers off her car bumper, and that depending on what the government decided, he probably would NOT be home before Thanksgiving.
468. Absensia - 9/12/2001 10:27:22 PM
whose
469. CalGal - 9/12/2001 10:28:21 PM
They are evacuating the Empire State Building and Penn Station.
470. Absensia - 9/12/2001 10:28:31 PM
Ronski,
I had similar thoughts today. The mountains still stand, the lakes are glistening, and all seems right and that seems wrong.
471. Absensia - 9/12/2001 10:29:24 PM
Cal, I saw that..does anyone say why they are evacuating the ESB and Penn Station?
472. CalGal - 9/12/2001 10:30:31 PM
They don't know why on CNN. Normally, I would expect it to be a false alarm. My guess is that they found plans in all the stuff they picked up, or from the people they've arrested.
473. CalGal - 9/12/2001 10:31:32 PM
They just said they think it is due to structural problems.
474. CalGal - 9/12/2001 10:32:45 PM
But Fox is reporting that NYPD is telling residents that a threat was made to the Empire State building.
475. Absensia - 9/12/2001 10:34:16 PM
Hmmmm, you might be right about plans...I haven't been to NYC for several years and can't remember where the Empire State Building is vis a vis the WTC.
476. angel-five - 9/12/2001 10:46:33 PM
(deep breath)
The melodrama of so much of the reporting yesterday and today is really beginning to grate on me. The terrorist assaults were horrible, horrible events. They were terrible to watch on television and I can only imagine how much worse it would be to have witnessed them, or their aftermath, with my own eyes... but I am already sick and tired of hearing about how no American's life will ever be the same and how yesterday was our darkest day and so on. It's almost embarrassing to admit that because it makes me feel vaguely monstrous to say such a thing when so many people are grieving for friends and family lost. But what has happened has been awful enough that it doesn't need an extra helping of smarmy histrionics ladled over the top of it. It's sickening.
(takes another deep breath and prepares to feel guilty some more)
And, yes, what happened was one king-hell killer of a shock to most of us. But if I hear even one more person whine about how could this have happened and why didn't someone warn them and how America has been shaken on its foundation I will likely scream. It was shocking and surprising, yes,but it shouldn't have been THAT shocking and surprising that something like this would eventually happen to us.
If we as a nation had been thinking, we should have expected this sooner or later. It is not as though we haven't been warned, by everything from foreign threats to movies and popular fiction to the press releases of our own government, about the possibility of terrorism hitting home to us in a dramatic way. It's not as if terrorists haven't been blowing the fuck out of people and things across the world on a regular basis for a long time and not as if we haven't been told -- not as if we couldn't even figure out on our own -- that sooner or later the tide would reach us.
477. angel-five - 9/12/2001 10:47:29 PM
It is one thing for someone who was actually victimized by the explosion to say such things; they have a right to say them, as far as I can see. They got to be the unlucky ones; all our numbers got tossed into the raffle bin and when it came time for some to be drawn, theirs came up. They got to pay the price for all of us. Let them articulate what they feel. But all the rest of us (I'm not speaking about anyone here, btw) don't need to be staggering around like an ambulatory Munch painting. It's time to make up for lost ground, pull on our goddamned helmets and get to work.
478. mgleason - 9/12/2001 10:48:18 PM
They've given the all-clear at the Empire State. According to the FBI, a bomb-sniffing dog reacted strangely, and they naturally erred on the side of caution. I dunno about Penn.
479. angel-five - 9/12/2001 10:50:16 PM
It has to be a tremendous pain in the ass to evacuate something that damned big.
480. altitude /w attitude - 9/12/2001 10:55:08 PM
Nice to see it's business as usual in here. After 2 days of trying, I rec'd a new URL from the Gatekeeper and found you all. Life has been very liminal, with reports of the safety and well being of family and friends trickling in slowly. Is it a dichotomy to be so real and unreal at the same time or is it just a contradiction?
481. CalGal - 9/12/2001 10:57:07 PM
Alt! Good to see you. Are you in New York?
482. judithathome - 9/12/2001 10:57:25 PM
Welcome back, Alt /w Att...
483. mgleason - 9/12/2001 10:57:29 PM
Pakistan has pledged full cooperation with the US, according to Reuters.
'The carnage in has raised the struggle to a new level.'
484. mgleason - 9/12/2001 10:58:02 PM
Sorry, that's 'The carnage in NY and Washington has raised the struggle to a new level.'
485. altitude /w attitude - 9/12/2001 11:04:42 PM
Was there in August. Life has just been incredibly busy. My hours are incongruent with the rest of the world (it seems). I was concerned about the Moties, ALL of them. What a mess. DIA is still closed (Denver airport), so we have some overflow in dialysis. People unable to leave. Nice to see you JAH, CalGal, A-5, mgleason, et al. Don't know who hails from the Big Apple. Figure nearly everyone probably knows someone or knows someone who knows someone from Manhattan.
486. mgleason - 9/12/2001 11:10:05 PM
Thanks, A/WA. My husband and I grew up in NY, and still own a home in the burbs, so it's pretty tough to see all that, even at a remove. We're still waiting for news on some friends, but fear the worst.
487. CalGal - 9/12/2001 11:11:46 PM
Yes, this will be a gruesome form of six degrees.
MGleason,
Interesting. Did you watch Lehrer News Hour tonight, adn the discussion with Rudman, Christopher, and Berger?
On MSNBC, the anchor asked politely how it was that the Feds could move so fast after the fact?
488. altitude /w attitude - 9/12/2001 11:14:36 PM
I think after the fact is like hind sight. Your direction and vision are clearer.
489. mgleason - 9/12/2001 11:15:47 PM
I did catch that discussion, CG. It's worth linking to it when the transcript appears.
As to the incredible Fed velocity, I wonder, too.
490. wonkers2 - 9/12/2001 11:16:00 PM
And somebody was wondering today why the Pentagon and White House and Capitol didn't evacuate immediately when they learned of the situation in New York. The Pentagon wasn't hit until an hour-and-a-half or so after the Trade Center. I guess only hindsight is 20-20.
491. altitude /w attitude - 9/12/2001 11:16:02 PM
Of course one could make some analogy about looking up the hind end also or some such thing.
492. angel-five - 9/12/2001 11:16:03 PM
I HAVE been rather surprised at the speed at which decisive and competent action was taken nationwide, the handwaving and panic of some citizens notwithstanding. Everything from shutting air traffic DOWN to grounding fuel trucks, all in a very short time.
493. altitude /w attitude - 9/12/2001 11:17:57 PM
Good night all you wonderful people. Have to get up in 5 hours and take care of folks. Take care of each other.
494. CalGal - 9/12/2001 11:22:11 PM
Good night, Alt.
I think they are hamstrung in some way from acting to prevent. And of course, our cheerfully litigious society doesn't encourage it.
495. Andonly - 9/12/2001 11:27:54 PM
A5: "But what has happened has been awful enough that it doesn't need an extra helping of smarmy histrionics ladled over the top of it. It's sickening."
ABSOLUTELY. I think I'm going to bomb the next TV station that provides goddamn theme music to its terror reportage.
"But if I hear even one more person whine about how could this have happened and why didn't someone warn them and how America has been shaken on its foundation I will likely scream. It was shocking and surprising, yes,but it shouldn't have been THAT shocking and surprising that something like this would eventually happen to us."
Indeed. Haven't we been capable of expecting something--perhaps not on this scale, but something nonetheless--for at least the past year?
Maria: "Pakistan has pledged full cooperation with the US, according to Reuters."
To do what, though--Hand us OSB, or provide us military access to Afghanistan?
496. mgleason - 9/12/2001 11:28:18 PM
I'll tell you one thing, if this doesn't bring home just how porous our borders are, nothing will. The illusion of safety provided by those two big oceans is deadly.
497. mgleason - 9/12/2001 11:31:39 PM
They were suitably vague, Andonly. Here's the story: Pakistan President Supports Fight Against Terror.
498. ronski - 9/12/2001 11:36:25 PM
We have been watching the pictures of New Yorkers, black, white hispanic, other, holding up pictures of their loved ones outside of St. Vincent's Hospital and in front of TV cameras in the hope that someone will tell them something.
I remember living almost twenty years on Horatio Street in NYC. I slept on the side of the bed facing the window, which looked upon the Towers. I remember waking up one morning and seeing a speck on one tower, and then learning that it was a Frenchman climbing the Tower. I remember waking up one morning, alone, my lover was in England, hearing dull rumbling sound and things around our garrett-like flat, shaking, and sounds of tinkling -- there had been a mild earthquake; and wondering whether those towers were in any danger. They never were from sonething so trivial as an earthquake.
My partner and I are crying again tonight. I will get to work tomorrow for the first time this week and learn who among my colleagues has lost a loved one.
499. HollyW - 9/12/2001 11:42:55 PM
Ah, Ronski. Take care.
500. joezan - 9/12/2001 11:47:19 PM
Ronski:
Take the rest of the week off.
501. Raskolnikov - 9/12/2001 11:48:16 PM
I have found that this week I have a much greater tolerance for rank sentiment and unabashed patriotism than I would have ever thought possible. A friend of mine was watching the news coverage with me, and kept making cynical statements about CNN's slogans and the like. I wanted to punch him.
502. HollyW - 9/12/2001 11:48:40 PM
A5, about post 477, I am totally in agreement.
503. CalGal - 9/12/2001 11:50:26 PM
HOW TO RESPOND
This is the discussion that was on Lehrer Newshour. Well worth reading. A sample:
Flesh that out Senator Rudman, from your point of view. What difficult things lie ahead not only for the president -- he makes the decision -- but also for Congress to support it and the American people to support it and our allies?
FORMER SEN. WARREN RUDMAN: Well, let me lead off with the first one. If anything thinks at the kind of thing that's being talked about here tonight is something to be done with a low casualty rate amongst U.S. forces, they're thinking the wrong way. As someone who has served in combat myself, I
will tell you if you want to undergo an operation to severely limit not only Osama bin Laden if he turns out to be culpable but other organizations that are clearly identifiable and well-known to Sandy Berger and the U.S. intelligence community, it is going to take a huge American effort involving many people....
JIM LEHRER: How many people?
FORMER SEN. WARREN RUDMAN: I believe - and if you're going to move against some of these terrorist organizations, you're talking about several wings of aircraft, a substantial naval presence, and possibly ground troops. We are not talking surgical strikes against these kinds of operations. If we're going to do this right, if we're going to really roll these people up as the American people would support, it's not going to be an easy operation and nobody should sell it as such.
504. CalGal - 9/12/2001 11:51:41 PM
I don't like the titles. It really cheapens it; makes it just like Lewinsky or even Oklahoma City. "American Terror" or "A Presidency in Crisis" or whatever.
Other than that, I think the TV coverage has been very solid.
505. mgleason - 9/12/2001 11:52:18 PM
I'm very sentimental. Like all good immigrants, I can't bear it when this country is attacked in any way.
506. HollyW - 9/12/2001 11:54:41 PM
I didn't watch much TV today. A lot was going on here in Boston--scouring Logan Airport, the three "arrests" at the Westin Hotel...I've been tuned in to that.
507. CalGal - 9/12/2001 11:55:51 PM
Did anyone see the video footage of inside the WTC? It's on ABC right now, if not.
508. mgleason - 9/12/2001 11:56:30 PM
It's riveting.
509. CalGal - 9/12/2001 11:59:41 PM
The photographer was so informative and articulate and then he started to cry at the firetruck.
510. angel-five - 9/13/2001 12:00:14 AM
Rask: That pretty much makes one of us, at least about the rank sentiment part. The patriotism, on the other hand, I can accept, although there is nothing uniquely American about those values which terrorism threatens.
511. mgleason - 9/13/2001 12:01:29 AM
God, it's so sad to see that fire truck that they're using as a staging area. Ed was a volunteer fireman when we lived in NY; if we were there, he'd be among them.
512. angel-five - 9/13/2001 12:01:36 AM
Well don't stop being sentimental on my account, I'll just be over here gritting my teeth.
513. ronski - 9/13/2001 12:03:42 AM
I think the ridiculous notion that we can have surgical strikes and no casualties is forever out the window.
We will attack and lose many lives. And no Americans will mind.
It is war. Indeed, it is war.
514. CalGal - 9/13/2001 12:05:50 AM
Holly--that's true, you're pretty much in the heat of the action as far as arrests go. All because you have a ludicrously unsafe airport. It's attributes like these that make a great city. (g)
515. HollyW - 9/13/2001 12:07:49 AM
I missed the footage.
I'm not a sentimental person, but I have walked around most of today feeling like I got kicked hard in the gut. I think that's different, though.
I'd feel better if I had something concrete to DO, but I sure as hell am not going to leave flowers on someone's lawn.
516. angel-five - 9/13/2001 12:08:03 AM
If this is going to be another Pearl Harbor for our nation -- the sort of thing which gets us to all roll up our sleeves and pull our heads out of our collective arse and put shoulders to the wheel -- at least some good will come of what has happened. Even if it means, eventually, another Boomer generation must inevitably ensue.
We need leadership. It's a shame that the best we're getting is from a member of the executive cabinet. Leadership is pretty much the missing ingredient here and -- partisanship aside -- I don't think having our president constantly looking down to the script in his hands while he makes remarks is going to help. You suppose we could just make Powell president?
517. HollyW - 9/13/2001 12:10:39 AM
Hey, they keep insisting Logan is not anymore unsafe than anywhere else, it was more like location location location. Something to keep in mind, they have been doing major construction on Logan for quite some time now, and it has been a huge mess. I wonder if that made it easier for them to break security.
518. ronski - 9/13/2001 12:10:46 AM
I have asthma. Have had since a child.
This morning I woke up coughing terribly. I couldn't understand why, since the wind pattern had been from the NW, taking the smoke and debris from the Towers away from the mainland and into the harbor.
Tonight I learned the wind had shifted to the south, taking the crap up into the Hudson valley and the mountains, where I live.
519. angel-five - 9/13/2001 12:11:13 AM
After Pearl Harbor we had FDR using his best oratorical skills. One can argue that was a different, less sophisticated time, but it's not a terribly convincing argument as you look from face to face today and seeing everyone waiting for one man to step up and inspire us and lead us back home. We need that again, as a people.
520. Raskolnikov - 9/13/2001 12:11:31 AM
An online arabic newspaper is reporting that the Taliban have placed bin Laden and some of his followers under house arrest. Take it with a grain of salt, but it would be nice, if true.
521. Raskolnikov - 9/13/2001 12:14:24 AM
I have been thinking about how Serbia mostly capitulated to Hapsburg demands after the assassination of the Archduke. Not that it saved them from invasion, but I like to think the US is more reasonable.
522. CalGal - 9/13/2001 12:15:43 AM
Holly,
I was partially kidding--the terrorists didn't actually violate security all that much, if at all. Boston has just been known as a particularly lax airport.
523. angel-five - 9/13/2001 12:17:31 AM
Serbia mostly capitulated until they got word of what the reaction was in the Tsar's court, which was of course unmitigated support of the Serbian position. They then not only reversed themselves but actually started making demands of the emperor. And they didn't see a real invasion until some fourteen months or so after war broke out.
It would be a real mess if something similar happened again.
524. mgleason - 9/13/2001 12:17:56 AM
This is beginning to remind me of the phoney war, except that we experienced a few minutes of blitzkrieg up front. All the people clamoring for war have no idea what they're asking for, and I fear that 9/11 was the merest taste.
525. Raskolnikov - 9/13/2001 12:19:50 AM
I would love a great orator President right now. Bush did a decent job, relative to his past performances, but he isn't inspiring. I did find myself really liking Giuliani at the midnight press conference last night. The man appeared in charge, confident, and compassionate. I found myself wishing *he* was President. I do think Bush can handle it. His foreign policy team was always one of the more impressive parts of his administration. But I am not expecting speeches we will remember 50 years from now, or a sense that he is a great leader through a crisis.
Which is to be expected, I guess. FDRs or Lincolns don't come around all that often.
526. Raskolnikov - 9/13/2001 12:23:11 AM
A5: since Afghanistan doesn't have a member of a Triple Entente in the corner, here is hoping that they bitch out.
527. mgleason - 9/13/2001 12:23:40 AM
Nightline just repeated your scoop, Raskolnikov.
528. Raskolnikov - 9/13/2001 12:24:57 AM
Jesus, we just got attacked yesterday, and it is already reminding you of the phoney war? It took us five months to mobilize for Desert Storm.
529. ronski - 9/13/2001 12:26:20 AM
I prefer the inarticulate Bush to the golden tongued Lincoln or FDR, by far. I shudder to think what vast expanse of authoritarian power this horrible tragedy would have been effected by men of the latter's temperment in these ghastly circumstances. And I speak as someone who thinks the government has gravely failed to respond to the threat of conventional and nuclear terrorist threats, the effects on individual liberties such response would necessitate notwithstanding.
530. angel-five - 9/13/2001 12:27:25 AM
Seems a little longer than a day and a half ago, doesn't it? Everything moves a little quicker these days. People are famous for fifteen minutes and Sitzkriegs last two weeks.
531. mgleason - 9/13/2001 12:28:28 AM
This is the age of bigger-better-faster-harder. I'm reminded of the phoney war because people are already restless because no action has been taken, not because I'm looking for precipitate action.
532. Raskolnikov - 9/13/2001 12:34:04 AM
That is going to be the big challenge in this. The US public *wants* us to go kick ass, but it may be months before we can actually do anything substantive, or even take an action that *looks* like action, such as military mobilization. I wonder if the mood can be sustained. |
We might need a Doolittle raid.
533. ronski - 9/13/2001 12:37:12 AM
We will have a Doolittle raid. That will be when we get bin Laden.
And the real response will come months later. When we get the actual masterminds.
534. CalGal - 9/13/2001 12:39:33 AM
Yep. We all want to kick ass now, but in 6 months, we'll be pissed if our gas prices go up again and the long lines at the airport.
535. Raskolnikov - 9/13/2001 12:41:40 AM
Well, I don't think US memories are *that* short term, and I think the problem is manageable. It is just a big challenge.
536. ronski - 9/13/2001 12:44:30 AM
Cal, Rask,
I think you underestimate the feelings on the East Coast.
I was just talking to relatives in CA. They have no idea how we feel here. None.
Fuck gas lines. People in this third of the country are incredibly pissed and will remain so.
Trust me.
537. Raskolnikov - 9/13/2001 12:50:04 AM
Fair point.
538. CalGal - 9/13/2001 12:50:15 AM
I will be delighted if I am wrong. But one of the reasons I dislike the media treatment of this ("America under Attack", with its own theme song) is because Americans have very short memories, as a rule. Treat it as just another excuse for bathos, and you risk them lumping it all together--yes, it was tragic, time to move on.
As for your relatives in California, remember that all the planes were heading here. We didn't have as many numbers, but it's not like we didn't lose some people--and I might note that the San Franciscans and New Jerseyans were the ones who fought. Odd mixture of cultures, that.
Self-interest is our strong point. Long-term attention spans are not.
539. ronski - 9/13/2001 1:01:08 AM
Cal,
No one is more critical of the media than I. But I have lived on both coasts, and I know there is a different attitude out there. I am not saying it is an inferior one, but it is different. On the East Coast, there is a desire for blood.
540. CalGal - 9/13/2001 1:02:24 AM
I don't know why you don't think there's a desire for blood out here. Now. It's six months from now that I worry about.
541. Cellar Door - 9/13/2001 1:04:21 AM
We've passed through the Looking-Glass,ladies and gentlemen. It's a whole new world.
And it ain't pretty.
542. Raskolnikov - 9/13/2001 1:05:40 AM
The American people are capable of long-term attention spans, and great resolve. The American Revolution, the Civil War, World War II, and the Cold War are the best examples. I still consider American foreign policy consistency during the Cold War incredible: US policy stayed remarkably consistent across *nine* presidencies, of different parties and radically different temperaments. Prior to that we had only had a large military, and "international entanglements", on an exception basis.
It does, however, require leadership, focus, and a good enough cause. The "focus" part is what I am specifically talking about.
543. ronski - 9/13/2001 1:07:00 AM
I don't sense that desire among West Coasters I have spoken too, but no doubt it is there among many. I have, I must admit, always felt there is a certain detachment on the West Coast from the rest of country, and a certain detachment in middle America from the East Coast. But the East Coast is where the goverment, the media, and the financial powers are.
I think it will last here because we will always have the knowledge of people we know who are gone. And the media will keep it alive.
Anyway, I must retire.
Peace to you all.
544. ronski - 9/13/2001 1:07:47 AM
Cellar,
Just curious. Did you know Berry?
545. Stumbo - 9/13/2001 1:15:54 AM
Random fact:
Sept. 11 was the birthday of Kristy McNichol, who (on her mother's side) is of Arab descent.
Make of that what you will. Perhaps one of the ringleaders had spent as many nights watching Family reruns as I have, and chose the date accordingly.
(Very silly hypothesis, I know. But it's positively convincing, compared to my other theory that the Logan-to-New-York hijackers might've been aided by some pissed-off-Red-Sox-fan airport worker.)
Incidentally, I spent this past week-end in Manhattan, though only midtown and uptown. I really wish I had gotten one good last look at the WTC towers -- but, of course, who knew?
546. Raskolnikov - 9/13/2001 1:26:29 AM
I also think that a preponderance of those with short attention spans reside on the left coast (side effect of marijuana use?), so Cal may be suffering from sampling bias.
(that was mostly in jest, by the way)
547. CalGal - 9/13/2001 1:27:27 AM
I don't sense that desire among West Coasters I have spoken too, but no doubt it is there among many.
Oh, Ronski. If they did a survey, do you really think that there would be a measurable difference between the "kill the motherfuckers" vs. "gosh, we don't want to hurt the innocents" quota between the two coasts? In New York City and DC, undoubtedly--but much of that would be due to the temporary cutover of the bleaters to bloodlusters, not any inherent value difference.
548. RustlerPike - 9/13/2001 1:42:17 AM
Stumbo:
Are you one of those people who would assassinate Mick Jagger because Kristy McNichol came to him in a dream and told him to?
549. CalGal - 9/13/2001 1:44:17 AM
Rask,
Nonsense. We're genetically protected from the effects.
Stumbo,
I liked Angel five's theory; if not, then I suspect it's just random. Arabs might not give a damn about calendars and dates the way we do.
550. Stumbo - 9/13/2001 1:47:34 AM
CG:
Maybe Ronski meant to imply that there was an "inherent value difference," or maybe he didn't. And maybe it's true, and maybe it isn't. But "it will last here because we will always have the knowledge of people we know who are gone" doesn't seem to relate to that.
551. CalGal - 9/13/2001 1:48:22 AM
Watching Nightline, a Palestinian parliament member apparently spoke out against the demonstrations yesterday (this from Ted Koppel) and also many Palestinians laid wreaths at the US embassy or consulate.
Nice to know, really.
552. Stumbo - 9/13/2001 1:52:56 AM
RP:
No, but I've spoken to some.
CG:
I think I missed A5's theory; what was the post number?
553. AceofSpades - 9/13/2001 1:53:57 AM
Uh huh. And it was nice that Arafat gave blood, too.
Don't be such a fucking sap. The wreaths and blood-donation are all stage-management. Arafat is pissing himself because Israel is about to fucking invade and drive out his mongrel "people" to waste and starve in the desert, and we're gonna help Israel do it.
554. AceofSpades - 9/13/2001 1:56:45 AM
Within a year, there will no longer be a "Palestinian problem." How the problem will be "solved" will be incredibly, incredibly ugly, and the French will weep Vichy tears, but the problem will be gone, once and for all, and there won't even be too many people left to nuture hateful memories.
This is how most intractable problems get solved. You either solve these problems by peace or by war. The degenerate bastards have choosen war, and they will now reap the whirlwind.
And when their children's bodies are rotting in the streets, they can look up to Allah and ask, "But what did we do to deserve this?" And I hope Allah has a good chuckle at that.
555. CalGal - 9/13/2001 1:57:44 AM
Stumbo,
I don't know that the lasting will matter; people all throughout the country have that same feeling. To the extent that some people will have lost dozens of close friends and others only one or two, I agree--but how does that extend to the entire East Coast? Do you think that folks in Maine are more likely to have known dozens of people who died as are people in California?
Then there's the fact that the Pentagon was bombed; I can't imagine provincial New Yorkers caring more about that then your average patriotic Kansan.
I could go on, but bottom line, I see no basis for asserting that the entire East Coast will maintain bloodlust for longer than anyone else, just because Ronski happens to know a bunch of people who feel that way. New York City will have a lower percentage of granola-loving flakes for a while on this particular subject. Beyond that, it's just silly.
556. CalGal - 9/13/2001 2:01:01 AM
Yeah, right, Ace. Remind me again the last time any country wiped another one off the map? But this time we're just going to bomb them out of existence--or let Israel do it.
Not likely.
557. mgleason - 9/13/2001 2:01:02 AM
That's Hanan Ashrawi, Palestinian negotiator. Barak smoked her, though, by bringing up the way that Arafat 'never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity.'
Now Ted reports that the Taliban denies holding Bin Laden under house (or tent) arrest.
558. CalGal - 9/13/2001 2:03:04 AM
Oh, I wasn't talking about her position per se--in fact, I usually tune that out. And Ace is right; it may have been stage managed.
559. AceofSpades - 9/13/2001 2:03:24 AM
"Remind me again the last time any country wiped another one off the map? "
Remind me of the last time small, weak countries attacked a Superpower's largest city, killing 20,000 civilians and causing a trillion dollars in damage.
560. AceofSpades - 9/13/2001 2:05:48 AM
I seem to remember a country called "Japan" bombing a military base, located on an island not even a state.
I seem to remember that two of their cities went missing.
Actually, many of their cities went missing. The smallish industrial burbs of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were chosen becaus Tokyo, Yokohama, etc., had already been reduced to ash by fire-storm bombing and the military planners figured a nuke would be wasted on them.
561. CalGal - 9/13/2001 2:09:02 AM
So? As it is, we're probably going to have trouble with the "international community" over the fallout from whatever response we do give (which we should ignore, of course).
But in any event, we're not going to be bombing the Palestinians just because they've made you upset.
562. CalGal - 9/13/2001 2:10:21 AM
Their cities went missing because they didn't surrender, not because they pissed us off.
BTW, have you been posting at ABC's website? Or is someone copying your posts?
563. AceofSpades - 9/13/2001 2:13:21 AM
"But in any event, we're not going to be bombing the Palestinians just because they've made you upset."
No, we're not. The Israelis are simply going to drive them out of ex-Palestine, machine-gunning those "brave warriors" who refuse to leave.
Then they will build a wall and leave homeless, penniless refugees to die with their children in the desert.
And who's going to say boo about it? We sure the fuck aren't. And no one else matters.
How the fuck could the US possibly encourage "restraint" now that we know what terror feels like? We can't, and we won't. The Israelis are sick of the Palestinian problem, and they are only restrained by the US. The US just let go the leash.
564. AceofSpades - 9/13/2001 2:14:18 AM
I don't know what "ABC" is.
565. PelleNilsson - 9/13/2001 2:15:06 AM
Message # 554 is the most despicable post I have read since I stopped reading the wacko, xenophobic hate-mongers in TT.
566. AceofSpades - 9/13/2001 2:15:54 AM
Awww. How about you go fuck yourself, Fairy?
567. Stumbo - 9/13/2001 2:16:45 AM
Ace, #554:
That's not gonna happen, realistically. Perhaps it might've, under a Keyes administration.
CG, #555:
Geographical proximity is still strongly correlated with acquaintanceship, to the best of my knowledge.
568. CalGal - 9/13/2001 2:17:42 AM
Oh, right. If the US isn't encouraging restraint, there are a whole slew of middle eastern countries that would burn Israel to the ground. They're not going to have time to build any walls.
ABC was quoting some of the more "frightening" (their word) posts from their forum and some of them were nearly verbatim. Of course, it's not like they are original sentiments, but still.
569. AceofSpades - 9/13/2001 2:18:10 AM
"That's not gonna happen, realistically"
Yes indeed. I imagine we'll continue urging "restraint" on the Israelis, and I further imagine they'll pay attention when we start carpet-bombing Iraq.
570. CalGal - 9/13/2001 2:20:37 AM
Stumbo,
Well, your knowledge probably needs updated. Maine is a bunch of hicks; California probably had up to 200 people in the WTC on business alone. We don't even know how many people are dead yet and I've seen at least 5 local people who were in the WTC on business or at a class--one of them left a voicemail.
571. AceofSpades - 9/13/2001 2:22:28 AM
Isn't it odd that Arafat always claims he can't stop the terrorist attacks, but as soon as its in his interest that they temporarily cease, all the "uncontrollable" terrorists stop killing Jews?
I find that fascinating.
572. CalGal - 9/13/2001 2:28:04 AM
Stumbo--20693 and then 20744 for the combo. In News & Current Events.
573. Stumbo - 9/13/2001 2:36:34 AM
Ace:
I'll bet you good money, at even odds or better, that the "Palestinian problem" will still be in existence a year from now.
CG:
200 out of 50,000?
574. angel-five - 9/13/2001 2:48:49 AM
We aren't going to start committing genocide on the Muslims and neither are the Israelis, despite Ace's blather. We'll find a few suitable targets and then we'll blow them to hell. The Israelis will take and hold some territory and then things will go back to normal.
575. mgleason - 9/13/2001 2:50:50 AM
Investigators Identify Team of 50 Terrorists
WASHINGTON -- Authorities searching nationwide for terrorists behind the deadly airliner attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center have identified a team of as many as 50 infiltrators who supported or carried out the strikes, a source familiar with the investigation said Wednesday.
About 40 of the men have been accounted for, including those killed in the suicide attacks, but 10 remain at large, the source said. In the hours immediately after the assaults, he said, agents searching cars and apartments up and down the East Coast found suicide notes in New York that some of the hijackers wrote to their parents.
Also recovered were credit card receipts showing that some of the hijackers paid for flight training in the United States. Another source, a federal agent involved in the probe, said that authorities believe 27 suspected terrorists in all received various kinds of pilot training.
The infiltrators, who carried Middle Eastern passports, belonged to four independent cells, said law enforcement and intelligence officials. They said authorities kept the nation's airports closed to commercial traffic for a second day partly to prevent the conspirators from fleeing the country.
576. CalGal - 9/13/2001 2:56:38 AM
They are already backpedaling on that 50 number on the news.
Stumbo,
You are implying that Maine had more people there on business?
577. angel-five - 9/13/2001 2:59:46 AM
Four cells? We hope so anyway.
578. AuNaturel - 9/13/2001 3:03:05 AM
Hello everyone. Haven't been here in a while but I figured I'd show up and post.
Arafat may be a terrorist but he is smart and he learns. He knows that if the US suspects his group of being responsible, he's dead meat. This may be his opportunity to rid himself of some opposition if we decide Hamas and/or the DFLP wre involved.
I don't think for a second Arafat was involved. He's not that stupid. He knows he needs us to keep the Israelis from simply killing everyone they think is in the PLO. He needs us to broker peace talks. He needs the support of the Arab American community in the US. He also pissed up off for Desert Shield/Storm and damned near lost everything. He won't do that again.
If anyone cares to remember, it was only US restraint that prevent Israel from going nuclear again Iraq when Scuds started landing on Israeli soil. They moderate their actions a very great deal indeed to keep our favor.
I hope we take the time to determine who really perpetrated this attack before starting retaliation. Bin Laudin may well not be the only culprit and the Taliban the only government. I think there was more than one group involved here and possible two or three nations.
It is obvious the only solution is to kill those in the responsible terrorist groups and neutralize the governments that aided in the attack. I suspect that Packistan, Iraq, Sudan and perhaps Hamas are all part of the picture. Fortunately in Afghanistan there is a viable entity to take over should we destroy the Taliban. Most Afghans hate the Taliban. Except for occaisional attacks by the Northern Alliance, they just don't have the ability do do a lot about it.
Make no mistake about it. We are quite capable of destroying any terrorist org. or supporting government should we have the will. Won't be surgical, won't be bloodless but we can do it. We won't need WMDs to do it either.
Give war a chance.
579. CalGal - 9/13/2001 3:07:09 AM
Gosh, everyone comes back eventually. Hi, Au.
580. LimeGirl - 9/13/2001 4:49:33 AM
A5, I agree with you on some of the coverage. I hate the interviews with people who are not involved at all, yet they're going on about how it's affected them. Lord knows, everyone has been affected by it, in different ways, and has had to deal with their feelings about it, but it just doesn't seem important at all to hear the interviews from the people at the Puyallup Fair, who are feeling upset about it.
I almost burst into tears today, though, when on the news they were showing a mother and daughter looking for her husband/father, and a policeman turned them back from getting any closer to the trade center site. She told him that her husband worked in there, and she hadn't heard anything yet, and he told her that his wife had been in there too, and he'd heard nothing either. Then, somehow, she found her husband, and she was hugging him, and her whole body was racked with sobs. It is just unimaginable. And I don't suppose that that poor policeman will be as lucky.
581. joezan - 9/13/2001 6:17:32 AM
Pelle - Message # 565:
You have an uncanny knack for poorly-timed, high-horsed, girly-boy editorializing.
582. PelleNilsson - 9/13/2001 7:33:03 AM
That my be your opinion. My opinion is that I don't like a whole people being described as "degenerate bastards", the problem of whom will be solved in a manner that will leave "their children's bodies rotting in the streets".
But then I'm a bit prejudiced against Ace after his recent amicabilities in the Israel thread:
#1021
And if you don't like it -- go fuck yourself, Pelle, fuck your family, and die, every last one of you.
#1022
Seriously, Pelle. It is right now my greatest wish that your pissant little Socialist fairy paradise be bombed and that you and *your* friends die in the smoking ruins.
583. joezan - 9/13/2001 7:56:43 AM
Hey Pelle - what's the view from your office window?
Here's mine:
584. PelleNilsson - 9/13/2001 8:42:41 AM
Well actually I see two flags at half staff. Swedish of course, but the sad occasion is the same.
585. Wombat - 9/13/2001 8:49:35 AM
Ace:
Why don't you take some time off from making idiotic statements and put your money where your mouth is. Donate blood, volunteer to help victims (I am sure that even crap lawyers like you will be able to provide assistance), donate money, in general make yourself useful in a city that you claim to love.
586. PelleNilsson - 9/13/2001 8:50:50 AM
We are not insensitive to America's loss. Check this post from yesterday.
587. alistairconnor - 9/13/2001 8:52:50 AM
Reading the article Pseud linked about Massoud ... intriguing. He was taken out by bin Laden just before the attack on the US.
588. Wombat - 9/13/2001 9:00:09 AM
Today Massoud's people are claiming that he is emerging from a coma caused by his injuries.
589. pseudoerasmus - 9/13/2001 9:02:01 AM
Al Cid
590. PelleNilsson - 9/13/2001 9:17:00 AM
If we want to entertain conspiracy theories we should think of the western aid workers who are on trial (held as hostages?) in Kabul for proselytizing. Two of them are Americans I think.
591. OhioSTOPAS - 9/13/2001 9:24:14 AM
I'm puzzled by the Administration's statement that there is evidence that Air Force One was an "intended target".
How? Is there any chance a hijacked commercial airliner piloted by a terrorist could catch and collide with Air Force One in mid-air?
Or is there evidence that Air Force One faced a threat from other terrorists armed with other weapons, say, surface-to-air missiles? If so, these terrorists are unaccounted for and perhaps the public should be informed of this.
None of the above. I think it's likely that there's NO such credible evidence, and the supposed threat to Air Force One is a fabrication made to justify the President's going to Omaha on Tuesday instead of returning immediately to Washington. (Although I personally don't think any justification for following standard operating procedure and setting up command from a secure location is needed.)
592. bubbaette - 9/13/2001 9:26:26 AM
Does anybody have any thoughts on where would be the best place to donate money for the relief effort -- especially those displaced and the families of victims?
593. Wombat - 9/13/2001 9:28:05 AM
Salvation Army or Red Cross
594. Wombat - 9/13/2001 9:29:29 AM
One thing that touched me and my family have been the expressions of concern and sympathy that have come from friends and colleagues in other countries.
595. Francis Urquhart - 9/13/2001 9:29:48 AM
Ohio
You, sir, are a retard. But I'd like to flesh out your retarded fantasy:
Bush: "Damn. I should have gone back to Washington a few hours earlier, instead of going to Barksdale (to refuel) and then to Omaha. This is gonna' look bad."
Fleischer: "Tell me about it. Word is, Mo' Dowd is going to take a potshot at us, and did you see Brian Williams killin' us with the 'style point' thingie."
Bush: "That Williams thinks he so cool."
Ashcroft: [puts down snake] "No problem, Mr. President. We'll just make up that Air Force One was a target."
Bush: "But, isn't that a little far-fetched? If we were to fabricate me as a target, wouldn't the White House be a better lie as a reason for my delay in returning?"
Fleischer: "Yeah."
Aschroft: "But that's what makes this so great. It is so ridiculous, you almost have to believe it."
Bush: "Brilliant. Go with it."
596. OhioSTOPAS - 9/13/2001 9:32:41 AM
You don't think Ari Fleischer would lie for partisan political purposes?
Ask the Clinton Administration employees wrongly accused of vandalism.
597. mgleason - 9/13/2001 9:33:26 AM
Bub, you can make a direct contribution to the Red Cross if you have an account with Amazon.com.
598. Francis Urquhart - 9/13/2001 9:33:39 AM
Go find your batheball.
599. ScottLoar - 9/13/2001 9:38:49 AM
On The Today Show mention was made of a firefighters' fund to which money could be sent to directly benefit the dead firefighters' families. I'm sure in time these organizations and addresses will be available on the web.
600. OhioSTOPAS - 9/13/2001 9:38:57 AM
I have no idea what that means.
601. OhioSTOPAS - 9/13/2001 9:41:00 AM
#600 refers to #598.
(Save it - I'll probably need it to respond to other F. U. pronouncements.)
602. ScottLoar - 9/13/2001 9:41:47 AM
Ace's screed has gone from the absurd to the purely hateful. And this is the ass who said Osama bin Laden could easily be taken out by a sniper! A sniper who would stealthily wait within range for - The Shot! What horseshit. What naivete. What an Ace.
603. ScottLoar - 9/13/2001 9:43:51 AM
It seems a communication has been received from the Taliban government of Afghanistan begging the US not to attack. Maybe all the warriors here should read it.
604. Wombat - 9/13/2001 9:48:28 AM
If so, the Taliban had better be prepared to offer an unheard-of level of cooperation.
605. ScottLoar - 9/13/2001 9:51:05 AM
Yes, Wombat, I agree. And what seems to escape almost everyone posting here is that the government of Afghanistan, no matter how despicable it may be to most of us, probably has very little communication with Osama bin Laden and less control over the man's movements and whereabouts.
606. ScottLoar - 9/13/2001 9:55:04 AM
Well, let's rely on our snipers to "take him out".
607. Francis Urquhart - 9/13/2001 9:55:42 AM
A deal is out of the question unless it comes about as follows:
1) The Taliban hand over Bin Laden on assurances of no retaliation on the part of the United States
2) The United States takes the information gleaned from the Taliban and kills Bin Laden.
3) The United States reneges on the deal with the Taliban and kills the Taliban and their families (or, as many as can be killed) by way of airstrike and cruise missile attack.
4) United States anti-terorism policy becomes pro-active with regard to Yemen, the Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq, and other teerorist-harboring and supportive states, and the armed forces are given free reign to make war upon terorist camps and havens, withing minutes of receiving the intelligence as to their whereabouts.
608. Francis Urquhart - 9/13/2001 10:00:44 AM
Afghanistan's Taliban regime has reportedly confirmed that Osama bin Laden is under house arrest. The terrorist leader has been reported by Pakistani newspapers to be under guard in Kandahar in the south west of Afghanistan
609. Francis Urquhart - 9/13/2001 10:01:37 AM
AN ARABIC ONLINE newspaper, Ilaf, quoting “fundamentalist Arab sources,” said the “Taliban have arrested Osama bin Laden before placing him under surveillance with several of his assistants,” including the head of the Egyptian branch of Al-Jihad Ayman Al-Zawahri and bin Laden’s military commander, Muhammad Atef Al-Makni.
Afghan Islamic Press news service, however, quoted Taliban sources as terming the Ilaf report as “false and fabricated.”
610. ScottLoar - 9/13/2001 10:02:51 AM
What do you mean "a deal"? What "deal"? I'm not privy to the workings of the US intelligence and state department services so I for one cannot be sure Osama bin Laden is the one behind this act (well, perhaps the US government should ask our very own AceOfSpades). If he is guilty, does the Taliban have the ability to "hand over" Osama bin Laden as you suggest and contrary to my opinion that they probably cannot do? Where is Osama bin Laden other than someplace probably in Afghanistan? You think we can find him? Or that a few battalions of airborne rangers can flush him out?
611. mgleason - 9/13/2001 10:03:43 AM
Fire your sources, FU. Check back a few posts; that's old news.
612. Wombat - 9/13/2001 10:04:58 AM
Francis:
Stick to lawyering.
The watchword for a US response should be "Don't get mad, get even." A war from the shadows will have to be fought in the shadows, barring ironclad evidence of deliberate state involvement.
It may also involve arrangements with states and regimes whose interests have been inimical to the United States in the past, but who are now worried about their survival.
613. ScottLoar - 9/13/2001 10:05:20 AM
Yes, if the Taliban have Osama bin Laden under house arrest (I doubt that) then the US can take the man upon presenting conclusive evidence of the man's guilt as the Taliban promised, and if they don't we act against the Taliban leadership and party apparatus. But, in my opinion they do not hold Osama bin Laden and probably don't know where he is.
614. Francis Urquhart - 9/13/2001 10:07:13 AM
Scott
Guilty or no, if Bin Laden is under house arrest, they could easily hand him over. Thus, under that scenario, he could be found because he would be detained.
More likely, if the Taliban, or elements therein, work closely with Bin Laden, they can offer intelligence as to his whereabouts. Thus, he could be found, because vital intelligence as to his whereabouts would be in our hands.
Most likely, Bin Laden is on the lam, and we do not have the intelligence as to his whereabouts.
But we do have the intelligence as to the political and military sites of the country that supported him in this act (if, in fact, that is the case, but given that Bin Laden has been attacking us for years, I'm not sure how relevant his involvement in Tuesday's attack is at this point).
615. ScottLoar - 9/13/2001 10:08:59 AM
I surely hope the posts on this topic are archived and open to review a year or so from now so most of you can go back and look to see how badly you've guessed every aspect of this incident, from the number, means and actions of the onboard terrorists to the response of the US government.
Oh, yes, yesterday the police commissioner of the city of New York reported one act of looting, again contrary to the unbelievable speculations by this crowd.
616. Francis Urquhart - 9/13/2001 10:09:32 AM
maria
I covered my ass with news of denial.
Wombat
"The watchword for a US response should be "Don't get mad, get even." A war from the shadows will have to be fought in the shadows, barring ironclad evidence of deliberate state involvement. It may also involve arrangements with states and regimes whose interests have been inimical to the United States in the past, but who are now worried about their survival."
I don't understand a word of this mush.
Please explicate in clear terms what you propose to do if the taliban and Bin Laden are proven to be behind the attacks. While you seem to disagree with my proposals, at least they have the value of being understandable.
617. Francis Urquhart - 9/13/2001 10:11:19 AM
Scott
If I've understoof what you have recommended, it was military action, not against the Afghan people, but against Bin Laden and the Afghan political leadership (the Taliban).
I just want to gauge where you're at.
618. mgleason - 9/13/2001 10:11:56 AM
But news of denial is old, too, my lamb. In a spirit of national unity, however, I shall refrain from mocking your haka.
619. ScottLoar - 9/13/2001 10:12:22 AM
Again, why do you suppose "we do have the intelligence as to the political and military sites of the coutnry that supported him in this act"? I've heard nothing that Osama bin Laden is the one other than speculation by armchair heroes and politicians, which surely is not proof enough to determine US actions. And the political and military sites of Afghanistan are probably one degree less than public knowledge.
620. Francis Urquhart - 9/13/2001 10:13:06 AM
maria
You are, as always, kind. I was certin that my use of unreliable and aged information was seen as illustrative only. Again, I apologize for having overrated my audience.
621. Francis Urquhart - 9/13/2001 10:15:22 AM
Scott
Again, my proposals are based on presumptions and I'm not sure I can make it clearer than "Please explicate in clear terms what you propose to do if the taliban and Bin Laden are proven to be behind the attacks."
622. ScottLoar - 9/13/2001 10:17:55 AM
Francis Urquhart, I most sincerely apologize to all of you for what seems to me to be my failure to communicate. Yes, yes, yes. In my prescription to fight state-sponsored terrorism and subsequent posts I insist that the only way to deal with the matter is military action specific to the terrorists and their state sponsors (the leadership, party and government apparatus) and decidedly not wholesale against the citizenry. That should be clear for the umpteenth time. And in this instance the US must be absolutely sure of its man, absolutely sure of the state sponsor, absolutely sure of the target, and be prepared to defend so legally and morally. Otherwise, we're in deep shit, for wholesale action or the wrong targets will do nothing but confirm to our doubters the US is the world's bully and deny us the active or passive cooperation needed to exterminate state-sponsored terrorism.
623. rubberducky - 9/13/2001 10:18:00 AM
i don't care if we have enough evidence against bin Laden in this case or not. we have enough from past terrorist acts by him to mean they need to hand him over last week.
enough of this. if they have him, we get him. evidence be damned.
624. Francis Urquhart - 9/13/2001 10:18:29 AM
So, again, Scott, not to be insistent, but you have had a fill of raising practical objections, objections I have sought to answer.
Remaining is clarification as to what you would do if the Taliban and Bin Laden are proved to be behind the bombings.
Yesterday, I understood you to say that in such an event, you would authorize military action against Bin Laden and Afghan political and military targets.
And I agreed, throwing in for good measure the bombing of neighborhoods in Kabul known to house members of the Taliban.
625. Rama - 9/13/2001 10:20:07 AM
Again, why do you suppose "we do have the intelligence as to the political and military sites of the coutnry that supported him in this act"?
This is information that is routinely developed and maintained on all nations.
I've heard nothing that Osama bin Laden is the one other than speculation by armchair heroes and politicians, which surely is not proof enough to determine US actions.
What you have heard is indicative of nothing.
And the political and military sites of Afghanistan are probably one degree less than public knowledge.
One degree is a rather small arc.
626. ScottLoar - 9/13/2001 10:20:58 AM
Again, if Osama bin Laden and the Taliban are found guilty and in collusion in this instance (I repeat, in this specific instance) the US must consider them both enemies and destroy them. Clear? I say again, destroy bin Laden, his organization, and the sponsor. Clear?
627. Francis Urquhart - 9/13/2001 10:21:45 AM
Scott
Then we are largely agreed as to action.
Where we disagree, perhaps, is in my resolve to make war upon Bin Laden whether he is implicated in this particular act or not. As we speak, his associates await sentencing for other terrorist acts which justify action against Bin Laden.
Will this be difficult? Yes. It may take years. But the difficulty of the task is hardly a proper objection to a change in policy.
628. Francis Urquhart - 9/13/2001 10:22:25 AM
Scott
You are now crystal clear.
629. ScottLoar - 9/13/2001 10:24:41 AM
Rama, you completely misunderstood the first comment of mine you quoted. FU assumes we know the country that sponsored the terrorists; I make no such assumption. As to the second, perhaps you're privy to the findings of US intelligence and state services? As to the third I'll rephrase it for you: the political and military sites of Afghanistan are practically public knowledge.
630. Andonly - 9/13/2001 10:25:55 AM
Ace: "But this time we're just going to bomb them out of existence--or let Israel do it. ...How the fuck could the US possibly encourage "restraint" now that we know what terror feels like? We can't, and we won't. The Israelis are sick of the Palestinian problem, and they are only restrained by the US. The US just let go the leash."
This is correct. Last night I emailed a friend in Lebanon, opining that if Israel drove every Palestinian in the territories into Jordan and Lebanon right now, not one American would utter a word of protest--and it wasn't like that two days ago, no mater what idiots and demagogues claim.
Israel's military West Bank manouvers yesterday against Pal "activists" went unnoticed in the American press, for obvious reasons. I'm sure if you'd tapped anyone in NY on the shoulder and told him about the latest Israeli failures of "restraint," he would merely have glanced back and said, "Oh. Good."
631. ScottLoar - 9/13/2001 10:27:48 AM
Francis, can you not see why our actions must be predicated on the terrorists and state specific to this instance? I advocate, and by my prescription outline the means, for a total elimination of state-sponsored terrorism. This first step is crucial, for if it is bungled we lost that active or passive cooperation so critical to the total elimination of state-sponsored terrorism. The state must be our primary target. I say again, the state must be our primary target.
632. Francis Urquhart - 9/13/2001 10:27:52 AM
Scott
I presume it is Afghanistan, but fully realize the importance of proving that presumption. If it turns out to be Yemen and a different terrorist faction, I find my suggested response easily transferrable, but still argue that striking as ultimate a menace as Bin Laden is good, proactive, preventive policy.
633. ScottLoar - 9/13/2001 10:29:02 AM
Francis, refer to Message # 631, please.
634. Francis Urquhart - 9/13/2001 10:31:18 AM
Scott
The state, and to the extent feasible, the actual terrorists, must be our targets. The state cannot move. It cannot hide. We can hurt the state and hurt it badly ata a time that best suits us, in deliberate fashion.
The terrorist and his associate, however, require the fredom to move rapidly based upon intelligence that will have a very short shelf-life. Right now, our intelligence capacities are thin and our movement is shackled by prudential concerns. We must beef up the former and unburden the latter, so, if in two years, Israeli intelligence lets us know that Bin Laden's top three deputies will be in X place for Y minutes, we can strike as necessary.
I am trying to take the long view.
635. ScottLoar - 9/13/2001 10:32:39 AM
I'll make it super simple for all you folks. Bomb Afghanistan and you'll get nothing but sympathy for the victims from everywhere including within these United States and no guarantee that you'll get Osama bin Laden. He'll move to the grounds of another host, the problem will not be resolved, and our actions will incite more terrorism who will be granted more money and more support from every more people. For Christ sakes! Look at support for the IRA in this country!
636. Francis Urquhart - 9/13/2001 10:34:26 AM
But kill as many members of the Taliban as you can get your hands on, and destroy the ruling structure, and you have sent a message that is pointed and has a bigger bang for the buck.
637. ScottLoar - 9/13/2001 10:35:08 AM
Francis, I have said before and again that when the US conclusively determines the identity of the persons and organization behind this incident it must act regardless of borders. And it must warn - as the President has - that those who harbour this organization are also targets.
638. ScottLoar - 9/13/2001 10:38:20 AM
I do not, do not, do not advocate or agree to bombing, killing, destroying any persons or group without conclusive proof of culpability which can withstand the test of international scrutiny. We need the passive if not active cooperation of all countries to rid this scourge of international terrorism, and we're not going to get it by bombing on hunches or to satisfy public feelings.
This is elementary.
639. ScottLoar - 9/13/2001 10:40:38 AM
Well, posts now can resume on how we may best move our planes across to the Afghanistand border, or speculation on how we convince the Chinese to let us land for refueling, or how to carpet bomb Kabul.
640. Francis Urquhart - 9/13/2001 10:41:36 AM
Scott
I am not taking issue with you. I am simply honing your point so you are not further misunderstood.
I agree with your desire for strong evidence in lieu of a rash action. I take the strike against Libya after the bombing of the West German disco as my guide. The evidence was developed, and Qaddafi was targeted. We missed him, but got his daughter.
Well, that and the 1985 negotiation between the Soviets and terrorists who took hostages in Lebanon. The terrorists killed one hostage, but released the other three after the Soviets began to send the terrorists the body parts of family members.
641. bubbaette - 9/13/2001 10:43:22 AM
Thanks Maria
I used the Amazon site. It is clever of them to make it easy for people to donate.
642. ScottLoar - 9/13/2001 10:43:23 AM
Yes, I appreciate the line and intent of your questioning. What is most important is that our actions be predicated on this instance exactly because our actions will be so drastic in comparison to what we've done before.
643. pseudoerasmus - 9/13/2001 10:45:11 AM
Ironic. The Pak press reports that perhaps 500 Pakistanis had been working at the WTC buildings!
644. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/13/2001 10:45:50 AM
620. Francis Urquhart - 9/13/01 3:13:06 PM
" . . . Again, I apologize for having overrated my audience."
FU- You're such a pathetic and cowardly little wimp!
You're no different than those deluded fools who committed this atrocity-- except that you have the money and comfort that allows you vent your bile as a cheerleader for blind and indiscriminate vengeance -- just like your woefully inadequate President.
"Your audience" indeed! You're an enraged and pitiful clown and this part of the audience is walking out on your idiotic bombast and jingoism.
645. Francis Urquhart - 9/13/2001 10:49:45 AM
Carriers from the South in the Indian Ocean.
Is this distance problematic for air strikes?
646. Francis Urquhart - 9/13/2001 10:50:39 AM
Wizard
Kiss me, you fool.
647. Francis Urquhart - 9/13/2001 10:54:40 AM
Carriers in the Arabian Sea, crossing Pakistani airspace.
648. Cellar Door - 9/13/2001 10:54:55 AM
The only point of cultural comparasion I can find with any of this is the week that followed the JFK asssasination. There was no programming for that entire week.Just coverage of mourning -- and the Oswald assassination.
Then when that week was over the networks went back to regular programming -- and Judy Garland sang "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" on her show, against the express wishes of the network brass.
But then on the other hand this is different -- worse.maybe more like the Kennedy assassination PLUS the Cuban missle cirsis. A sense of total indescribable horror, alleviated by the spectacle of hundreds of people doing kind and helpful things for one another. People for whom I had littleor no respect,like Giuliani, are suddenly rising to the occasion magnificently. Partisan bickering is going on the back burner -- where I hope it will be put out once and for all.
The knee-jerking of the fouth estate continues however. What a sorry bunch of people. Foaming at the mouth as they cast about to strike out at someone, the better to prove how wonderful they are in the eyes of others.
Many, many things will be rethought in the coming days. But what is mostimportant is that we all "think small"-- try to be as kind and helpfulas wepossibly can to someone near by. It can be a friend. It can be a total stranger. Best of all it can be a small child. Children nee love and reassurance in this truly monstrous world.
649. Åse - 9/13/2001 10:55:48 AM
Our Chancellor just sent us this.
From:
Sharon.S.Brehm, Chancellor
To:
The Indiana University Bloomington Community
I am writing to invite all of you to the Fine Arts Plaza at
5:30 p.m., Thursday, September, 13, 2001, to join together in an
expression of sorrow and solidarity. Over the past few days, there have
been many events supported by many organizations that offered
opportunities to mourn the nation's terrible loss of human life and to
talk together about the great tragedy we have experienced.
We will gather as an entire campus community to express our
sorrow for the families and loved ones of those who died in New York and
Washington and Pennsylvania. We also will proclaim our unity as a
campus and our commitment to the safety and well-being of all our
students, staff, and faculty.
It is understandable that many people are feeling anger and anxiety
about the violence inflicted on innocent victims Tuesday. But it is
unacceptable to engage in abusive behavior against innocent people on
our own campus. Just as we want to find ways to reach out to those who
have suffered as a result of Tuesday's attacks, so do we need to reach
out to those on our own campus who have experienced verbal and physical
harassment.
Please come join us as we meet as a campus community to share our sorrow
and affirm our solidarity.
650. ScottLoar - 9/13/2001 10:56:25 AM
re Message # 640: One illustration of my contention that a cruel solution is to make the cost of terrorism higher to mothers and fathers than the glorified deaths of their romantic sons. Frankly, by my prescription the agents of delivery will be the host country and not outsiders like the US.
651. christipeters - 9/13/2001 10:59:07 AM
The reports I heard on the "credible threat" to Air Force One were plans to crash into it as it landed at Andrews.
652. Seamus - 9/13/2001 10:59:14 AM
what cellar said
653. Shannon - 9/13/2001 11:00:42 AM
Good post, CD.
654. Andonly - 9/13/2001 11:00:52 AM
Wombat: "A war from the shadows will have to be fought in the shadows, barring ironclad evidence of deliberate state involvement."
I've wondered when someone else would come to this conclusion. Loar has been going on and on about the necessity of avoiding civilian casualties, going after the perpetrator and the sponsor. But there are potentially at least seven sponsors, state governments all, and while it may be legally right to limit our retribution to those in power, politically that is not possible; I doubt as well that it is militarily possible.
Some acts require vengeance more than others. This attack on the US is among the most explicit pleas for blood vengeance anyone in this country has ever witnessed; and be sure, those who supported it and those who funded it have picked the most militaristic US administration in recent memory to administer their destruction.
And just as the Palestinians stupidly elected Ariel Sharon for Israel, Arab terrorists have just guaranteed George W. Bush another four years in Washington. Everybody ready for Armageddon?
655. labwabbit - 9/13/2001 11:03:47 AM
It saddens me to return home to, and because, such a travesty has occurred.
Hello to all my mote friends.
At this time, I am incapable of expressing the the intense anger...and sadness...and the accompanying grip of frustration within my heart. I cannot remember a time when I have been this angry...
I fear that we have been thrust into a new age of that which represents mankind at its worst...and even more saddening, is the feeling that it will be in the guise of what the best of humankind is.
To all who may have suffered the loss of relatives, friends, and loved ones...I wish that you be comforted in your anguish and sorrow.
I take your loss personally.
I mourn for the loss of little more of my freedom...our freedom...
We must not waver in our committment to take it back...ever.
656. judithathome - 9/13/2001 11:04:03 AM
Bush talking to Pataki and Guilani on CNN via phone; he IS coming to New York.
He said the country was experiencing anger which is "really real."
And Bob Barr has presented a declaration of war on "terrorists" and has nine co-signers thus far.
657. Khabees Khargosh - 9/13/2001 11:04:44 AM
Scott,
All I can say is, you are a reasonable person.
658. Cellar Door - 9/13/2001 11:06:00 AM
Eevn at a time of impossibly intense world-wide crisis, Bob Barr remains the Idiot Supreme as always.
659. Francis Urquhart - 9/13/2001 11:07:05 AM
I estimate carrier distance from the Arabian Sea to Kabul at approximately 600 miles. Accordingly, bomber range should not be an issue.
As for combat troops, does anyone know United States capacity with regard to helicopter troop carriers (i.e., distance, use on American aircraft carriers, capacity).
660. Khabees Khargosh - 9/13/2001 11:09:14 AM
You don't treat violence with violence,
Try to find the cause and treat it. Treatment of symptoms provides only a temporary relief and if the cause persists, the symptoms of the disease are worse the next time....sigh.
661. alistairconnor - 9/13/2001 11:12:23 AM
ScottLoar, you have the levellest of heads.
I agree with you. Isn't that a shock for both of us?
With the proviso that I think military action should be carried out by NATO, not by the US acting unilaterally.
662. Francis Urquhart - 9/13/2001 11:13:05 AM
Khabees, of course, is correct, and his thoughts underscore why Japan capitulated without the leveling or Hirsohima and Nagasaki.
We just needed to be able to have a dialogue with the Emperor.
663. Andonly - 9/13/2001 11:13:18 AM
Loar assumes that getting rid of particular terrorists and their state sponsors will deter attacks like this. Have Israel's preemptive assassinations prevented more suicide bombings inside Israel? Has anyone ever managed to assassinate a terrorist as visible as Yassir Arafat?
It isn't just Osama bin Laden at work here. The task of fighting back will be undending, civilians will be used as cover, many states will be found to be involved. What Loar actually proposes is a war against half the governance of the middle east. Is this really so reasonable or humane?
664. theDiva - 9/13/2001 11:13:32 AM
beautiful posts, cellar and labwab.
665. alistairconnor - 9/13/2001 11:14:28 AM
Khabees, I agree with you.
This is the other side of the globalisation coin. We are no longer able (did we ever have the right?) to sit in prosperity and peace in fortress countries, leaving the rest of the world in poverty and turmoil
666. Francis Urquhart - 9/13/2001 11:15:47 AM
And
Israle has gotten soft. They give warnings before retaliation. Regardless, kvetching is unseemly. Your post is larded with owe, but short on a suggested response.
667. Property of Jesus - 9/13/2001 11:16:10 AM
President Bush will be going to NYC tomorrow for a prayer service.
God bless America.
668. Francis Urquhart - 9/13/2001 11:16:59 AM
You don't treat violence with violence.
You treat it with a little tender loving care.
669. AceofSpades - 9/13/2001 11:20:41 AM
Love is, as John Lennon said, the answer. and you know that for sure.
We should "love bomb" Afghanistan. If we show them how much we love them, how compassionate they are, they'll give up their evil terrorist ways.
670. ButterfieldSwire - 9/13/2001 11:21:11 AM
One thing that should be clear about this incident is that it has nothing to do with either the Camp David peace talks or the US' policy toward Intifada II. Some of the terrorists who perpetrated this action began their pilot training in Florida more than a year ago. Whatever stance either Bill Clinton or George Bush had taken, this attack would have occured. Anyone who suggests otherwise, and the apologists for mass murder are already doing so is an idiot and complicit in the sort of hateful rhetoric that has led to this attack.
671. alistairconnor - 9/13/2001 11:21:52 AM
Ando, here we go again. Death penalty. Revenge.
You will acknowledge, of course, that vengeance for this horror (on afghans? palestinians? Who else is on the menu?) will ensure that the USA is plunged into a cycle of suicide attacks for a long time to come.
But that's a mere practical consideration. Revenge is so sweet that you are prepared to put up with the inconvenience, I suppose.
But does it not disturb you that wreaking revenge on those who didn't actually have anything to do with it (other than ethnic or religious kinship) puts you on exactly the same moral level as the terrorists?
672. Francis Urquhart - 9/13/2001 11:22:12 AM
A Coke and a smile will rebuild the World Trade Centers twice over.
All we had to do was just understand the Nazis.
It wasn't the Jews they hated.
They were hurting.
673. OhioSTOPAS - 9/13/2001 11:24:46 AM
Ace and Francis:
Okay, okay. You're not pussies.
674. mgleason - 9/13/2001 11:26:08 AM
The President made reference to Pakistan's pledge to 'cooperate fully' with the US. 'We'll give them a chance to cooperate,' he said, somewhat menacingly.
He also echoed Rumsfeld's insistence on protecting intelligence sources, and refusal to give out information prematurely. I wonder if that's not a slap at Ari Fleischer.
675. Francis Urquhart - 9/13/2001 11:27:07 AM
Ohio
I wuv you as much as I wuv poor widdle misguided Osama.
Walk a day in his sandals, people. Then get back to me about this insane talk of retaliation.
676. judithathome - 9/13/2001 11:27:13 AM
Francis:
Your intolerant bullshit is getting old. You and Ace seem to forget that different opinions than your own are still allowed in this country.
Your snide remarks and this precocious nonsense you're both induldging in is really telling....you're both acting like little snots.
677. Khabees Khargosh - 9/13/2001 11:27:21 AM
Surgery is necessay but would cutting anything in sight save the body ?
678. Property of Jesus - 9/13/2001 11:27:36 AM
Pakistan owes us big time for protecting them from India for three generations.
679. Francis Urquhart - 9/13/2001 11:28:42 AM
juditha
What have I done but echo the pretty thoughts of Khabees and alistair?
Bad fortress America.
Violence begets violence.
I'm with Ace.
Let's love bomb 'em with Russell Stovers.
680. Indiana Jones - 9/13/2001 11:28:49 AM
Apologies, but I'm catching up from about 200 posts back.
I don't like the titles. It really cheapens it; makes it just like Lewinsky or even Oklahoma City. "American Terror" or "A Presidency in Crisis" or whatever.
I don't like the title of this thread, either, but I guess that falls under the heading of style point. "Attack on America," or something like that I would prefer.
681. Cellar Door - 9/13/2001 11:29:13 AM
Ace and Francis -- You won't convince me of your resolve until you buy an AK-47 and personally kill all the muslims in your neighborhood.
Anything less will mean you're just a couple of wusses.
682. Francis Urquhart - 9/13/2001 11:30:25 AM
Khabees
Surgery suggests violence, and I've heard that violence just begets violence.
I think we should build Osama two more World Trade Centers in a place more convenient for his next attack.
Turn that cheek.
683. jexster - 9/13/2001 11:30:45 AM
I pray that the world won't get caught in a spiral of violence and hatePope John Paul II
684. Francis Urquhart - 9/13/2001 11:31:11 AM
Cellar
Kill?????
Absurd.
I aim only to hug all terrorists and those who harbor them.
685. Property of Jesus - 9/13/2001 11:31:33 AM
The title is a rubberducky production. Why mote (with its 15 posters) has two threads on this topic is pure duck ego.
686. Macnas - 9/13/2001 11:32:06 AM
What about protecting our precious bodily fluids??
687. judithathome - 9/13/2001 11:32:07 AM
Well, IJ, why not let Ace of FU suggest a title? How about Death to the Infidels?
688. Cellar Door - 9/13/2001 11:32:24 AM
Oh come on, Francis. We all know you have it in you. So does Ace. Right, Ace?
689. Francis Urquhart - 9/13/2001 11:32:45 AM
I don't want to kill Osama or the Taliban.
I want to hump his leg and lick his cuddly face.
What's 10,000 folks between friends.
690. OhioSTOPAS - 9/13/2001 11:33:06 AM
Here is a Washington Post article about chest-beating pundits ready to declare war on. . . on . . . on SOMEBODY, dammit!
691. Francis Urquhart - 9/13/2001 11:33:50 AM
juditha and Cellar
Your implication that Muslims had anything to do with this is both racist and dangerous.
Please think before you write.
692. Cellar Door - 9/13/2001 11:34:18 AM
Have you ever actually killed anyone?
Has anyone in here actually --personally -- killed anyone?
Please share.
693. Property of Jesus - 9/13/2001 11:34:42 AM
This is a good opportunity to take out a lot of bad guys around the world.
There must be a North Korean connection, somewhere.
694. zojak quafeth - 9/13/2001 11:34:59 AM
Judith, if retaliation is wrong, why verbally attack Francis and Ace?
I mean you weren't even attacked verbally.
Must be the Peacenik NATO.
Khabbees, what's the body? If it's the terrorosits and those who willingly harbor them -- NO.
If it's the world, yes we want to save it. To do so I recommend radical surgery ro remove the cancer and continuing chemotherapy to keep it away. (i.e. Kill everyone we know who was involved, kill the Taliban, who willingly host and apologize for the guy and then seek outand destroy every terrosrist cell we can find).
695. Francis Urquhart - 9/13/2001 11:35:13 AM
I have.
I killed 'em with kindness.
696. jexster - 9/13/2001 11:35:16 AM
Did anyone see CBS last night?
They have THE best hired talking heads.
One, a former CIA station chief in Afghanistan, said flatly that Osama, while he may be involved, could not have pulled this off without the assistance of a State Intel Service which he suspected was Iraq's.
He and other consultants including James Woolsey were concerned that we were falling into an Osama Trap, ie OBL is being intentionally sold as the poster boi of terror to cover the aid of one or more national intel services.
The station chief pointed out that this attack demonstrated a greater level of sophistication than had ever been previously attributed to Osama.
He feared that Bush was falling into the trap.
697. judithathome - 9/13/2001 11:35:46 AM
From Ohios link:
The New York Post's Steve Dunleavy: "The response to this unimaginable 21st-century Pearl Harbor should be as simple as it is swift -- kill the bastards. . . . A gunshot between the eyes, blow them to smithereens, poison them if you have to. . . . As for cities or countries that host these worms, bomb them into basketball courts.
Aren't you happy, FU, to share the same sentiments as that drunken fool?
698. Macnas - 9/13/2001 11:36:00 AM
Had a fellow killed next to me, never killed anyone myself thankfully.
699. Francis Urquhart - 9/13/2001 11:36:28 AM
I find it very racist that we have automatically discounted the involvement of the Irish Republican Army.
700. jexster - 9/13/2001 11:37:12 AM
Correction Zojak.
Sorry but the term is not "peacenik". The proper term is "peace fairie"
701. Khabees Khargosh - 9/13/2001 11:37:37 AM
Zo,
The world is a body. I thought you were intelligent enough
702. Francis Urquhart - 9/13/2001 11:37:44 AM
juditha
Go back and read what I have proposed or not, but your emotionalism has gotten ahold of your intellect and choked the life out of it.
Besides, I find your violent reaction to my love screeds disconcerting.
703. Cellar Door - 9/13/2001 11:37:50 AM
That's what I've always felt, jex. The constant cry that this was all about Ben Laden has gotten in the way of exploring howsuch a coordinated attack could have taken place.
If it is indeed Iraq then it's "blowback" of an unprecendented sort.
704. mgleason - 9/13/2001 11:37:53 AM
Woolsey's been talking about Iraq for a few days now, Jex, dropping broader hints each time. I don't think that's an accident, or something he's doing without the blessing of the administration.
705. jexster - 9/13/2001 11:38:13 AM
I find Message # 699 palpably Moronic.
706. Macnas - 9/13/2001 11:38:35 AM
I find it disconcerting that you are using this series of events as some kind of humour opportunity.
707. jexster - 9/13/2001 11:38:43 AM
I find Message # 699 palpably Moronic.
708. Cellar Door - 9/13/2001 11:39:07 AM
The bottom line is none of us really knows what's going on here.
709. Property of Jesus - 9/13/2001 11:39:07 AM
The IRA would target London, not New York.
Because it was so successful, the obvious fact is that this will happen again.
Israel must be prepared with a better air/space defense.
710. Francis Urquhart - 9/13/2001 11:39:18 AM
Macnas
I find that violence only begets violence.
get it?
711. judithathome - 9/13/2001 11:39:25 AM
Judith, if retaliation is wrong, why verbally attack Francis and Ace?
I mean you weren't even attacked verbally.
Must be the Peacenik NATO.
No, not the Peacenik NATO, just someone who is tired of their schtick. Stay here long enough and you'll get bored with it, too. (Besides, they expect no less of me.)
712. jexster - 9/13/2001 11:39:26 AM
Francine - RU a re-tard?
713. Khabees Khargosh - 9/13/2001 11:40:02 AM
Zo,
Do you understan what radical surgery means? and how miserable life is after that ????
714. Francis Urquhart - 9/13/2001 11:40:45 AM
There you have it, the white man's apologists immediately absolving the IRA to dump on our brown, Muslim brothers.
This country makes me sick.
715. jexster - 9/13/2001 11:41:03 AM
Probably right mg.
I'd take Woolsey's comments and those of Eagleberger as indices of what's happening inside the Royal Moronic Court.
716. Indiana Jones - 9/13/2001 11:41:04 AM
I have found that this week I have a much greater tolerance for rank sentiment and unabashed patriotism than I would have ever thought possible.
It depends for me. The part of Barbara Walters I saw last night sort of set my teeth on edge because there was just something about her comments--she of the strangely immutable face, as though some plastic surgeon has accidentally snipped some nerves or muscles, and a voice that always reminds me of Gilda Radner or Terry O'Cherry, rather than herself--that didn't ring true (not false, just "off").
The victims themselves and their families are another matter. And yet, even then I don't wish to see innumerable repeats of the same tragic story over and over. The plane crashing again and again into the side of the building like the Challenger explosion or Eddie Murphy's "the shooting of Buckwheat."
Two things: the link I posed upthread re Jeremy Glick, whether true or not--family members might embellish after all, moved me. That he had a three-month old daughter and that he told his wife he hoped the two of them had good lives before doing what a man has to do.
And then today I heard one daughter who had lost her father talking about him without tears. She did her father proud, describing what sort of man he was, but mostly you knew what sort of man he was because he had raised a daughter with such composure, articulateness, and sense of what was important. One comment especially hit home to me; that she grieved for all the other families and the nation, but for now she was having to deal with personal, family grief.
Personally, I much prefer admiring strength in adversity to vicarious wallowing.
717. Cellar Door - 9/13/2001 11:41:07 AM
718. Macnas - 9/13/2001 11:41:49 AM
Francis
Whatever lad.
719. zojak quafeth - 9/13/2001 11:42:05 AM
Zo,
The world is a body. I thought you were intelligent enough
Another subtle verbal attack from a peacenik, er peace fairie.
Sorry i din't realize that your ethereal overgeneralization was defined somewhere. Good for me that I guessed that might be what you were talking about.
720. Property of Jesus - 9/13/2001 11:42:25 AM
Small item in the paper today that both Clinton and Gore are overseas right now (Gore in Europe and Clinton in Australia).
Secret Service can get Clinton back anytime he wants, but Gore is stuck in Europe until crisis is over.
721. jexster - 9/13/2001 11:42:37 AM
Down's syndrome.
I have connections at Safeway FU. Can getcha a nice job as bag girl!
722. zojak quafeth - 9/13/2001 11:43:48 AM
Zo,
Do you understan what radical surgery means? and how miserable life is after that ????
Yes, I also understand thatthe alternative might be death.
723. jexster - 9/13/2001 11:44:06 AM
Glad I don't have to travel.
SFO is the only airport in CA that is FAA security compliant....Checkin advance-THREE hours!
724. greystoke - 9/13/2001 11:47:12 AM
Jesus
"Because it was so successful, the obvious fact is that this will happen again."
I think terrorists would have a tough time pulling it off again in the same way. Note that once the passengers on the plane that crashed in PA knew what their fate was going to be, some apparently fought back.
Going forward, if some hijackers tried to take over using knives and box cutters, the passengers are unlikely to sit back and let them do it. Yes, the plane might crash, but they wouldn't be able to take out a planned target.
725. Khabees Khargosh - 9/13/2001 11:47:45 AM
I don't think the indications call for a radical surgery. Chemo and radiotherapy combined would be more beneficial. and yes, I don't exclude a possible surgery
726. jexster - 9/13/2001 11:50:02 AM
SFO is operational - sort of. You just can't fly to too many places.
Crisis action teams" were established yesterday at most of the military's major commands to help analyze the operational status of various units that could be called upon and to implement heightened force-protection measures at U.S. bases around the world, current and former officials said.
"I can assure you they are running through every contingency plan known to man," said Anthony H. Cordesman, a former defense official and a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Cordesman and other experts said that limited cruise missile strikes, like those used to hit bin Laden's training sites by the Clinton administration after the 1998 embassy bombings, are not likely to disrupt or significantly damage the organization's nearly invisible infrastructure, which is believed to be located on several continents.
Before any plan is adopted, Cordesman said, U.S. officials must determine who is responsible for Tuesday's attacks. "You need to know who is responsible," he said, "and you need the broad chain of evidence."
He and other experts said that striking a lethal blow against bin Laden's network and, possibly, Afghanistan's ruling Taliban militia, which has harbored bin Laden for the past five years, may require large-scale bombing of targeted regions.
Retired Gen. Merrill McPeak, Air Force chief of staff from 1990 to 1994, said the Air Force is capable of hitting "fixed targets" anywhere.
"If you just want to level Kabul -- that's a fixed target --we can do that, it's not that hard to do," McPeak said. "But it doesn't mean bin Laden himself, because he's not a fixed target, and we've never been very good at hitting mobile targets."
727. Francis Urquhart - 9/13/2001 11:53:01 AM
Which again begs the question, and I am relying on the expertise of this august body --
What is the troop transport capability of American carrier-based helicopters from a fleet in position off the coast of Pakistan in the Arabian Sea?
728. greystoke - 9/13/2001 11:53:46 AM
"If you just want to level Kabul -- that's a fixed target -- we can do that, it's not that hard to do."
So what's the holdup? Are Bush, Rice, Powell, et al afraid to pull the trigger ? I think so. All talk and no action.
729. jexster - 9/13/2001 11:54:06 AM
730. Macnas - 9/13/2001 11:57:13 AM
Wonder if federal security will go so far as to model itself on EL AL flights.
731. jexster - 9/13/2001 11:57:43 AM
Fuad Ajami last night on CBS, a paraphrase
"While all this was being planned, while the world was going to hell in a handbasket, what were we talking about? Gary Condit and Chandra Levy. The Muslim world thinks about the US all the time. We on the other hand, only think about the rest of the world during some sort of crisis or war. Its no surprise to me then that many in the Muslim world, even very educated persons, while they don't approve of what happened, are still a bit pleased that the US is paying attention to them."
732. Khabees Khargosh - 9/13/2001 12:00:24 PM
POJ 678,
You need to set your records straight man. Pakistan relied on US protection till 1971 when in the time of need US ships never arrived...and until then Pakistan was a US ally. Then India did it's first nuclear test but nothing form US. And that was the time when Pakistan had to start it's nuclear programme, a decade after the Indians started it.
Pakistan owes nothing to US. Pakisan fought the Afghan war for US, the war that decided the rule of US over the world as the only super power.And that war was fought by Pakistan for nothing. No political or financial dvantages. And right after the war US broke it's ties with Pakistan and all of a sudden Pakistan was a terrorist state. Pakistan was with US in the gulf war, any credits? Pakistan has virtually been a part of every UN peace keeping mission you can think of. Pakistan today is willing to help as always bacause it believes in peace more than most of the so called peace loving nations.
733. Indiana Jones - 9/13/2001 12:02:02 PM
Its no surprise to me then that many in the Muslim world, even very educated persons, while they don't approve of what happened, are still a bit pleased that the US is paying attention to them."
If pleased now, let's hope they're ecstatic with the "attention" we'll be paying them in the future.
734. jexster - 9/13/2001 12:03:16 PM
HRW Statement on Terrorist Attacks
> To: OHCHR-Geneva, OHCHR-Field Presences
Forwarded by Christophe
> Peschoux/UNCHR/UN on
> 09/13/2001 10:29 AM ---------------------------
>
>
> HRWAsia@aol.com on 09/12/2001 11:12:10 PM>
> September 12, 2001
>
> Human Rights Watch Statement on Terrorist Attacks
>
> We profoundly condemn yesterday's cruel attacks in > the United States and > express our condolences to the victims and their > loved ones. This was an > assault not merely on one nation or one people, but > on principles of
> respect> for civilian life cherished by all people. We urge > all governments to > unite
> to investigate this crime, to prevent its
> recurrence, and to bring to > justice
> those who are responsible.
>
> Last night, President Bush said that the United
> States "will make no > distinction between the terrorists who committed > these acts and those
> who > harbored them." Yet distinctions must be made:> between the guilty and> the> innocent; between the perpetrators and the civilians
> who may surround > them;
> between those who commit atrocities and those who > may simply share their> religious beliefs, ethnicity or national origin.
People committed to > justice> and law and human rights must never descend to the> level of the> perpetrators> of such acts. That is the most important distinction> of all.
>
> There are people and governments in the world who> believe that in the> struggle against terrorism, ends always justify> means. But that is also> the> logic of terrorism. Whatever the response to this> outrage, it must not
> validate that logic. Rather, it must uphold the
> principles that came> under> attack yesterday, respecting innocent life and> international law. That> is> the way to deny the perpetrators of this crime their> ultimate victory.
>
> ENDS
735. Andonly - 9/13/2001 12:05:20 PM
"Your post is larded with owe, but short on a suggested response."
Larded with owe? Where do you come up with this stuff, the Bible?
I am not a military analyst, intelligence officer, or member of the clergy. I don't pretend to know, as some of you here do, what "should" be done. I speculate about the nature of the coming retaliation in order to provoke discussions and discover info from the specifically informed as to what sorts of response are possible.
But I make the point that there will be some purely retributive response simply because people like Alistair and Pelle and others here are living in a dream world if they believe it is POLITICALLY--I said POLITICALLY--possible for there to be a less than retributive response. There will be vengeance, whether any of us likes it or not, because that is what is required politically. Not just on the domestic front, but on the international front.
Once again: it's Hama rules now. All of you who believe that a devastating hit-back will only make things worse keep failing to recognize the fact that the US has suffered embassy bombings, a first WTC bombing, and an attack on the USS Cole without responding with overwhelming force--and things have only gotten worse. That approach to terrorism won't prevail now.
We will indeed go after states, as Loar has proposed. But that won't stop terror, it won't scare terrorists--they won't all be caught, they're like mushrooms. But--and what I'm trying to make you see here is what must be the reasoning of someone like Condoleeza Rice--the wholesale destruction of cities will indeed scare those people and states abroad who may be capable of helping to stop terrorism, even though it will not make anyone hate us any less. This ain't a popularity contest, have you noticed?
736. greystoke - 9/13/2001 12:05:36 PM
Khabees
"Chemo and radiotherapy combined would be more beneficial."
So, you are referring to the application of chemical and nuclear weapons ? I thnk that is a bit drastic.
737. Andonly - 9/13/2001 12:05:40 PM
I predict we are about to make an example of some polity we determine is complicit. I believe we will have full military cooperation from Pakistan, Russia, and anyone else we "ask".
738. marjoribanks - 9/13/2001 12:06:19 PM
This months-old photograph of mine is oddly poignant right now.
739. AceofSpades - 9/13/2001 12:07:54 PM
The Democrats are refusing to formally declare war.
Bush ought to refuse to sign the piece of shit "resolution" they propose. He should veto it and rely on his inherent power as President.
Don't tell me this is making things "political." We should have a declaration of war, and if people disagree, they should be forced to explain their reasoning and put themselves on the record against a declaration of war.
740. greystoke - 9/13/2001 12:09:23 PM
A declaration of war against whom ?
741. zojak quafeth - 9/13/2001 12:09:52 PM
The logic in post 734 is the same used by the Brits during America's War of Independence. The Americans were outnumbered and they wound up adopting guerilla tactics. Ambushing from behind trees, etc. They weren't fighting fair damnit! They were supposed to stand in row upon row of long straight lines and get mown down -- honorably.
Fuck that noise. They have declared a new type of warfare. Adapt to it or lose.
742. Khabees Khargosh - 9/13/2001 12:10:27 PM
Grey,
You missed the anology.
743. jexster - 9/13/2001 12:12:27 PM
The Mote's Spastic Colon has returned!
744. marjoribanks - 9/13/2001 12:12:47 PM
Yes, declare war on whom?
It's asinine, the very idea that you can declare war on an unknown opponent with anything more than symbolic meaning. Like a "war" on drugs, I mean.
745. Absensia - 9/13/2001 12:13:41 PM
KK, did you mean chemical warfare or were you comparing the terrorists as a cancer in a body?
746. jexster - 9/13/2001 12:13:45 PM
Bush praises Democrats for their support
Message # 739 DIARREA
747. jexster - 9/13/2001 12:15:03 PM
. Jihad Online. And think of what they hit: The World Trade Center — the beacon of American-led capitalism that both tempts and repels them, and the Pentagon, the embodiment of American military superiority.
And think about what places in Israel the Palestinian suicide bombers have targeted most. "They never hit synagogues or settlements or Israeli religious zealots," said the Haaretz columnist Ari Shavit. "They hit the Sbarro pizza parlor, the Netanya shopping mall. The Dolphinarium disco. They hit the yuppie Israel, not the yeshiva Israel."
748. AceofSpades - 9/13/2001 12:16:59 PM
Report: Clinton Nixed Hit on Bin Laden
As recently as last December, former President Bill Clinton was presented with reliable intelligence pinpointing the whereabouts of suspected Word Trade Center terrorist Osama bin Laden -- along with the U.S. military's plan to take him out.
But Clinton declined to green light the operation.
The information on bin Laden's location came from "eyes-on intelligence," the Associated Press reported Thursday, indicating he was spotted by a tipster on the ground or via satellite surveillance.
The intelligence coup is said to have spurred "a high-level debate" among senior White House officials over whether this was Clinton's last chance to eliminate bin Laden before he left office.
Former Clinton administration national security advisor Sandy Berger admitted to the AP, "There were a couple of points, including in December, where there was intelligence indicative of bin Laden's whereabouts."
But in the wake of reports that bin Laden masterminded Tuesday's attacks on New York's World Trade Center and the Pentagon in Washington, Berger sounded somewhat defensive, complaining, "I can categorically tell you that at no point was it ripe enough to act."
He also attempted to shift blame to the military for the decision not to act, saying, "There was never a recommendation from the Pentagon."
749. marjoribanks - 9/13/2001 12:17:17 PM
What this actually calls for is a massive intelligence effort, infiltration of all the rhetoric-spewing Islamist (and local) anti-government groups, and a strict eradication of the the personnel and funding links of these. Bombing Afghanistan means shit, the Afghans have done it all and seen it all already. Bombing Iraq further also means shit.
Look to the money sources, look to the collaborators and sympathizers within. Elimination of these would be far more significant and would leave the simple angry men at the end of these tentacles bankrupt and largely impotent.
750. jexster - 9/13/2001 12:18:16 PM
In June I wrote a column about the fact that a few cell-phone threats from Osama bin Laden had prompted President Bush to withdraw the F.B.I. from Yemen, a U.S. Marine contingent from Jordan and the U.S. Fifth Fleet from its home base in the Persian Gulf. This U.S. retreat was noticed all over the region, but it did not merit a headline in any major U.S. paper. That must have encouraged the terrorists. Forget about our civilians, we didn't even want to risk our soldiers to face their threats.
Fuckin Peace-fairie..cowed by a bunch o dune coons - right Spazzzz!
751. AceofSpades - 9/13/2001 12:19:08 PM
Yes, declare war on whom?
Ummmmm... Osama bin Laden and his terrorist organization and all states that sheltered and financed him.
There is precedent. Thomas Jefferson and his Congress -- not a pussy faggit Congress like the Democrats are giving us -- declared war on the Barbary Pirates. Most of their identities were unknown, or only rumored, and they had no actual formal "state," although numerous ports and harbors gave them safe haven.
The pirates and friendly ports were destroyed.
It's asinine, the very idea that you can declare war on an unknown opponent with anything more than symbolic meaning. Like a "war" on drugs, I mean.
752. Macnas - 9/13/2001 12:19:48 PM
Ace,
I suggest you inform the US military logistians asap of your well thought out campaign. While you're about it, get on the blower to Israel and let them know whats expected of them.
Godspeed.
753. Khabees Khargosh - 9/13/2001 12:20:17 PM
Abs,
I compared terrorists as cancer in the body. And as I said before it calls for the removal of the cancer, shrinking it with chemo and radiotherapy first and then a surgery if necessary. It's not time yet to cut off an arm or a leg. the life after that would be miserable and the body (world) will be scarred forever.
754. jexster - 9/13/2001 12:22:32 PM
The problem is unique. There are, or so I have heard, only 5 terrorist groups that have taken lives and Osama accounts for 90%. These groups will not be wiped out by incinerating Kabul. They probably aren't even there. The only way to control them, really control them, it seems to me, is to rely on the indigenous populations/nation states to do the job.
That is the most difficult strategic and tactical issue. Not how powerful the US Fleet is.
755. AceofSpades - 9/13/2001 12:23:11 PM
The identities of our opponents are not "unknown." Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Lybia, and others (I can name them if you like) have been sponsoring and harboring terrorists for fifteen years.
Majoribanks. What a fucking little cunt. He's oh-so-scared we might kill bin Laden and yet bin Laden can't be proved to have done this one thing (although, of course, he did). As if the bombings of the embassies, the USS Cole, and the FIRST bombing of the WTC weren't quite enough.
According to Majorifaggit, every terrorist gets 5,000 free murders. We can only go after them, and the states that harbor them, when they pass that magic 5,000 murder threshold. Since bin Laden can't be prooooooooooooven to have done this one attack (although he did, and he will be so proven), the gloves, apparently, must remain on.
Go tell us another jerk-off story. That seems to be what you're best at.
756. Absensia - 9/13/2001 12:24:41 PM
KK,
How would we eradicate the terrorists, then?
757. jexster - 9/13/2001 12:25:15 PM
Fuckin Moron.
758. jexster - 9/13/2001 12:25:58 PM
That's YOU Ace you obnoxious turd
759. marjoribanks - 9/13/2001 12:26:17 PM
According to Jane's and other reliable sources, the Bin Laden network has cells extant in at least thirty countries including the UK, the US, Canada, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, even Australia. He, of course, is somewhere in Afghanistan.
The US "Intelligence" knows about some of these, even apparently knew about a few complicit cabbies in Boston.
So, who do you declare war against? Canada? France? Boston? US "Intelligence"?
Afghanistan? It's barely a country, and is in a state of civil war. Millions of Afghans live in refugee camps. Indiscriminate bombing would not only be counter-productive - it's guaranteed not to work. Please note how many powers have tried to subdue Afghanistan over centuries, and failed.
So you somehow, improbably, "beat" the Taliban. What does that do? Who takes its place? How does that affect the dozens of terrorist cells in all the Western countries and beyond?
No. This effort, if it is meant to be successful and not idiotic jingoistic nonsense, will take genuine Intelligence, and a great deal of time and cunning.
760. jexster - 9/13/2001 12:26:35 PM
761. AceofSpades - 9/13/2001 12:27:43 PM
I also enjoy Clinton's policy of not dealing with any informant or operative if they had "blood on their hands." Under Clinton, all CIA informants/operatives had to pass a "human rights scrub" -- we would not deal with anyone who couldn't pass such a test.
Brilliant.
George Tenant heartily endorsed this ridiculous rule. And he's about to lose his job over it.
Brilliant, brilliant, brilliant.
Give peace and love a chance?
They had their chance. They did not work.
762. jexster - 9/13/2001 12:28:26 PM
Or is it noxious turd?
763. marjoribanks - 9/13/2001 12:29:13 PM
The illiterate Spades cannot be expected to know anything about history, or about the present, or about very much beyond his small engorged penis.
You're welcome to his idiocies, I'm off.
764. greystoke - 9/13/2001 12:29:36 PM
Ace,
I wasn't aware of the Barbary Pirates episode. There do seem to be parallels.
Here is a page about the battles.
Exerpts:
In May, 1801, the United States refused to succumb to the increasing demands of the Pacha of Tripoli; in return, the Pacha declared war against the States. While Tripoli was not a strong power and little effort was necessary to watch and blockade it, the fear was that the other Barbary powers would join against the United States. The United States sent naval squadrons into the Mediterranean under the slogan of "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute!" Under the leadership of Commodores Richard Dale and Edward Preble, the Navy blockaded the enemy coast, bombarded his shore fortresses, and engaged in close, bitterly contested gunboat actions.
...
Following the War of 1812 two naval squadrons under Commodores Decatur and Bainbridge returned to the Mediterranean. Diplomacy backed by resolute force soon brought the rulers of Barbary to terms and gained wide spread respect for the new American nation. Decatur obtained treaties which eliminated the United States paying tribute. In the years immediately after the Napoleonic wars, which ended in 1815, the European powers forced an end to piracy and the payment of tribute in the Barbary states.
765. AceofSpades - 9/13/2001 12:29:37 PM
"So, who do you declare war against? Canada? France? Boston? US "Intelligence"? "
Yes indeed. We declare war on Canada, France, and Boston.
Or, perhaps, we just declare on Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen, and Afghanistan.
Your choice-- Canada, france, and Boston or Iraq, Iran, Syria, yemen, and Afghanistan.
I admit-- it's a tough call.
766. bubbaette - 9/13/2001 12:30:46 PM
Don't just sit there -- lash out blindly!
767. AceofSpades - 9/13/2001 12:33:14 PM
bubbaette,
Are you suggesting that Iran, Iraq, and Yemen do not sponsor terrorists?
Please explain your rationale for showing them mercy.
Is it the Rule of 5,000 Murders? Why isn't the 4--500 murders we already know they're guilty of enough?
Please explain. I'm all ears. I really need to understand why you believe the other terrorist-states are 1) innocent or 2) guilty but deserving of understanding, compassion, and mercy.
768. zojak quafeth - 9/13/2001 12:34:12 PM
KK,
How would we eradicate the terrorists, then?
Apparently by bullshit rhetoric and analogies to cancer.
769. rubberducky - 9/13/2001 12:34:34 PM
there are now some 'how to help' links in the butter bar. if you have any more, please post them so that i can add them.
770. AceofSpades - 9/13/2001 12:35:41 PM
PS: Saudi and Russian intelligence tell us that bin Laden has 20 suitcase nuclear bombs, bought from corrupt Soviet officers.
I suppose we can't take him out. If we bomb him, he'll just get mad and nuke us. If we DON'T bomb him, he'll see the error of his ways and just sit on his nukes.
But certainly we can't take him out simply because he's armed with nuclear weapons. After all, WE have them-- why shouldn't he? Who are we to make distinctions between ourselves and our enemies?
771. jexster - 9/13/2001 12:36:44 PM
MURDER OF U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; CONSPIRACY TO MURDER U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; ATTACK ON A FEDERAL FACILITY RESULTING IN DEATH
USAMA BIN LADEN
772. bubbaette - 9/13/2001 12:39:33 PM
Ace
I don't know which countries (if any) are guilty. Suppose an individual or group commits mass murder and you're not sure exactly who it is, but you know they've been charged before. Does that suggest that you execute everyone who's ever been charged with a crime?
I support retaliation but I think that we need to know against whom we are retaliating -- not just lashing out at everyone who's ever harmed us in the past and all their friends and neighbors.
773. zojak quafeth - 9/13/2001 12:40:07 PM
Target #2:
Ghadaffi nurtures links with South African terror group
There is consternation within Western intelligence groups at Libya's developing ties with Pagad, a South African Islamic fundamentalist group labelled as terrorist by the US State Department.
05/09/01
http://www.janes.com/regional_news/africa_middle_east/
774. RustlerPike - 9/13/2001 12:41:22 PM
greystoke:
The part about the pirates was excellent.
But men were men then, honor was honor. We don't have that anymore. We're politically correct.
775. jexster - 9/13/2001 12:42:49 PM
776. jexster - 9/13/2001 12:44:16 PM
"I am sorry I used the term dune coons, I like niggers" Ace of Spades
777. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/13/2001 12:45:20 PM
778. jexster - 9/13/2001 12:46:29 PM
At a candlelight gathering of Muslims in San Francisco last night, Hatem Baziam, a Palestinian and Islamic Studies professor at the University of California at Berkeley, said those who scapegoat Muslims for attacks on the World Trade Center are forgetting that Muslims also died in the blasts.
"We feel violated twice," Baziam said. "We are not identified as part of the victims of the bombing, and in the aftermath we're immediately associated with the attack."
779. AceofSpades - 9/13/2001 12:47:09 PM
What fucking nonsense. get out of the country, moron.
I don't know which countries (if any) are guilty.
Oh? You don't know that Iran and Iraq are sponsoring Hezbollah, Party of God, and perhaps even Osama bin Laden?
Exactly what planet have you been living on for the past twenty years?
Suppose an individual or group commits mass murder and you're not sure exactly who it is, but you know they've been charged before.
1) they have committed mass murder before. The various bombed airplanes of the eighties and nineties resulted in body counts of nearly 1,000 dead.
2) They will do so again. They have been doing this for TWENTY YEARS. Please explain why you believe they stopped, and when this all happened.
Does that suggest that you execute everyone who's ever been charged with a crime?
Yes. You execute everyone who sponsors and finances mass-murder.
Is this a difficult proposition to except, Retard?
I support retaliation but I think that we need to know against whom we are retaliating -- not just lashing out at everyone who's ever harmed us in the past and all their friends and neighbors
Ah yes. More pinprick cruise missiles and destroyed asprin factories. That worked oh-so-well in the past so we should just keep doing it.
780. CalGal - 9/13/2001 12:47:48 PM
781. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/13/2001 12:49:05 PM
782. Andonly - 9/13/2001 12:51:07 PM
From an editorial in the Miami Herald:
Both in terms of their awful scope and the probable final death toll, your attacks are likely to go down as the worst acts of
terrorism in the history of the United States and, indeed, in the history of the world. You've bloodied us as we have never been
bloodied before.
But there's a gulf of difference between making us bloody and making us fall. This is the lesson Japan was taught, to its bitter
sorrow, the last time anyone hit us this hard, the last time anyone brought us such abrupt and monumental pain. When roused,
we are righteous in our outrage, terrible in our force. When provoked by this level of barbarism, we will bear any suffering, pay
any cost, go to any length, in the pursuit of justice.
I tell you this without fear of contradiction. I know my people, as you, I think, do not. What I know reassures me. It also causes
me to tremble with dread of the future...
Still, I keep wondering what it was you hoped to teach us. It occurs to me that maybe you just wanted us to know the depths of
your hatred.
If that's the case, consider the message received. And take this message in exchange: You don't know my people. You don't
know what we're about. You don't know what you just started.
But you're about to learn.
783. bubbaette - 9/13/2001 12:51:10 PM
Ace
I have nothing to say to you. You have demonstrated that you are hysterical. Feel free to continue your irrational ranting, I will scroll past.
784. CalGal - 9/13/2001 12:51:29 PM
You know, I don't support indiscriminate attacks, but this bleating about "proof" and which country is "guilty" is asinine.
785. AceofSpades - 9/13/2001 12:51:31 PM
TRUE OR FALSE:
1) When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, it was wrong of us to declare war on Germany, because "Germany wasn't guilty of attacking us."
2) When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, we should have made every effort to hunt down and bring to justice ONLY the generals and pilots directly responsible for the attack. The Japanese civilian population should have been entirely spared-- after all, they were innocent, living under a fascist emperor they never elected.
3) When we went to war with Germany, we should have made every effort to hunt down and bring to justice ONLY the generals and pilots directly responsible for Nazi aggression. The German civilian population should have been entirely spared-- after all, they were innocent, living under a fascist dictator who had effectively come to power by means of a coup.
786. MaxMacks - 9/13/2001 12:52:50 PM
go git them folks, ace !!
tearizm against the US will not stand
says Pres. selected.
787. rubberducky - 9/13/2001 12:52:52 PM
per Indiana Jones's Message # 680, i have changed the title of this thread to reflect less titlistic elements.
788. jexster - 9/13/2001 12:52:56 PM
Pardon me if I am not particularly impressed with the spastic bowel movements emmanating from the Ace of Spades....
If we are going to crash into something...let's not let that happen. Our best chance is to fight these people, rather than accept it."
-- Jeremy Glick, spoke to his wife, before he and others on Flight 93 may have overpowered hijackers leading to the jet's crash thus avoiding a strategic target
789. jexster - 9/13/2001 12:55:31 PM
We, by contrast, have to fight in a way that is effective without destroying the very open society we are trying to protect. We have to fight hard and land safely. We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules, and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. It won't be easy. It will require our best strategists, our most creative diplomats and our bravest soldiers. Semper Fi.
790. AceofSpades - 9/13/2001 12:55:49 PM
Will any of the peace-fairies answer the true or false test?
Of course not.
791. Property of Jesus - 9/13/2001 12:56:02 PM
Just don't do to this thread what you did to the ReDesign thread, ducky.
792. AuNaturel - 9/13/2001 12:59:19 PM
Bush doesn't want to level Kabul. It would accomplish nothing except to kill a lot og innocent people and piss of a bunch of Afghanis. The Taliban and Osama aren't all that vulnerable. The will disperse to their caves and basements and shelters and be very difficult to dig out.
793. Absensia - 9/13/2001 1:00:26 PM
I'm with you Bub..and the scroll works! Anytime I see the name POJ, I just scroll and ignore.
794. slackjaw - 9/13/2001 1:01:54 PM
Suppose an individual or group commits mass murder and you're not sure exactly who it is, but you know they've been charged before. Does that suggest that you execute everyone who's ever been charged with a crime?
The "charged" and "crime" language is not right, even as a metaphor. Why should the contitutional restrictions we place on our government to deal with our citizens be applied to murdering foreigners? The burden of evidence and appropriate response are completely different, especially in light of the ratcheting terror campaign against us in the last decade.
I truly hope the Herald piece is right about our response.
795. Absensia - 9/13/2001 1:02:40 PM
CNN reports 5 fire fighters were just now found..alive...in a SUV, in the rubble.
796. RustlerPike - 9/13/2001 1:03:10 PM
I can't believe Ace seems to be in such a minority. Or is that just an illusion? What is the joy people derive from holding someone back and thinking they are so much better than he is just because he's speaking his heart and they are saying 'now, now'...? What would you say if you lost a loved one in that rubble? You think you are being somehow civilized by chiding Ace? You're being dicks, that's all.
Not that I agree with everything Ace says - I don't really think he has a well thought out plan here - but generally, the spirit is right. 
Avenge this, you sissy-pie wussfaces, I say!
797. CalGal - 9/13/2001 1:05:04 PM
Yes, I'd heard that but couldn't find it on the CNN site.
798. christipeters - 9/13/2001 1:07:21 PM
CNN reports 5 fire fighters were just now found..alive...in a SUV, in the rubble
I hope this is true. We need some good news.
799. Property of Jesus - 9/13/2001 1:07:30 PM
Click to see the pictures that Arafat is trying to cover up. Photographer, who took it, was jailed.
800. Andonly - 9/13/2001 1:07:39 PM
"You don't know that Iran and Iraq are sponsoring Hezbollah, Party of God, and perhaps even Osama bin Laden?"
Hezbollah is the "Party of God". (Hizb'allah.)
***
What people don't seem to realize is that OBL may not be behind these attacks in any literal sense. The cells that committed them may be following his tactics, may be his allies, but I suspect there's no way to "prove" he has anything direct to do with it at all.
At this point, the claim that the "moral" thing to do is to go after bin Laden and those who give him cover is equivalent to claiming Israel should eradicate (Lebanon's) Hizbullah whenever the DFLP or Hamas blows up a school bus. And why shouldn't it? After all, Hiz is an ardent supporter of the most radical aspects of the Pal cause.
But surely the target should be broader in order to have any effect.
801. PelleNilsson - 9/13/2001 1:08:07 PM
Andonly
there will be some purely retributive response simply because people like Alistair and Pelle and others here are living in a dream world if they believe it is POLITICALLY--I said POLITICALLY--possible for there to be a less than retributive response.
I do understand the political need for a swift and merciless retribution, and I would support it, but there are dangers.
America now has the sympathy of most of the world and the support of its NATO allies, the EU and the UN. That can quickly change if the retribution is seen as unjust and directed against the wrong target.
The unilateralists will say to hell with the world, but American domestic opinion can be affected as well. I'm sure Bush's advisors have the Iran embassy affair in mind: intial humiliation followed by a botched operation that made things infinitely worse. A thing like that can destroy a president.
802. AceofSpades - 9/13/2001 1:08:25 PM
TRUE OR FALSE:
4) The fact that there were "good Germans" and "good Japanese" who opposed their country's aggressions meant that we could not attack their poplulations generally, for fear of killing thesee innocents along with the guilty.
Will anyone answer ANY of these?
803. CalGal - 9/13/2001 1:08:39 PM
Five firefighters have been rescued in an SUV buried in the rubble of the World Trade Center. Meanwhile, President Bush said today he would visit New York City tomorrow and told city and state officials, "My resolve is steady and strong about winning this war that has been declared on America."
804. CalGal - 9/13/2001 1:09:26 PM
Whoops, I thought the whole blurb I copied was about the firefighters; it was only the first sentence. No link yet.
805. RustlerPike - 9/13/2001 1:10:17 PM
Jexster:
You really don't get it, do you? Do you realize the next thing these guys will do is pepper anthrax on your neighborhood? Will you still be saying 'well, I don't know which Aye-rab did it so let them keep doing it'?
Tell me: if you have a can of Doom and you know there's a killer bug in one of ten holes in your wall, and your baby is lying there sleeping peacefully in the other room - do you say 'I don't know which hole has the killer bugs and which just has ordinary disease-carrying bugs, so I'll just go to my PC and spew out some more nonsense for the Mote, and if my baby dies -well then, let it'?
806. Andonly - 9/13/2001 1:10:44 PM
"The "charged" and "crime" language is not right, even as a metaphor. Why should the contitutional restrictions we place on our government to deal with our citizens be applied to murdering foreigners?"
Thank you, Slackjaw, for pointing this out. The rules of war are not the rules of fucking tort law.
807. slackjaw - 9/13/2001 1:10:46 PM
Bush doesn't want to level Kabul. It would accomplish nothing except to kill a lot og innocent people and piss of a bunch of Afghanis. The Taliban and Osama aren't all that vulnerable.
If we kill a lot of innocent people in responding to terrorists and complicit states that's a crying shame but too fucking bad. The Taliban and bin Laden aren't vulnerable to surgical strikes perhaps, but destruction on a massive scale might get their attention.
808. Absensia - 9/13/2001 1:11:57 PM
It's on CNN and Laura Bush just mentioned it while being interviewed. No link yet, sigh.
809. Laura C - 9/13/2001 1:12:50 PM
I got into my midtown Manhattan office a little before nine Tuesday. I had just launched Netscape when my colleague Sabrina ran in saying "did you hear what happened? a plane hit the WTC!" Her fiance, who worked across the street from the towers, had called her.
We pulled up a photo on cnn.com. It was hard to get a sense of scale but we decided it was probably a commuter plane or a helicopter. I called my parents in Chicago and said "you're going to be hearing about this, it's okay, we're miles away." We just thought it was a horrible accident. I turned on the radio and people drifted in to listen.
Then the second plane hit. The radio was theorizing it was a helicopter. Then, maybe it was a missile. It took a while to realize it was deliberate.
Phone service went down. Even cell phones weren't working because so many transmitters were on the WTC. Everybody crowded into my office. I was logged onto about eight sites - I was the only one who had an Internet connection - trying to sort out the facts from the rumors.
Sabrina started crying because she knew so many people in both buildings, besides her fiance next door. I put my arms around her and said, it's horrible but there's still hope, if there's one place that has good evacuation procedures it's the WTC, look at how many people got out after the last bombing.
810. slackjaw - 9/13/2001 1:13:22 PM
And if the Taliban thinks its pathetic backward country is not worth destroying it should abandon its rule. But they stay; obviously they care about the place.
Thus, if we blow it to smithereens, perhaps they'll be affected a little.
811. Property of Jesus - 9/13/2001 1:13:49 PM
AP has video of Palestinian police shotting their weapons in air in celebration after hearing about the attacks and will not release it.
The state of Israel is making a big deal about it, saying that AP can't be trusted to show the news.
812. Laura C - 9/13/2001 1:14:07 PM
A few minutes later she ran back in and said "people are jumping." There just wasn't anything to say and we hadn't heard from her fiance since just after the first hit.
Then the posts on TT about a chunk of the first tower coming down. I scrolled past that because I didn't want her to see it till we knew whether it was for real. Then we heard it on the radio. Then the second tower went. We didn't really believe it - it didn't sink in - until we started seeing the white smoke rising downtown.
A stupid colleague came in marveling at the wonder of it all. "Can you believe it? Imagine what that must look like!" She crumpled and I started screaming at him to get the hell out, to go away until he had something worthwhile to say. Somebody took him down to the fourth floor to watch TV.
Mostly I held together because I could convey information to the rest of the office. People I'd never seen before were crowding in, to be together and to try to figure out what was going on. Four planes in the air. No, eight. Pentagon crash. Pittsburgh hijacking. No, plane shot down there. Or maybe not shot down. Car bomb at the State Department? Mall on fire? No, wait, that was just sonic booms from Andrews. I honestly don't know what we would have done without the Internet connection. The only radio station we could pick up ran out of news and degenerated into half-baked political analysis.
People kept drifting to the south wall to watch the smoke. After an hour and half Sabrina's fiance called. He had run all the way from the WTC up to midtown and was at their apartment. I told her to go home, but to be careful on the streets. She said she just wanted to see him, then she'd come back. I yelled "No! For God's sake!" and was telling her to stay there with him when everybody came running because they thought something more had happened.
813. Laura C - 9/13/2001 1:14:10 PM
A few minutes later she ran back in and said "people are jumping." There just wasn't anything to say and we hadn't heard from her fiance since just after the first hit.
Then the posts on TT about a chunk of the first tower coming down. I scrolled past that because I didn't want her to see it till we knew whether it was for real. Then we heard it on the radio. Then the second tower went. We didn't really believe it - it didn't sink in - until we started seeing the white smoke rising downtown.
A stupid colleague came in marveling at the wonder of it all. "Can you believe it? Imagine what that must look like!" She crumpled and I started screaming at him to get the hell out, to go away until he had something worthwhile to say. Somebody took him down to the fourth floor to watch TV.
Mostly I held together because I could convey information to the rest of the office. People I'd never seen before were crowding in, to be together and to try to figure out what was going on. Four planes in the air. No, eight. Pentagon crash. Pittsburgh hijacking. No, plane shot down there. Or maybe not shot down. Car bomb at the State Department? Mall on fire? No, wait, that was just sonic booms from Andrews. I honestly don't know what we would have done without the Internet connection. The only radio station we could pick up ran out of news and degenerated into half-baked political analysis.
People kept drifting to the south wall to watch the smoke. After an hour and half Sabrina's fiance called. He had run all the way from the WTC up to midtown and was at their apartment. I told her to go home, but to be careful on the streets. She said she just wanted to see him, then she'd come back. I yelled "No! For God's sake!" and was telling her to stay there with him when everybody came running because they thought something more had happened.
814. Laura C - 9/13/2001 1:14:28 PM
She went home, and called to tell me she was safe. Ten minutes later she called, hysterical, because someone had said there was a bomb at a nearby high school and we had to all get out right now! I told people I thought we were safer here than on the streets, and it really didn't seem like that would be connected.
Around one the HR department started sending out updates: what mass transit was available, where to donate blood, the number for the employee assistance program. They did a pretty good job considering what they were dealing with.
People who lived within walking distance started drifting out. The rest gathered to wait for the trains and ferries to open.
An author's office, eight blocks away, called around 3:30. They wanted 1500 books delivered into the city for an event Friday. That's about 50 cartons - a good vanload at least. It blew my mind. They didn't even know where they wanted them delivered, so I focused on that and said "fine, don't bother calling till you know where you want them." We were all flabbergasted that anyone could be so unaware.
They called back ten minutes later with an attitude. They wanted the books earlier than Friday if possible. I said "have you looked out your window?" They didn't care. I said "we're closed, our warehouse is closed, all the bridges and tunnels into the city are closed." They still wanted the books. "No," I said, "Thursday will not be possible." Then we'd have to get them books by Friday. "Friday may not be possible." They got snippy. How could we not even know when the books would be available? I hung up the phone.
(They've sent me three emails since, nagging about getting those books. They just sent another one and I can tell from Caller ID they're calling me as I write this. I have told my boss I will not speak to the chief offender again, and I am severely limiting what I am willing to do for the book.)
815. AuNaturel - 9/13/2001 1:14:33 PM
"When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, we should have made every effort to hunt down and bring to justice ONLY the generals and pilots directly responsible for the attack. The Japanese civilian population should have been entirely spared--after all, they were innocent, living under a fascist emperor they never elected."
Along with governmental officials, the rest of the military and the industry neccessary to prosecute the war. To the extent this was possible it is what we should have done. It just wasn't possible with 1940 technology.
You'll note that when Japan attacked Pearl, they attacked military targets exclusively. Even when the Germans attacked Britain, the effort was directed exclusively at RAF and naval installations. It looked like the RAF was finished as a fighting force. It wasn't until Britain hit German cities that Hitler went crazy for vengeance and began hitting large urban targets. This was exactly was Churchil wanted, sacrificing civilians to take pressure off military targets.
Attacking civilian targets does nothing but to harden the resolve of the civilians.
If we could take out the terrorists without killing any Aghan civilians (who mostly live in terror of their own government) that is exactly what we should do.
816. RustlerPike - 9/13/2001 1:15:15 PM
Suppose a gang called 'The Boyz' declares it will kill people from your neighborhood, sprays statements to this effect on your school's walls, and then one day some of its people enter the school and kill 22 children. Now - suppose there are no cops, but you have a large cannon and you can blast them all away. Do you say - 'wait, I don't know which of the Boyz did it'?
817. rubberducky - 9/13/2001 1:15:36 PM
i still get chills reading accounts like those from Laura C. i hope they continue to get posted.
818. Laura C - 9/13/2001 1:15:43 PM
Charles and a group of lawyers from his office went to give blood, but the lines were too long and they were telling people to come back another day. He walked up to meet me. Our building had cracked down on security and they wouldn't let him phone from the lobby - but they would let him take the elevator up! I found that hysterical.
We walked to the station and took the train home. It was eerily calm, especially compared to the last big snowstorm when people were knocking one another over to get to the trains! As we walked through Grand Central people were pressed up against the magazine store's closed glass doors, trying to follow Fox News. A NYC policeman was holding a crying woman, rubbing her back and trying to soothe her.
When the full lists are out, we will know victims from Charles' law school, and from my college. But our immediate circle, thank God, escaped, as did most of my online friends. Sabrina's fiance is safe - his company has him back at work in a NJ office today. She lost two close family friends. Our upstairs neighbor hasn't come home, and he works in financial services. He could be at his girlfriend's, or on a business trip - we just don't know yet.
Today the trains were as full as ever. I can feel the nervousness but I can also feel a fierce resolve not to give in, not to behave differently in any way. A few stores are closed. Most voices are subdued. But, to an amazing, almost defiant extent, life goes on.
Sabrina was evacuated from her apartment last night because of the Empire State bomb scare. We just heard they've evacuated Grand Central, three blocks from here, due to a bomb scare. I would go home but I commute through Grand Central.
My boss just went out to get lunch.
Life goes on.
819. AceofSpades - 9/13/2001 1:16:49 PM
What the peace-fairies fail to realize is that
1) This sort of large-scale terrorism is only possible with a safe harbor. You cannot plan and execute huge plans when 90% of your time is spent on the run, avoiding the police.
2) Seven states harbor and finance terrorists. Terrorism (beyond small attacks) is not possible without such safe-harbor and money.
3) The states must be made so fearful of harboring and supporting these bastards that they will never do so again; and that their populations must be made so fearful of US that they will eject their own governments should they dabble in terrorism.
4) Previous pinprick cruise missile strikes have been a joke and have simply encouraged further terrorism. They LAUGH at us, and our pussy response.
5) These people hate us, but they do not fear us.
6) It is time to make them fear us.
7) It is ludicrous to claim that bombing them will "just make it worse." They HATE us ALREADY. The trouble is, they do not fear us. If they feared us, they could hate us in private all they liked, but they would not dare take action against us.
8) Many thousands of innocent civilians are about to die. Ten times as many will be plunged into a hellish existance of famine, disease, and starvation in the cold deserts. But this is what it is going to take, and this is what we're going to do.
9) Soon, they will fear us. They will hate us even more passionately than they do now. But they will also fear us, and their dead children will be a reminder of what will happen next time.
820. Cellar Door - 9/13/2001 1:17:23 PM
TRUE OR FALSE is no way to deal with history, Ace.
But you knew that (being a moronic bully)
To answer your questions
1) The war with Japan was a means to an end as there was no popular anti-German sentiment. Quite the contrary (eg. Lucky Lindy.)
2)I'm sure you grealy enjoyed Hiroshima, Ace. Explain to me how Japanese children bombed Pearl harbor.
3) Not worth answering.
821. PelleNilsson - 9/13/2001 1:18:01 PM
Things are bad. Even Slackjaw has lost his cool.
822. AuNaturel - 9/13/2001 1:18:16 PM
"The Taliban and bin Laden aren't vulnerable to surgical strikes perhaps, but destruction on a massive scale might get their attention."
Of course it will get their attention. It is exactly what they want. Precision is the ONLY way to hit the Taliban and Bin Laudin. Do you think they give a shit if we kill a quarter million uninvolved people? They killed that many on their own without our help.
823. Cellar Door - 9/13/2001 1:18:59 PM
4) see 3.
How many Arabs have you killed today, Ace?
Why are you wasting time on-line? Rev up that wheelchair of yours and get going, man. The honor of American depends on it.
824. slackjaw - 9/13/2001 1:19:30 PM
I don't particularly care if the perpetrators are "brought to justice." The damage is done. If there's any justice in the universe they'll get a reckoning beyond meeting the wrong end of a plunger in a US prison anyway. That would be a bonus but not relevant for anything useful from this point on.
I do care that we take every step to make sure butchering extremists never contemplate such a step ever again.
Probably the most effective way to do that is bomb the fuck out them and the territory of their complicit states.
825. CalGal - 9/13/2001 1:20:10 PM
Laura,
God, that must have been horrible. But you caught the lunacies really well. I'm glad you're okay.
Your story about the asshole book people reminds me of NancyC's story about the CFO who sent out an email to people at their DC office saying that since it was a workday, if they "took off" it would be considered personal time.
826. RustlerPike - 9/13/2001 1:20:50 PM
You'll note that when Japan attacked Pearl, they attacked military targets exclusively. Even when the Germans attacked Britain, the effort was directed exclusively at RAF and naval installations. It looked like the RAF was finished as a fighting force. It wasn't until Britain hit German cities that Hitler went crazy for vengeance and began hitting large urban targets.
What a load of bunk. Ever heard of the U-boat campaign on Allied shipping? Ever heard of the invasion of Poland? Ever heard of the Warsaw Ghetto?
Military targets my inner ass.
827. Cellar Door - 9/13/2001 1:21:57 PM
The perpetrators are already dead!
828. AceofSpades - 9/13/2001 1:21:58 PM
Reporter to Colin Powell:
"We understand that *tactical nuclear weapons* are on the table. Are they?"
POWELL: "I don't know where you're getting that information or speculation. I haven't heard anything like that."
829. Cellar Door - 9/13/2001 1:23:23 PM
Get yourself a nuke, Ace. Wheel on over to the nearest mosque and bomb the shit out of it
THE HONOR OF AMERICA DEPENDS UPON IT!
830. CalGal - 9/13/2001 1:23:52 PM
Pelle,
Don't be an idiot. It just so happens that in this case the response that is the most emotionally satisfying is also the most effective. It's the fucking kneejerk peaceniks moralizing from the cheapseats who aren't thinking straight.
831. slackjaw - 9/13/2001 1:24:22 PM
"The perpetrators are already dead."
Their co-conspirators are not.
832. CalGal - 9/13/2001 1:24:31 PM
The perpetrators are already dead!
You are a fucking moron.
833. Cellar Door - 9/13/2001 1:25:13 PM
Armed with a Nuke too, CG?
Boy you people are certainly perfect candidates for suicide missions!
I'm all for you getting into planes and crashing them.
834. slackjaw - 9/13/2001 1:25:20 PM
We will never eliminate all the extremists capable of such an act. We can only give them the most exquisite incentive never to think about it.
835. slackjaw - 9/13/2001 1:25:54 PM
Yes cellar, truly, you are a fucking moron.
836. Cellar Door - 9/13/2001 1:26:04 PM
No, YOU are a fucking moron!
837. Cellar Door - 9/13/2001 1:27:19 PM
WHY ARE YOU COWARS ON LINE? WHY AREN'T YOU OUT KILLING SOMEONE RIGHT NOW?
BACK AWAY FROM THAT COMPUTER, GRAB A GUN AND KILL!
KILL! KILL! KILL!
838. AceofSpades - 9/13/2001 1:27:35 PM
RP,
Did they ever hear of the london Blitz, I wonder?
Do they imagine that was a football play?
839. Cellar Door - 9/13/2001 1:27:50 PM
KILL! KILL! KILL!KILL! KILL! KILL!KILL! KILL! KILL!KILL! KILL! KILL!KILL! KILL! KILL!KILL! KILL! KILL!KILL! KILL! KILL!KILL! KILL! KILL!KILL! KILL! KILL!KILL! KILL! KILL!KILL! KILL! KILL!KILL! KILL! KILL!KILL! KILL! KILL!KILL! KILL! KILL!KILL! KILL! KILL!KILL! KILL! KILL!KILL! KILL! KILL!KILL! KILL! KILL!KILL! KILL! KILL!KILL! KILL! KILL!KILL! KILL! KILL!
840. marjoribanks - 9/13/2001 1:28:09 PM
No, cellar has hit upon a brilliant part-time solution. Find Bin laden, and drop Ace on him from a great height. Two misfits. One stone.
841. CalGal - 9/13/2001 1:28:27 PM
We will never eliminate all the extremists capable of such an act. We can only give them the most exquisite incentive never to think about it.
Yes. Increase the price. We've made terrorism cheap and easy in the name of "humanity".
On a talk radio show yesterday, a man called up and said "Could we please realize that estrogen isn't everything? The women have had it there way long enough."
844. CalGal - 9/13/2001 1:29:01 PM
Ducky, if he keeps spamming please consider moving his spew.
845. rubberducky - 9/13/2001 1:29:16 PM
...
let's bring it down a notch. tempers are racing and we are all pretty much on edge, but i don't want another Politics thread here. keep insults to a minimum and in context, please.
846. AceofSpades - 9/13/2001 1:29:27 PM
Slackjaw, Cal,
Let me ask you: If tactical nuclear weapons are used, will you be upset?
847. mgleason - 9/13/2001 1:29:30 PM
I've read a lot of claptrap here during the past few days; AuNaturel's post regarding Germany and Japan is stunning in its naïveté.
848. Cellar Door - 9/13/2001 1:29:44 PM
FUCK YOU!
849. CalGal - 9/13/2001 1:30:30 PM
I posted that before seeing the ongoing nature of it. He's so predictable.
Cellar, quit it. You got suspended once for this shit. And your "righteous indignation" on behalf of those who butchered thousands of Americans is duly noted, you cheap shit.
850. rubberducky - 9/13/2001 1:30:36 PM
842 & 843 were deleted.
CD, please don't allow anyone to get the better of you.
851. slackjaw - 9/13/2001 1:30:49 PM
tactical nuclear weapons are used, will you be upset?
Only to the extent that it makes it more difficult, politically, for us to accomplish our task.
852. Cellar Door - 9/13/2001 1:32:24 PM
My "righteous indignation" is directed at you, dipshit. Your knee-jerk "solutions" to nearly impossible world problems make me want to vomit.
853. Wombat - 9/13/2001 1:33:09 PM
Ace has yet to add anything coherent to this thread.
Urquhart:
600 miles from the Persian Gulf to Kabul = 1200 miles round trip. Navy jets would have to carry more fuel than bombs to get there and back. Navy helicopters have neither the range nor troop capacity to carry large amounts of troops from carriers.
What I was saying earlier about how terrorists will be fought was unclear only to the deliberately obtuse. It will be long and messy and mostly clandestine, unless there is real evidence of an actual state sponsor. If we are able to tie the attack directly to Iraq, for example, we will hopefully finish the job that Bush sr. started.
Killing 'em all and letting Allah sort them out may provide satisfaction and bloodlust, and will certainly please Ace. That's about all it will do.
854. slackjaw - 9/13/2001 1:34:02 PM
It is a nearly impossible world problem as long as we persist with the belief that our mortal enemies have the right to exist.
855. Cellar Door - 9/13/2001 1:34:51 PM
It will please CalGal too, Wombat. What it won't do is solve the problem of terrorism.
856. Cellar Door - 9/13/2001 1:35:36 PM
What does "the right to exist" have to do with it?
857. CalGal - 9/13/2001 1:37:17 PM
Nothing will solve the problem of terrorism. Increasing the cost will make it a less desirable option.
858. Cellar Door - 9/13/2001 1:37:37 PM
Terroroist have already grabbed the "right" to suicide. Death doesn't faze them. It should faze those of us (foolhardy wusses according to Ace, CalGal and the Conservabot Tabernacle Choir) who actually care about life.
859. theDiva - 9/13/2001 1:37:54 PM
Ducky
Yahoo compiled a list of 'how to help' links.
860. rubberducky - 9/13/2001 1:39:43 PM
thanks deev
861. Andonly - 9/13/2001 1:40:13 PM
"A thing like that can destroy a president."
Pelle, we have no president as it is. Rumsfeld and Cheney are running this show. It scarcely matters.
And anyway, fortunes change in war by the minute. Say you're right; say, e.g., we obliterate Baghdad, decimate Kabul, and destroy selected terrorist/military sites elsewhere. Say there's a tremendous backlash against the US for having melted the Iraqui capital "unfairly". Say, even, that a substantial part of the US population reacts in horror and sets out to undermine the government (this is risibly improbable, but let's just pretend for a moment it isn't).
Now let's say the war continues (which it will). All it will take will be a small tactical nuke aimed from some rogue's back pocket at Los Angeles, a biological attack--or better yet, a terrorist attack on any city among our major NATO supporters--and the West will regain its equilibrium, domestically and around the world. Instantaneously. You will all line up firmly behind us, behind any US president, no matter how incompetent.
Your leaders understand perfectly well that the US is not a president. It is at this moment a dangerously violated people, an enormous machine. And it works, under circumstances like these, in fairly predictable ways, because that is what it must do.
Your pleas about how Leviathan should not be Leviathan are... well, pointless. We will play the role we've been assigned, it can't be otherwise. And the world will want us to do it, too.
862. theDiva - 9/13/2001 1:40:25 PM
you're welcome.
863. marjoribanks - 9/13/2001 1:41:22 PM
On point, Wombat.
Slack,
I fully understand and share the meat of your sentiment. The truble is that true enemies of this state exist in trickles, and they are both within and outside the borders of this country. I support a massive and take-no-prisoners effort, but the mass of it has to be clandestine.
Take a cue from Israel here, and what it has done (on a much more limited scale) to get to terrorists who have acted against its interests before. It identified the threatening threads and then cut them out mercilessly. That works.
Thankfully, I think there are people with the capability and the power to make the US counterefforts actually effective. The blowhard stupidity on exhibition here is always present, but (again thankfully) it's impotent and will remain that way.
864. Andonly - 9/13/2001 1:43:16 PM
"Do you realize the next thing these guys will do is pepper anthrax on your neighborhood?"
Swear to God, Pike, I rounded up our stash of antibiotics this morning, just before having a conversation with the mayor about what our town has done to prepare for war.
He told me he doesn't think people realize yet what's coming.
865. Absensia - 9/13/2001 1:43:21 PM
Laura,
Thank you so much for posting those things. Your comments are very eloquent and make it so real.
My next door neighbor has written a book on grieving and surviving, etc. It's just been published. Yesterday her publicist called her, in good spirits, telling her they they wanted to set up radio and tv interviews asap and that this would increase sales substantially. She was stunned by their words. She said she can't do such a thing right now.
866. marjoribanks - 9/13/2001 1:44:31 PM
How many people, do you think, right here in the US were happy about those towers crumbling with loss of life?
Thousands. Without a doubt. Somewhere, bands of white trash are both celebrating and mulling over the fact that ragheads from abroad managed to do what they could only dream of.
867. Andonly - 9/13/2001 1:45:23 PM
"The Taliban and bin Laden aren't vulnerable to surgical strikes perhaps, but destruction on a massive scale might get their attention."
And the attention of every state which sponsors them. And that's why I believe this is what our response must entail.
868. slackjaw - 9/13/2001 1:45:29 PM
Does Israel take that approach because it's actually the most effective on the time scale we are interested in, or because they have no other viable choice given American's role as guarantor of 'peace'? Optimum, constrained or unconstrained?
869. PsychProf - 9/13/2001 1:46:39 PM
Banks...good to see your name pop up.
870. marjoribanks - 9/13/2001 1:49:59 PM
Constrained. Wise. Discriminating.
I submit that any timeframe you're coming up with is an imposed one, without substance or a sense of where or who the enemy is. US 'Intelligence' does not know, if it did it could have prevented the KNOWN Bin Laden cells from being set up and apparently carrying out this act.
A broadscale indicriminate strike would confirm the views of the opposition, in this case. America is a blind and weak elephant, and as such will be vulnerable to cunning jackals.
871. AuNaturel - 9/13/2001 1:52:26 PM
"that our mortal enemies have the right to exist"
Our "mortal enemies" are vastly outnumbered by helpless civilians who would like to be our friends if only our "mortal enemies" hadn't seized power.
I heard a Taliban official bragging about all the good things they'd done. The first thing he listed was the disarming of the Afghan citizenry since the Taliban takeover.
Fortunately we have a local ally who would be more than happy to kick Taliban butt and eliminate Bin Laudin with extreme prejudice, the Northern alliance. If we were to supplement their forces it could be done.
872. Andonly - 9/13/2001 1:53:45 PM
"Things are bad. Even Slackjaw has lost his cool."
You must find this hard to understand, Pelle, but "cool" is not only inappropriate in some circumstances, it is repellant. In any case, I see Slackjaw exhibiting perfectly rational sangfroid.
873. CalGal - 9/13/2001 1:53:49 PM
Constrained. Wise. Discriminating.
I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about Israel.
Israel would convert the rest of the middle east to rubble without thinking twice if they thought they could get away with it.
874. CalGal - 9/13/2001 1:55:34 PM
Our "mortal enemies" are vastly outnumbered by helpless civilians who would like to be our friends if only our "mortal enemies" hadn't seized power.
Horseshit. They might not be our enemies, but they sure as shit aren't our friends. They're just worried about surviving, for the most part, and that's fine. They can choose which death they want--overcoming the terrorists within their land or being blown to bits by us.
875. Jenerator - 9/13/2001 1:57:16 PM
America is a blind and weak elephant, and as such will be vulnerable to cunning jackals.
I strongly disagree with this and it pisses me off that you're still so ever critical of the US.
876. Laura C - 9/13/2001 1:57:18 PM
Absensia,
That's terrible. That's beyond crass.
I spent the morning looking over forthcoming ads, to make sure there's nothing objectionable in the copy. How foul to see a national tragedy as a sales opportunity.
One of our other authors called into a show in the first hours - he saw the whole thing happen from one of the bridges. Things have snowballed and he's done several appearances, he's doing national radio today and he feels so guilty to be getting exposure from the tragedy. We told him, your qualifications are such that you can help people, do that, don't worry about what it does to your book. I don't even care if he mentions it.
Books like his make me feel that it might be worthwhile to come into work after all.
877. slackjaw - 9/13/2001 1:57:26 PM
Israel would convert the rest of the middle east to rubble without thinking twice if they thought they could get away with it.
Exactly. That's what "constrained optimum" means. There's something else conceivable and better (convert to rubble), but unreachable due to (in this case political) constraints.
878. marjoribanks - 9/13/2001 1:58:05 PM
"cool" is not inappropriate in this circumstance, especially for slackjaw.
What I find repugnant, to the point of being absolutely disgusting, is the demand by some some few that unrestrained and ignorant bloodlust and a frenzy of enraged grief is the only appropriate response to these horrific events.
Go look at the reactions of even the most "handled" US leaders, would you appreciate a lack of cool in those with power right now? You find the cool exhibited by them repellant? Kindly hinge yourself.
879. Francis Urquhart - 9/13/2001 2:01:41 PM
Wombat
"600 miles from the Persian Gulf to Kabul = 1200 miles round trip. Navy jets would have to carry more fuel than bombs to get there and back. Navy helicopters have neither the range nor troop capacity to carry large amounts of troops from carriers."
You, of course, are incorrect. The range of a carrier-based troop transport helicopter, such as a Super Stallion --able to transport 55 combat-ready Marines or 16 tons of cargo and lift the 26,000-pound Light Armored Vehicle (LAV) - is 540 nautical miles.
Save when it is re-fueled in the air by a KC-130 refueler aircraft, which is what we did when we launched Super Stallions from ships in 1991, flying 420 miles at night, refueling on route, to Mogadishu, Somalia, to rescue Americans and foreign allies from the American embassy, which was being besieged by Somali rebels.
Then, the range is unlimited.
880. jexster - 9/13/2001 2:02:13 PM
Live Web Cam Shots from Empire State
881. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/13/2001 2:02:29 PM
It never dawned on me just how extreme and and ignorant some of the shitheads at this site are--until now!
882. Andonly - 9/13/2001 2:02:31 PM
"Take a cue from Israel here, and what it has done (on a much more limited scale) to get to terrorists who have acted against its interests before. It identified the threatening threads and then cut them out mercilessly. That works."
Does it? Take an Israeli poll to see whether this alone has "worked", or whether it would be better to have done more, with less restraint.
Furthermore, the US is not Israel.
883. jexster - 9/13/2001 2:03:04 PM
A flight from Calgary, 15 minutes out from SFO, was ordered by USAF to return to Canada ASAP or die.
884. angel-five - 9/13/2001 2:04:23 PM
Well, Cellar did have a point. If they're so hot for mass murder perhaps they should go buy a big bag of guns and a plane ticket to Kabul. After all, they're Americans and vengeance is demanded of them.
Cool is absolutely appropriate in these conditions.
885. marjoribanks - 9/13/2001 2:04:48 PM
Fact:
Most Arabs love America. Not just as a symbol of a better life, but as a kind of beacon of the possible. There are hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Yemenis and Syrians in this country.
Fact:
A good proportion of Arabs depend on the US for every aspect of their livelihood and whatever security they possess.
Fact:
All indications are that the perpetrators of this act possessed citizenships of countries which are close US allies, the best friends of this country in the region. This would be exactly like some of the previous incidents in the country which have been carried out by citizens of overt and explicit US Allies - Egypt, Pakistan.
Fact:
A significant proportion of Arab and ME governments fight Islamist extremists as diligently (and more violently and indiscriminately) as you'd want in an ally.
886. Absensia - 9/13/2001 2:05:13 PM
Laura, yes it is. I was appalled and so was my neighbor.
887. judithathome - 9/13/2001 2:05:21 PM
American Express building has been evacuated due to fear of collapse.
888. PsychProf - 9/13/2001 2:05:31 PM
A cool and measured response, founded in fact and act, is the proper/functional approach, and it seems to be policy. "Quick action" will not resurrect our dead, and if we choose to kill, we can do that anytime.
889. bubbaette - 9/13/2001 2:07:21 PM
What I find repugnant, to the point of being absolutely disgusting, is the demand by some some few that unrestrained and ignorant bloodlust and a frenzy of enraged grief is the only appropriate response to these horrific events.
Absolutely. And to these folks, being willing to wait for a focused retaliation instead of just doing something/anything to somebody immediately is evidence of being naive or less than a true American.
890. slackjaw - 9/13/2001 2:07:21 PM
A significant proportion of Arab and ME governments fight Islamist extremists as diligently (and more violently and indiscriminately) as you'd want in an ally
While gratified by their efforts I now think they need a little help, which we happen to be in a position to offer.
891. jexster - 9/13/2001 2:07:52 PM
Well put PP...
892. Jenerator - 9/13/2001 2:08:13 PM
Thanks for the link Jexster!
893. Andonly - 9/13/2001 2:09:01 PM
"You find the cool exhibited by them repellant? Kindly hinge yourself."
Hinge your own self. This tragedy is not an opportunity for you to stage your moral superiority for the world's amusement. And, no, I see no "cool" being exhibited by our leaders. I see carefully modulated rage. If you see something else, maybe you ought to remove those pink spectacles you favor.
894. judithathome - 9/13/2001 2:09:21 PM
888 and 889 sound like perfect sense to me and if that makes me a peace-fairie, fine. I can live with that.
895. slackjaw - 9/13/2001 2:09:25 PM
It never dawned on me just how extreme and and ignorant some of the shitheads at this site are--until now!
One can only hope we are treated to some more insightful and weighty commentary in the form of images of a cross-eyed President Bush in drag.
896. Francis Urquhart - 9/13/2001 2:10:05 PM
It is laughable that only two days after the tragedy, the pity for the maligned American of Middle-Eastern descent begins to match that given the victims, though the former has received some hate mail and a rock thrown, and the latter lies in pieces on the New York City ground.
It is also amusing that the strongest future security measure against terrorism will be -gasp! - racial profiling. This may upset many of the innocents on The Mote, but there you have it.
All one need take is a position steadfast that when evidence demonstrates those culpable, the response should be destructive and unremitting, and the doves coo and cluck and worry about the nasty, unpleasant violence of it all.
Violence, they say, begets more violence.
Blind revenge is savage.
What have the kindly Taliban done to deserve this?
How can we kill Bin Laden until we have proof of his complicity in this attack, all his prior attacks, I presume, having been absolved in some unknown pardon.
At a different time, it was a rather uncomplicated concept - destruction of your enemies when they attack you.
We have become too soft and sophisticated for such simplicity today, and ward off its common sense with dodge, feint and worry.
897. mgleason - 9/13/2001 2:10:09 PM
The Queen had the Coldstream Guards play the national anthem outside Buckingham Palace today at a special service.
898. jexster - 9/13/2001 2:10:19 PM
The eyes of the nation were on Bush as he tried to rally us after the worst attack on America since Pearl Harbor. His writers carefully struck a reasonable tone, mostly avoiding anger and threats of vengeance. (We are troubled by Bush's statement that "We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them." Surely the people who suffer miserably under tyrannical regimes - whether in Afghanistan or Iraq - cannot be blamed for the sins of their tyrants.) But Bush's delivery was hollow, failing to project the genuine compassion of Bill Clinton after Oklahoma City, or the solid resolve of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1941. It was quarrelsome old Rudy Giuliani who truly spoke for the nation, when he sincerely choked up over the deaths of top fire department officials who died only minutes after he left them standing by the twin infernos. After waiting all day for Bush to finally speak, we were left disappointed
The Washington Post - 9/12/01
899. marjoribanks - 9/13/2001 2:11:28 PM
Andonly,
Taking a poll of Israeli citizens right now is about as appropriate as taking a poll on this thread as to potential retribution. D'you want Spades to actually have a meaningful voice or say in anything, let alone geopolitical policy?
The fact is that Israel has correctly and carefully carried out counterterrorism in the past, acts which have largely shielded it from the kind of terrorism it targeted and destroyed those particular threats.
Today's situation is different, and I sincerely hope the US never gets into a similar boat - with an entire nation so disaffected with its actions that it will, virtually en masse, support any action that highlights their perceived plight.
900. jexster - 9/13/2001 2:11:39 PM
God Save the Queen!
901. Jenerator - 9/13/2001 2:13:27 PM
Message # 893
Exactly!
902. marjoribanks - 9/13/2001 2:14:40 PM
Controlled rage is a personification of "cool," Andonly, and (though you're not entirely in the same boat) the only implied "moral superiority" here is displayed by the mindless few who insist that incompetent and impotent bloodlust is the approved patriotic reaction.
903. AuNaturel - 9/13/2001 2:15:23 PM
We won't need to use any WMDs to zero out the people in any particular spot. We have conventional weapons that will kill every living thing within a quarter mile radius with all the effectiveness of a very small tactical nuke and with no release of radiation, chemistry or disease organisms into the environment. We have conventional weapons that will penetrate a hundred feet of reinforced concrete with ease.
"Conventional" and "precision" attacks don't have to mean pin pricks with Tomahawks. Desert Storm was only a hint of what we are capable of.
904. CalGal - 9/13/2001 2:16:22 PM
Taking a poll of Israeli citizens right now is about as appropriate as taking a poll on this thread as to potential retribution.
You were the one who brought them up as a model of restraint. Do you think the results would differ significantly if you'd taken the poll a week ago? A year ago?
Andonly is correct about our leaders. If you don't think they are planning a response quite similar to the one you've been deploring, it's only because you haven't paid attention.
905. marjoribanks - 9/13/2001 2:16:51 PM
"While gratified by their efforts I now think they need a little help, which we happen to be in a position to offer."
Fully agreed, Slack. A massive reinforcement of internal efforts by those friends in the Middle East is called for and a must. I'm sure this will be one of the very first items on the agenda, and remember that certain countries (including Egypt) have been calling for it for a while.
906. CalGal - 9/13/2001 2:19:32 PM
A massive reinforcement of internal efforts by those friends in the Middle East is called for and a must.
I hope I'm misunderstanding. You're saying the first response should be write a check to middle eastern governments?
907. AuNaturel - 9/13/2001 2:19:46 PM
"carefully modulated rage"
That is an appropriate response. Umodulated rage makes one no better than the terrorists.
908. slackjaw - 9/13/2001 2:20:38 PM
A massive reinforcement of internal efforts by those friends in the Middle East is called for and a must.
Banks, your idea is that we play the backup crew for the ME governments?
909. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/13/2001 2:21:13 PM
895. slackjaw - 9/13/01 7:09:25 PM
It never dawned on me just how extreme and and ignorant some of the shitheads at this site are--until now!
One can only hope we are treated to some more insightful and weighty commentary in the form of images of a cross-eyed President Bush in drag.
HAHAHAHA!
Jerk-off identifies with slack-off and posts his indignation because he also identified with the label "shitheads" in my post.
I love it! Thanks Slack -- you made my day! 
910. marjoribanks - 9/13/2001 2:21:15 PM
I'll say this, Rudy Giuliani (who I voted for, twice) has been getting on my nerves for a while. But I've never been more grateful and appreciative for a political leader than during this time. He has been the epitome of a humane leader, and I dare say he has personally saved this city from a far broader panic that would have set in had he not tirelessly worked and spoked out. He is not an automaton, he is not "handled", he is the real deal - a solid and good man who deserves his helm.
911. Francis Urquhart - 9/13/2001 2:22:00 PM
Au
Please. Mudulated or unmodaulated, what I think all of us hope for is a exceeding the efficiency and magnitude of the terrorists.
As we did not commence hostilities, and our response will certainly not target civilians (though many will die in collateral fashion)the "we are they" mantra is claptrap.
912. CalGal - 9/13/2001 2:22:48 PM
Au, the terrorists had nothing in the way of unmodulated rage. They were entirely modulated.
And if we get furious and bomb the shit out of the terrorists in a fit of rage it would still be ludicrous to talk about whether or not we're "better" than them.
Do you actually think about what you are saying?
913. slackjaw - 9/13/2001 2:23:37 PM
cp
Actually, Wiz, I did not. Just wanted to express my support for your...consistency.
914. jexster - 9/13/2001 2:23:41 PM
Exactly!
Anger, revenge are lies, products of the Father of Lies...
Anger, revenge, unmodulated rage makes it impossible to attain what is really needed to address, contain, destroy the Evil, indeed anger, rage are tools of that very Evil which if not recognized for what they are, will surely deprive us of what we need as a nation...
A heart of iron, coldly clear vision, and determination made of steel
915. marjoribanks - 9/13/2001 2:24:05 PM
The strengthening and defense of secular and freindly governments in Islamic countries must be very very high on the list of US priorities in the coming weeks. It will be, listen to the rumblings from the appropriate Senate committees.
916. christipeters - 9/13/2001 2:24:42 PM
1:13p (CDT) American Express Building in New York closed because of fears of collapse
917. jexster - 9/13/2001 2:25:07 PM
Achieve THAT and the particulars fall in place....fail to achieve that, and we fall into futility
918. jexster - 9/13/2001 2:26:47 PM
Marjorie is absolutely correct....
We cannot prevail unless we enlist the support of the nation states at the center of the struggle....
Heart of iron!
919. Francis Urquhart - 9/13/2001 2:27:18 PM
Is this vague bromide day, or what?
President marj, President jex
If it is demonstrated to your satisfaction that this was the work of Bin Laden, with the assistance and support of the Taliban, what do we do next,
Messrs. President?
920. jexster - 9/13/2001 2:29:22 PM
Doris Kearns Goodwin:
Bush needs to go to a Mosque in the next few days and put his arms around the congregants...
Vision cold and clear....
921. marjoribanks - 9/13/2001 2:30:22 PM
Particularly if expediency is required in this retribution, you have to go to the ME friendly governments. Shore them up, and lean on them heavily to give up what they know. Because you can be fucking sure they know a hell of a lot more than US "Intelligence." I hope a few of you have read about the last FBI chief's (forgot his name) quest to find out about the Khobar bombing.
922. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/13/2001 2:31:05 PM
marj-
I agree marj and The Chimp-Dauphin is coming to NYC to capitalize on Rudy's leadership!
Did you catch the Bush phone call to the sycophant, Pataki? . . .
PATAKI: Mr. President, thank you for coming to New York. I'm sure it's going to be a great inspiration to all of us and, particularly, those thousands of men and women still downtown trying to help us with the rescue efforts.
I also want to thank you for all the help we've gotten from the federal government, it's been tremendous. And for your words, you are right, our nation is united as never before and we will triumph over this evil with your leadership and your inspiration. And I also have to congratulate the mayor for the tremendous effort he has made.
Mr. President, you would be proud of the leadership and the cooperation we've seen here. The city has taken the lead. Your people have been enormously supportive, and we're very grateful.
.. .PATAKI: Mr. President, we're looking forward to your visit. It will inspire us all.
And we will be with you when the United States takes firm and appropriate actions for those who conducted this evil.
BUSH: Thank you all very much. See you tomorrow. God bless.
(END OF PHONE CALL)
923. Francis Urquhart - 9/13/2001 2:31:14 PM
The Dove "Violence Begets Violence" Top 10
1) Rally support
2) Condemn Most Strongly
3) Bomb an Aspirin factory
4) Urge the UN to Denounce
5) Take the Opportunity to Strengthen Ties with Moderate Arab States
6) Allow the United States justice machinery to do its thing
7) Sanctions, sanctions, sanctions
8) Ask France what it suggests
9) Do not go to the Olympics
10) Appoint a commission
924. jexster - 9/13/2001 2:32:39 PM
As I said, the particulars fall into place....
You will not be able to demonstrate to anyone's satisfaction that Osama did this; you will not be able to kill him; you will not be able to wipe out his ilk and his infrastructure, sponsors with YOUR bromides....YOUR mindset....YOUR anger...
Anger and unmodulated rage make you a Re-tard FU
Worse they make you feckless and impotent.
925. Seamus - 9/13/2001 2:33:05 PM
Has the thread name changed?
I was looking for the Dreiser book discussion thread...
926. Andonly - 9/13/2001 2:33:55 PM
"D'you want Spades to actually have a meaningful voice or say in anything, let alone geopolitical policy?"
Are you so deranged as to think what I or you want has the slightest effect on anything at the moment? A vast and terrible chain of events has been set in motion. You apparently have not comprehended yet that your protestations are like whimpers in a hurricane.
"The fact is that Israel has correctly and carefully carried out counterterrorism in the past, acts which have largely shielded it from the kind of terrorism it targeted and destroyed those particular threats."
And the FBI has foiled numerous attempts in this country, saving us from those "particular threats". The subject is no longer "particular threats", do you understand? Not in Israel, not in the US.
927. Andonly - 9/13/2001 2:34:20 PM
"Today's situation is different, and I sincerely hope the US never gets into a similar boat - with an entire nation so disaffected with its actions that it will, virtually en masse, support any action that highlights their perceived plight."
Are you fucking insane? Did, God forbid, something fall on your head yesterday? WE ARE ALREADY IN THE BOAT. We have been in the boat for, at minimum, a year now. Only, it isn't one nation but substantial parts of many which loathe us and will support anything dreadful that is done against America, at the very least in the sense that they will say our fate is tragic but, after all, we deserve it.
Had the terrorists on Tuesday limited their atacks to the Pentagon, even the White House, I would think the US response could well afford to be equally narrow. But these guys slaughtered civilians for no military purpose whatever. They aimed at the symbols of our country's peaceful power in the world. They have thus given us no quarter, in a sense: they object to our government, they object to our people. They've sent an absolutist message fully on a par with extremist Palestinians' desire to reclaim all of Israel, by whatever means possible.
So we will respond in kind. And they'll get us back, unless maybe, maybe, what we do is so frightening, so equivalently absolute, that they fear to try.
928. Francis Urquhart - 9/13/2001 2:34:47 PM
Blah, blah, blah.
What would you do if you were not rage-filled (or, for that matter, retarded)?
Other than the stunning "let the particulars fall into place."
929. PelleNilsson - 9/13/2001 2:36:08 PM
Andonly
Your pleas about how Leviathan should not be Leviathan are... well, pointless. We will play the role we've been assigned, it can't be otherwise. And the world will want us to do it, too.
Completely incomprehensible. Have you read too much Hegel lately?
930. mgleason - 9/13/2001 2:36:40 PM
FU, #9 will be especially effective next year. We hold the Olympics in Utah, and also boycott. It's perfect retaliation.
931. jexster - 9/13/2001 2:37:23 PM
A rifle is only a tool. It's a hard heart that kills. If your killer instincts are not clean and strong you will hesitate at the moment of truth. You will not kill. You will become dead Marines. And then you will be in a world of shit. Because Marines are not allowed to die without permission! Do you maggots understand?
Understand maggot?
932. Francis Urquhart - 9/13/2001 2:39:16 PM
Maria
Ha ha ha. I hear the Afghans are killer in the downhill as well, so there's that.
933. Andonly - 9/13/2001 2:39:20 PM
"Controlled rage is a personification of "cool...""
Oh, there's also the Nordic, far-removed from trouble, turn the other cheek kind. The whitebread version so many pacifists here like to shove down our throats.
I say again, politics demands the death penalty.
934. AuNaturel - 9/13/2001 2:39:26 PM
Unmodulated rage IMHO would be the carpet bombing of Kabul. Modulated rage requires IMHO an effort to minimize collateral damage to the innocent.
If we go after Bin Laudin and the Taliban I would suggest the total destruction of Taliban facilities, Afghan military assets and terrorist training and staging areas. Instead of leveling Kabul we simply poke a crater into it wherever the enemy can be found.
We blanket the countryside with leaflets letting the Afghan people know what's going on.
Maybe those leaflets are accompanied by loads of cheap rifles and ammunition, particularly in areas where the Taliban is exceptionally disliked.
We airlift in supplies, arms, light artillery, light armor, infantry and special forces to work jointly with the Northern alliance to move in and clean the mess up, while letting the NA know that we'll squish them like a bug if they get out of control. They will provide the bulk of the troops, we'll provide the bulk of the firepower.
We don't pull up 50 miles outside of Kabul like we forced the French to do in Bagdad.
935. Francis Urquhart - 9/13/2001 2:40:17 PM
Andonly
Now, don't be rash. We should do nothing before getting direction from Kofi Annan.
936. jexster - 9/13/2001 2:40:48 PM
'I earlier suggested that we simply proceed alphabetically; start with Afghanistan, finish with Yemen' - Ace of Maggots...fucked up and feckless
Do you understand - maggot?
937. RustlerPike - 9/13/2001 2:41:36 PM
Ando:
Swear to God, Pike, I rounded up our stash of antibiotics this morning, just before having a conversation with the mayor about what our town has done to prepare for war.
Let's be optimistic. I was saying that about the anthrax to press home a point, but let's hope the Americans wake up and do the right thing now, so that the anthrax attack doesn't happen.
I was saying in I&P the silver lining round this horrid cloud is that Bin Laden apparently could not get his hands on nukes, biological or chemical weapons and a means of effective delivery. If those planes had germs on them, the results would be worse. Somewhat.
10,000 people is a lot but 10 million is a thousand times worse. Take action now and don't listen to Cellardoor: he's a nice man but he's hysterical and doesn't know what he is saying right now.
938. marjoribanks - 9/13/2001 2:43:55 PM
I'm assuming it is Bin Laden, and he is in Afghanistan. I've never doubted that that's part of the truth, though the last Bin Laden statement delivered to a Pak paper stated, in his words, that it was not his organization but he helped a great deal. I'm also assuming that you'll find tentacles leading from there to any number of unrelated or partly-related extremist cells and movements in the West, including, quite conceivably, the fuckers behind McVeigh.
I say the US gives up maintaining the illusion that its pulling strings from afar wrt Afghanistan. The Taliban should be forced (via similar extreme pressure on Pak) to accept a military delegation (thousands of troops, every kind of air support) in Kabul - if they don't hand over Bin Laden outright.
Bin Laden has to be squeezed, over months if necessary, to give up all he knows. Torture, truth drugs, whatever. Then he can be summarily executed. With the help of friendly ME governments, all sympathizers of whatever stripe need to be wiped out carefully. If links can be shown directly to governments, say Iraq, that government can be summarily deposed in as surgical a manner as possible.
It is also essential to destroy the sympathizers in this country. That whole militia movement needs to be eliminated once and for all.I'd also take this excuse to massively curtail the proliferation of weaponry in the citizenship of the US.
The key is to maximize US strength and righteousness, gain sympathy for wise and discriminating action, level terrible vengeance when appropriate, and minimize collateral damage in order to limit rearguard and incidental resentment and action against US personnel overseas and prevent further attacks at home.
939. Andonly - 9/13/2001 2:43:56 PM
"I hope a few of you have read about the last FBI chief's (forgot his name) quest to find out about the Khobar bombing."
Yeah, I read the NYer piece, Banks, and it left me with the impression the Saudis and Bandar were fucking with us.
940. marjoribanks - 9/13/2001 2:44:11 PM
The US has the opportunity to very righteously impose its will on large parts of the world, and no one - even the majorities in those countries - would oppose a careful action that is seen as just. If seen as unjust, it would be bad news for everyone especially the exposed personnel abroad.
941. jexster - 9/13/2001 2:44:14 PM
Baseball don't mean nothing right now,'' Kenny Lofton said Wednesday. ``To me, baseball is just another part of life that doesn't exist at this point...
942. CalGal - 9/13/2001 2:44:24 PM
Modulated rage requires IMHO an effort to minimize collateral damage to the innocent.
No, if we spend any effort trying to reduce collateral damage, I think the response is a failure. It should be demonstratively off of our list of priorities.
943. jexster - 9/13/2001 2:45:01 PM
FU...
Free your mind and the rest will follow.
maggot
944. AuNaturel - 9/13/2001 2:45:14 PM
"So we will respond in kind."
And demonstrate we are little better than those we respond against? And turn the arabs from 10% anti-American to 90% anti-American? I think not.
Bush has so far handled this flawlessly. If Cheney and Powell are running the show then he handled it flawlessly by taking their advice.
945. Francis Urquhart - 9/13/2001 2:45:59 PM
Whether Bin laden is involved or not, modulated rage requires
--unremitting war on Bin Laden, with widened authority to act on intelligence that may pinpoint his whereabouts or the whereabouts of his associates
If the Taliban is found to have harbored and/or assisted Bin Laden or anyone, modulate rage requires
-- Destruction of political and military centers in Kabul
-- targeting of neighborhoods and other areas where we suspect the Taliban may be, with special emphasis on the Council.
Ask yourself this? It was easy for Milosevic to let his entire infrastructure be decimated.
Would it be so easy had we placed a gun at the heads of his children?
This is modulated rage, which spares the lives of civilians and takes them off the table as targets, unless they mean something to a ruling structure that supports terrorism.
946. Wombat - 9/13/2001 2:47:00 PM
Jeez, some posters here make Tom Clancy look like a peace fairy.
Urquhart:
If you are proposing using the Navy to launch massive strikes and move large amounts of troops into Afghanistan, than it is you who are mistaken.
I would like to return to the Barbary corsairs, which were cited as an example of the sort of enemy we face, and the US actions against them cited as the sort of actions we should take against them.
The Barbary corsairs were in fact quasi-independent sovreign city-states that paid tribute to the Ottoman Empire in return for which they pretty much did as they pleased and were responsible for their own defense. European and US warships repeatedly bombarded Tripoli, Algiers and other ports. It was possible to declare war on them, and act toward them as one does to a state.
The advent of steam powered ships reduced the Barbary states to irrelevance, and most of them ultimately became French colonies.
947. jexster - 9/13/2001 2:48:41 PM
Efforts to reduce collateral damage simply for the sake of reducing collateral damage are pointless and counterproductive...
However, efforts to reduce collateral damage if by doing so we enhance our ability to KILL to eradicate the present evil are of the highest priority....
Unmodulated rage leads to spasmodic reactions and ultimately failure.
It leads to bromides of the very basest sort
948. Andonly - 9/13/2001 2:49:07 PM
"If those planes had germs on them, the results would be worse."
No. The germs would have burned up. Anthrax (et al.) is better delivered quietly, when everyone thinks the threat is over.
949. PelleNilsson - 9/13/2001 2:49:14 PM
So many posters here want to kill Bin Laden? I'll go along with that. Also, take out as many as possible of the 2-3,000 "fighters" he is said to control. Just do it.
950. AuNaturel - 9/13/2001 2:49:59 PM
"that Bin Laden apparently could not get his hands on nukes, biological or chemical weapons and a means of effective delivery"
Exactly. I think the method of delivery would be a truck bomb at the base of the WTC detonated after the second plane hit. You'd contaminate almost all of NYC's emergency personel, most of the the escapees. They would then spread it to the hospitals and throughout the city.
Right about now we'd be seeing the first anthrax symptoms in the most sensitive people.
I think it clear it didn't happen because it couldn't.
951. jexster - 9/13/2001 2:50:05 PM
We could, for instance, kill every person of Middle Eastern descent in the US confident that amidst the "collateral damage" we'd find 2 terrorists...
952. AuNaturel - 9/13/2001 2:51:29 PM
Tom Clancy IS a peace fairy.
Sic pacem para bellum.
953. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/13/2001 2:52:18 PM
954. jexster - 9/13/2001 2:52:48 PM
A rifle is only a tool. Its the hard heart that kills....
955. marjoribanks - 9/13/2001 2:54:05 PM
"Are you fucking insane? Did, God forbid, something fall on your head yesterday? WE ARE ALREADY IN THE BOAT. We have been in the boat for, at minimum, a year now. Only, it isn't one nation but substantial parts of many which loathe us and will support anything dreadful that is done against America, at the very least in the sense that they will say our fate is tragic but, after all, we deserve it."
Earth to Andonly.
We are not in a similar boat to Israel at all. The average Arab loves America. I say this only partly anecdotally. Every Arab hates Israel. Every Arab leader hates Israel. Many, maybe most, Arab leaders are allies with the US, and partly share their very existence to US support. Stop looking at everything here through an Israel prsim and as though you're living on Ramallah's border not in New Jersey.
Further bulletin:
Your "in the sense that they will say our fate is tragic but, after all, we deserve it" is a ridiculous drawing of the line. A good deal of Europe is saying this (if under their breath), a sizeable minority in the US is saying it. I deplore the statement, and fall on the "good" side of your line, but blindly attacking everyone on the other side would truly make this country into an Israel, ringed by resolute enemies who would like nothing better than to see it disappear.
956. jexster - 9/13/2001 2:55:30 PM
Andonly simply wishes that we WERE in the same boat as Israel!
But the bed is too short and the covering too narrow, Andonly!
957. AuNaturel - 9/13/2001 2:58:35 PM
"A rifle is only a tool. Its the hard heart that kills...."
Guns don't kill people, people kill people? I can agree with that.
I understand the waiting lines at recruitment stations are as long as those for giving blood. If I were 10 years younger I'd have re-enlisted immediately with my old guard unit. I'm old enough now they wouldn't take me.
WTSHTF, the "modulated rage" that is most important will be that of the troops in the field. Remember the Alamo! Remember New York!
958. Jenerator - 9/13/2001 3:01:20 PM
Gosh, and I thought Tuesday's events were proof that we're ringed with enemies that want to see us disappear.
959. jonesatlaw - 9/13/2001 3:05:22 PM
Osama Bin Laden will require the assistance of other nations to rout. He is a multi-millionaire. He doesn't carry his money in a suitcase. He has bank accounts, corporations etc which he shuffles his money around with. If we find that a country has harbored such banks, corporations etc, we demand their immediate surrender of the assets to the international court of justice for reparations to his victims. All information regarding anyone associated with him is immediately released to US and allied military and law enforcement personnel.
No international transfer of funds, post, air travel or dipolmatic travel until full compliance.
If there is evidence of a "blind eye" or toleration of his activities, or whatever coaltion of terrorists, the sanctions become increasingly more severe.
Sanctions against non participating regimes must be directed to the power elites. Seizure of their Swiss Accounts, attacks on their palaces and assets. Punishment to any state which would grant them passage or refuge.
No more tolerance of "take your millions and retire to Panama or Saudi Arabia" exiles for deposed supporters of terrorism.
There has to be a motivation for other nations to insure that they take aggressive action to prevent terrorists from storing their assets, planning or training in these other nations. The greater the tolerance and the more open the support, the greater the isolation, sanction or direct military attack.
960. marjoribanks - 9/13/2001 3:06:10 PM
Jenerator,
If you were not a complete buffoon, you'd realize the exact opposite.
961. Francis Urquhart - 9/13/2001 3:06:41 PM
Wombat
"If you are proposing using the Navy to launch massive strikes and move large amounts of troops into Afghanistan, than it is you who are mistaken."
Why is it so hard for someone to admit factual fault? You were wrong about the facts of carrier-based helicopters when you stated "Navy helicopters have neither the range nor troop capacity to carry large amounts of troops from carriers." I have demonstrated that they have the range. Each Super Stallion carries 55 troops. We have 171 operational.
962. jonesatlaw - 9/13/2001 3:08:16 PM
While we wait to find out who is behind the outrage in New York for certain, we could carpet bomb a few approaches to Kabul for the Northern Alliance. Give them a choice of how they want to approach it.
963. Wombat - 9/13/2001 3:10:28 PM
If this site is anything to go by, I would say that the terrorists who planned this attack have been very successful beyond the actual attacks in terms of affecting morale.
Some posters have become so outraged that they appear incapable of thinking straight. People really need to get a grip on themselves. Channel your outrage into actually doing something to support the victims, to express solidarity with the rescue workers who are working so heroically.
964. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/13/2001 3:12:05 PM
For clearer heads free of hateful emotions:
U.S. Shouldn't Fight Violence With Violence
965. LimeGirl - 9/13/2001 3:13:45 PM
Terrorist organizations can't exist without governments who are supporting them, or are at least tolerating them. There's absolutely nothing the US can do to make the radical middle east terrorists like us, or even hate us less. The only way to get rid of terrorists is to make it so painful for governments who support or tolerate them, that they are no longer willing to do that. We cannot waste all of our energy worrying about the citizens of those countries, while we risk the safety of our own citizens. After we guarantee our own safety, we can turn our energies towards citizens in other countries.
I'm fairly certain that the government has already planned out their preliminary course of action, and that we won't hear about it until it's well underway.
Rudy Giuliani has been very impressive.
966. marjoribanks - 9/13/2001 3:15:02 PM
"Some posters have become so outraged that they appear incapable of thinking straight."
This, wombat, was already clear and already a fact of life. The fact has merely been underlined, properly and repeatedly.
967. marjoribanks - 9/13/2001 3:17:54 PM
"Terrorist organizations can't exist without governments who are supporting them, or are at least tolerating them."
Kindly note that this is an easily applicable dictum for the US and the McVeigh bombing in Oklahoma City.
The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of using this response-to-terrorism angle to completely annihilate and disarm the far-right freaks in this country, even as Islamist extremists and others are pursued abroad.
968. Francis Urquhart - 9/13/2001 3:18:52 PM
Most posters are agreed that action must be taken. There is some disagreement as to what action, and when.
Some posters find it necessary to be vague about the actions, and they periodically congratulate themselves on their measured natures.
969. AuNaturel - 9/13/2001 3:19:45 PM
"Gosh, and I thought Tuesday's events were proof that we're ringed with enemies that want to see us disappear."
That's precisely the position of the old Soviet Union late in the cold war.
We are ringed with friends. Our enemies are few. It doesn't take many to cause incredible destruction. For example, it only took 3-5 guys willing to die to kill thousands. The actual plan implemented was very simple and within the financial and intellectual means of a suicidal small town Kiwanis Club.
If we were "ringed with enemies" this sort of thing would happen regularly.
970. Francis Urquhart - 9/13/2001 3:20:38 PM
For example, in a fit of leadership, marjoribanks suggests "a careful action that is seen as just."
Very measured.
971. Cygnus X-1 - 9/13/2001 3:20:59 PM
Hey Wizard,
The next time we're attacked, I hope our defensive forces check to see if you're the target and if you are, that they refrain from acting violently and with hateful emotions and simply ask the terrorists to please stop.
972. Francis Urquhart - 9/13/2001 3:21:43 PM
I too support a careful action that is seen (by me) as just.
973. LimeGirl - 9/13/2001 3:22:00 PM
There is a huge difference between Timothy McVeigh and his buddy and a rented u-haul, and Bin Laden's organization, with thousands of people and a great deal of equipment, and contacts throughout the governments of several Middle East countries. When the evidence of military officials in the US asking McVeigh for advice and support comes out, then you've got a comparable situation. Until then, there is no comparison.
974. marjoribanks - 9/13/2001 3:22:44 PM
Urquhart,
I've detailed at length, what actions I would undertake, in response to a hypothetical by you. Perhaps you've not seen it, which could explain your ignoring it and misquoting a tiny fragment of one of my sentences out of context.
975. marjoribanks - 9/13/2001 3:24:17 PM
Quoting myself:
"I'm assuming it is Bin Laden, and he is in Afghanistan. I've never doubted that that's part of the truth, though the last Bin Laden statement delivered to a Pak paper stated, in his words, that it was not his organization but he helped a great deal. I'm also assuming that you'll find tentacles leading from there to any number of unrelated or partly-related extremist cells and movements in the West, including, quite conceivably, the fuckers behind McVeigh.
I say the US gives up maintaining the illusion that its pulling strings from afar wrt Afghanistan. The Taliban should be forced (via similar extreme pressure on Pak) to accept a military delegation (thousands of troops, every kind of air support) in Kabul - if they don't hand over Bin Laden outright.
Bin Laden has to be squeezed, over months if necessary, to give up all he knows. Torture, truth drugs, whatever. Then he can be summarily executed. With the help of friendly ME governments, all sympathizers of whatever stripe need to be wiped out carefully. If links can be shown directly to governments, say Iraq, that government can be summarily deposed in as surgical a manner as possible.
It is also essential to destroy the sympathizers in this country. That whole militia movement needs to be eliminated once and for all.I'd also take this excuse to massively curtail the proliferation of weaponry in the citizenship of the US.
The key is to maximize US strength and righteousness, gain sympathy for wise and discriminating action, level terrible vengeance when appropriate, and minimize collateral damage in order to limit rearguard and incidental resentment and action against US personnel overseas and prevent further attacks at home."
976. Wombat - 9/13/2001 3:25:26 PM
For chrissake Urquhart. If you took all the Sea Stallions the Navy possesses, got together all the ships needed to carry them,loaded them with troops, arranged for their in-flight refueling as necessary, you would succeed in placing less than 10,000 troops equipped only with their personal weapons in the middle of Afghanistan. Why is it so difficult to admit that you don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about?
977. Absensia - 9/13/2001 3:25:45 PM
bin Laden may not need the support of any country, I read in a Washington Post article that he is the 17th child out of 52! Even with the allowed wives, my mind boggles.
978. Cygnus X-1 - 9/13/2001 3:25:48 PM
An another thing, I hope a nice bunch of homeboys takes a ride to those Palestinian towns in New Jersey where they were celebrating and take care of business. It would be comical to see how the police would respond to that.
979. marjoribanks - 9/13/2001 3:26:09 PM
And the bit which FU fatuously misquoted:
"The US has the opportunity to very righteously impose its will on large parts of the world, and no one -even the majorities in those countries - would oppose a careful action that is seen as just. If seen as unjust, it would be bad news for everyone especially the exposed personnel abroad."
980. Francis Urquhart - 9/13/2001 3:26:50 PM
marj
You did. I confused you with the vague jexster, a compounded crime. My apologies.
"The Taliban should be forced (via similar extreme pressure on Pak) to accept a military delegation (thousands of troops, every kind of air support) in Kabul - if they don't hand over Bin Laden outright."
I have problems with this because I don't want to occupy Afghanistan. I want to make a violent example of it leadership.
"Bin Laden has to be squeezed, over months if necessary, to give up all he knows. Torture, truth drugs, whatever. Then he can be summarily executed. With the help of friendly ME governments, all sympathizers of whatever stripe need to be wiped out carefully. If links can be shown directly to governments, say Iraq, that government can be summarily deposed in as surgical a manner as possible."
If we get him, we should not dally with attempting a capture. he should be killed at the spot of engagement.
"It is also essential to destroy the sympathizers in this country. That whole militia movement needs to be eliminated once and for all.I'd also take this excuse to massively curtail the proliferation of weaponry in the citizenship of the US."
How one could link domestic gun control with responding to the acts of yesterday is quite a feat. Bravo.
"The key is to maximize US strength and righteousness, gain sympathy for wise and discriminating action, level terrible vengeance when appropriate, and minimize collateral damage in order to limit rearguard and incidental resentment and action against."
This is the kind of vague bromide that disconcerts me.
981. LimeGirl - 9/13/2001 3:30:53 PM
I'd also take this excuse to massively curtail the proliferation of weaponry in the citizenship of the US.
Since no guns were used, it's difficult to use this as a reason to impose stricter gun control. Are we going to seize the opportunity to ban box knives and razor blades, since we've been needing to do that for a while, anyhow?
982. marjoribanks - 9/13/2001 3:31:56 PM
Urquhart,
I submit that the vague bromides are emanating from your direction. If "violent examples" are not examples of such, what on earth is?
Killing Bin Laden is a good option, if he cannot be captured. Alive, with information to be extracted, he is about 100 times more valuable. That is, of course, if you're interested in actually doing something about solving the hydra-headed tentacles of committed terrorist movements.
983. AuNaturel - 9/13/2001 3:32:06 PM
We can send a lot of troops a long way to very short and rough landing fields with C-130s. Launch them from Diego Garcia or Kuwait. During the 'Nam evacuation they were even landing and launching them with aircraft carriers.
Getting large numbers of troops to Afghanistan is only dependent on safe passage over Iran or Pakistan.
984. CalGal - 9/13/2001 3:32:08 PM
Lime--Plastics. It's all gone down hill since then.
985. Francis Urquhart - 9/13/2001 3:33:17 PM
Wombat
"For chrissake Urquhart. If you took all the Sea Stallions the Navy possesses, got together all the ships needed to carry them,loaded them with troops, arranged for their in-flight refueling as necessary, you would succeed in placing less than 10,000 troops equipped only with their personal weapons in the middle of Afghanistan. Why is it so difficult to admit that you don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about?"
I would only need 500 to 1,000 troops (hence, 10 to 20 Super Stallions) for grid use to mop up after intelligence locates Bin Laden's associates, and strikes by cruise missile. The point is not to invade or hold Kabul, something marj suggests. The point is to have a ground strike force that can act to strike in conjunction with or in alternative to cruise missiles.
Given that you didn't even know the range of the helicopter, and still cannot bring yourself to choke on your pride and admit error, perhaps you should clam it on who knows of what they speak in this matter.
986. CalGal - 9/13/2001 3:33:24 PM
Who brought up the money angle, was that Jones, or Lime? I like that. How does bin Laden operate? Where is he keeping his funds?
987. marjoribanks - 9/13/2001 3:34:50 PM
Disarm and neutralize the indigenous extremists. The only difference between the towelhead variety and the white-trash variety is that the former has been (to date) more intelligent and resourceful.
I see this as a global movement to stamp out threats to security for Americans and American interests. You have to pair the efforts abroad with a final crushing effort at home, and this is a great opportunity to do so.
988. CalGal - 9/13/2001 3:35:00 PM
BTW, isn't Saddam Hussein an example of what happens when we throw our support to a "good" mideastern country to help us get to a "bad" one?
989. judithathome - 9/13/2001 3:36:09 PM
If we were "ringed with enemies" this sort of thing would happen regularly.
I thought Jenerator was referring to those on this thread who don't want to make a "declaration of war against___________fill in the blank" right this instant.
990. CalGal - 9/13/2001 3:36:15 PM
Oh, lord. Here comes the equivalency bromides.
991. Absensia - 9/13/2001 3:38:05 PM
I wonder how much money he has now? CNN just said the stock exchange won't open until Monday. If it's in suitcases, I want some.
992. Francis Urquhart - 9/13/2001 3:38:28 PM
Wombat
Look at this logically, if possible. The terrorists utilized 12 to 20 actual operatives on our domestic planes, and look at what was accomplished, yet you suggest that the United States, with its training, technology, equipment, and personnel, cannot conduct quick ground troop strikes in Afghanistan from ships a mere hundreds of miles away.
And you maintain this idiocy after misjudging a basic ability of ground troop trasnport via carrier group.
993. marjoribanks - 9/13/2001 3:40:28 PM
I like the idea of partially suspending civil liberties in the US, by the way.
994. Francis Urquhart - 9/13/2001 3:41:13 PM
And racial profiling at the airports.
I'm sure you like that idea as well.
995. Jenerator - 9/13/2001 3:41:41 PM
MarjoriBanks,
You obviously enjoy hearing yourself talk, in this case, reading your own words.
I'm not a buffoon and I feel it necessary to remind you that were are indeed "surrounded" by enemies in the sense that parts of the rest of the world hate us. Hate us enough to kill thousands of innocent people, destroy landmarks, and possibly send the rest of the world into a depression. Plus, these terrorists lived in our country where they had the luxury of opportunity to do everything unimaginable.
You blabber on about how we should handle everything as though you're running for president, but let me remind you that what happened on Tuesday was an act of war. Quit being such a pansy, and quit speaking out of both sides of your mouth.
996. judithathome - 9/13/2001 3:42:20 PM
Maybe bin Laden has his money here:
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Nearly 12 tons of gold appears to be buried under mountains of debris from New York City's destroyed twin towers, where experts said it was securely out of reach of treasure hunters, looters and, for now, even the bullion trading community.
The bars, worth about $106 million, were stored in an underground warehouse near the World Trade Center and held on behalf of the COMEX metals trading division of the New York Mercantile Exchange.
997. CalGal - 9/13/2001 3:42:54 PM
Yes, but don't worry, Marj, I'm sure the security personnel will be well trained on the difference between Afghanis, Pakis, and Indians. You'll be fine.
998. rubberducky - 9/13/2001 3:44:56 PM
heh - i was hoping someone would slap banks for his blatant self interest
999. Andonly - 9/13/2001 3:45:12 PM
"We are not in a similar boat to Israel at all. The average Arab loves America. I say this only partly anecdotally. Every Arab hates Israel. Every Arab leader hates Israel. Many, maybe most, Arab leaders are allies with the US, and partly share their very existence to US support. "
Earth to Marjoribanks: the US is Israel's primary ally, and every Arab in the middle east who hates Israel hates US support of Israel. As for middle east leaders, well, it is not hard to like a country that gives you money to stay in power when your people don't want you. How would you know what the average Egyptian or Syrian thinks of the US? From reading their free press?
I'm sorry, but it is not "a ridiculous drawing of the line" to point out that people who make a moral equivalence between US support for Israel and the destruction of the WTC are no friends of the US. You could fairly contest my claim if only the Pentagon had been deliberately targeted--in that case, I would acknowledge that a US-loving, Israel-hating Arab's reaction that we deserved it could be considered defensible. But that's not the reality. That's not what has happened.
1000. rubberducky - 9/13/2001 3:45:30 PM
1000 already
1001. judithathome - 9/13/2001 3:45:36 PM
!
1002. marjoribanks - 9/13/2001 3:45:39 PM
I'm totally for racial profiling at airports. Hell, I fly a lot, I want my plane to be safe.
I think El Al should be consulted. I've flown on them a few times and they never fail to give me a horribly bad time, to the point of openly inviting me to fly another airline next time. I smile all along, co-operate fully, and get on the flight quite secure that it's about as safe as one could expect.
Racial profiling at airports is fine by me, FU. Hell, if I were flying tomorrow and five single middle-eastern-looking men were on the same flight I'd want them checked out thoroughly. So would most middle-easterners I know, for that matter.
1003. Francis Urquhart - 9/13/2001 3:46:10 PM
It is easier to suggest suspending Billy Joe's civil liberties while denying him his handgun (but not fertilizer) after Middle easter terrorists have just taken four planes and killed thousands.
It is much like responding to the LA riots by clamping down on porno houses.
But can marj up his commitment to the extra-care in security given only to those of Middle-Eastern extraction?
1004. AuNaturel - 9/13/2001 3:46:11 PM
"I'd also take this excuse to massively curtail the proliferation of weaponry in the citizenship of the US."
I am heartened by Bush's repeated declaration that we are defending freedom and the American way of life. Ergo there will be no curtailment of civilian weapons. It would have zero effect on terrorism even if accomplished.
One of the tings the Taliban brags about is the "massive curtailment" of weapons in the hands of Afghan civilians.
If the government does try to "massively curtail" civilian weapons they will cause more violence than you can imagine. We haven't had a good civil war in 145 years. Maybe you want to start one?
1005. Francis Urquhart - 9/13/2001 3:47:17 PM
I'll say this for marj.
I still don't understand why Billy Joe gets hassled for Middle-eastern terror bombers.
But he anted up on racial profiling.
1006. Andonly - 9/13/2001 3:47:29 PM
"But the bed is too short and the covering too narrow, Andonly!"
Well, Jexster, if you must persist in quoting the Old Testament out of context, despite my having corrected you in the past, I will have to bring up the Amalekites.
Remember them? No?
1007. marjoribanks - 9/13/2001 3:48:00 PM
" the US is Israel's primary ally, and every Arab in the middle east who hates Israel hates US support of Israel."
So? That doesn't translate to hatred of the US, no matter how tortuously you parse it to make that equation work.
1008. CalGal - 9/13/2001 3:49:17 PM
It would be foolish to change our air travel security dramatically. But it might be nice if you couldn't buy a ticket if you were on the FBI's Suspected Terrorist list.
1009. Andonly - 9/13/2001 3:50:22 PM
"Channel your outrage into actually doing something to support the victims, to express solidarity with the rescue workers who are working so heroically."
Already have. Hasn't everyone?
1010. glendajean - 9/13/2001 3:53:07 PM
If it's proven that Iraq was heavily involved in this, how difficult (and strategic) would it be for us to let the talk about possible attacks on Afghanistan continue while we are planning major attacks on Iraq?
Assuming that Sadaam would use chemical or atomic weapons, surprise would be important.
1011. marjoribanks - 9/13/2001 3:54:50 PM
"If the government does try to "massively curtail" civilian weapons they will cause more violence than you can imagine. We haven't had a good civil war in 145 years. Maybe you want to start one?"
Only half-facetiously, Au Naturel, there are mental midgets on this thread who equate this terror attack to the US somehow being at war with various countries, even the entire Arab world.
I submit that the credible internal threat and overt actions (as demonstrated so many times by McVeigh and his ilk) should similarly be interpreted to mean that there is already a civil war underway.
Take away the guns. I want all threats to our security eliminated.
1012. Absensia - 9/13/2001 3:56:24 PM
And now this:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In an effort to assess the security of the
U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile and review anti-terrorism
efforts under way at U.S. nuclear power plants, a group of
congressional leaders will visit U.S. nuclear weapons
laboratories this weekend.
1013. AuNaturel - 9/13/2001 3:58:55 PM
Cal, that's a good suggestion.
A lot of problems could be resolved by simply requiring everyone to fly nude, without any luggage and only after a full body xray.
I'd do it.
We could arm the pilots and make the door between them and the cabin very tough to break down. Matial arts training for flight attendents.
I'd go for it.
We could let ALL passengers pack. That would be fine by me as well. Mutual Assured Destruction works.
Your choice?
1014. Cygnus X-1 - 9/13/2001 4:01:08 PM
Well, well, marjoribanks, it seems you'd have to get rid of all airplanes and boxcutters, too. Go peddle your false sophistication on your mom. Maybe she'll appreciate it.
1015. marjoribanks - 9/13/2001 4:04:29 PM
No hand baggage allowed. I'd go for that rule. You could be allowed a book perhaps (x-rayed) and a toothbrush, but nothing else.
A barricade between the pilots and the body of passengers is a good idea too.
1016. LimeGirl - 9/13/2001 4:06:20 PM
" the US is Israel's primary ally, and every Arab in the middle east who hates Israel hates US support of Israel."
So? That doesn't translate to hatred of the US, no matter how tortuously you parse it to make that equation work.
It certainly does parse to equal hatred of the US. They hate Israel and all associated with them. The US is most strongly associated with Israel, so they also hate the US.
1017. marjoribanks - 9/13/2001 4:06:42 PM
Hey, what's the cavilling for? Coherent plans to eliminate threats at home call for strict measures at home. If you think you can deter such attacks by carpet-bombing Kabul, you're a complete idiot. You have to give up some of your so-called freedoms which impinge on our collective security.
Disarm the populace. This is a war, remember.
1018. marjoribanks - 9/13/2001 4:07:57 PM
LimeGirl.
Rubbish. Fevered imaginings. I suggest you go outside and find an Arab and talk to him or her.
1019. LimeGirl - 9/13/2001 4:09:52 PM
Um, the quote was "Arab in the middle east". I don't think I'm going to find any arabs who are in the middle east outside, since I'm not anywhere near the middle east.
1020. AuNaturel - 9/13/2001 4:11:04 PM
"Take away the guns. I want all threats to our security eliminated."
Don't take away the guns. I'd prefer not to destroy the Constitution and our civil liberties. I'd prefer not to divide the country over an attempt that can't possibly work. (Fertilizer and box knives seem more effective terrorist weapons anyhow.) I'd prefer not to have to fight against my own government in a civil war. (But if I have to I will.)
I'd prefer not to see Americans die in numbers that would trivialize this recent tragedy.
Guess you don't mind as much.
1021. AuNaturel - 9/13/2001 4:15:31 PM
"You have to give up some of your so-called freedoms which impinge on our collective security."
Freedom enhances collective security.
1022. jexster - 9/13/2001 4:15:50 PM
Liberty Tower is coming down
1023. rubberducky - 9/13/2001 4:18:14 PM
not from NYC, where is Liberty Tower?
1024. Absensia - 9/13/2001 4:21:16 PM
Majori,
What happened to the 14 kids you took home from the day care center?
1025. jexster - 9/13/2001 4:22:20 PM
right in the general area of WTC....just to the right as you look from Hoboken
1026. AuNaturel - 9/13/2001 4:22:36 PM
"Disarm the populace."
Exactly what the official from the Taliban told the CNN interviewer.
"This is a war, remember."
In the event of war, the proper response is to arm the populace.
You don't believe for a heartbeat that the Garand sitting in my closet has the slightest effect on terrorism. You are just using this as a lame excuse to advance your agenda.
Give it up. You can't have your way by the ballot and will start a genuine war if you try it by the bullet.
1027. theDiva - 9/13/2001 4:22:56 PM
Ducky, look to the right of the towers, you'll see Liberty Street. It's the grey block facing Liberty, I think.
1028. theDiva - 9/13/2001 4:24:13 PM
shit.
Okay, I'll try to link it in.
Downtown Manhattan
1029. theDiva - 9/13/2001 4:24:43 PM
dammit! What happened? Please delete these, ducks.
1030. jexster - 9/13/2001 4:24:50 PM
Tearful Bush Vows to 'Whip Terrorism'
If ever there was a need to pray, pray for the dunderhead-in-chief and pray hard!
1031. marjoribanks - 9/13/2001 4:25:29 PM
All parents accounted for, we looked after (dozens of us) the three whose parents came latest, but they did come.
There is a giant and getting bigger cloud of smoke over the wreckage this minute. I hope the rescue personnel are okay.
1032. judithathome - 9/13/2001 4:26:42 PM
They just pulled a woman from the rubble...another survivor!
1033. Absensia - 9/13/2001 4:27:29 PM
majori Glad to hear it and it was wonderful of you to do it.
CNN says the wind is picking up and a thunderstorm is expected tonight.
1034. theDiva - 9/13/2001 4:27:58 PM
sorry, ducks, the post seems to have moved the graphic.
Good news about the parents, banks.
1035. marjoribanks - 9/13/2001 4:28:55 PM
Au Naturel,
I'm not suggesting that you give up your guns, actually. I'm suggesting a concerted and massive-scale disarmament of hate groups and extremist fringe militias in this country. Why? Because they're getting away with plotting as we speak, and as the overseas is crushed (as it should be) we should take the time to eliminate large scale-threats to our security wherever they are. The far-right represents such a threat, and should be defanged before it copies the smarter and more effective extremists who have just struck from abroad.
1036. judithathome - 9/13/2001 4:32:07 PM
The woman survivor story was from NBC but they have moved on to something else so I don't know...no one else is reporting it.
1037. marjoribanks - 9/13/2001 4:33:09 PM
Yes, given the fact that literally hundreds of people in this complex work at the World Financial center or nearby (including my wife), we've astonishingly been relatively unscathed. The wind even took the ashes and smoke in other directions for all but a few minutes.
Those brief minutes gave us a tiny taste of what had happened, however, the smoke was still harsh and bitter. And of course, the brilliant days we've had have given us an unroken panorama of the site - it's so peaceful and pretty here, but the horror is lasting.
1038. rubberducky - 9/13/2001 4:35:44 PM
diva: 1028 works
1039. AuNaturel - 9/13/2001 4:37:24 PM
The solution to terrorists slamming aircraft into buildings is not dismantling the very thing that makes us great, Freedom. That is exactly what the bad guys want. It is the same as surrender.
I will accept some added inconvenience at the airport. I will not accept the government itself becoming America's enemy.
Nobody ever marched off to war in the name of "protecting collective security by reducing freedom". Miltary and political security serve in America to allow us to pursue the ultimate end, liberty. Liberty is not some silly notion to be discarded when it becomes politically incorrect.
Liberty is one of the very few things in this world worth risking death for.
1040. jexster - 9/13/2001 4:39:53 PM
But in truth it is hard to speak of policy when all that fills the mind is tragedy. The ashes of Manhattan cover the entire land. The pictures wound and wound and wound. The planes slam every time for the first time, the buildings fall every time for the first time. Over and over our brothers and our sisters die. These are the records of a defeat, and of a derangement of the universe. Eloquence is stupid. We have been slaughtered. Even if we live in a culture of forgetting, this we must never forget.
The notion that we cannot destroy terrorism without destroying liberalism, or that the fight against terrorists transforms us into terrorists, is bien pensant demagoguery, and its only effect is to inhibit the already inhibited. Our security need not be purchased at the price of our scruples.
1041. AceofSpades - 9/13/2001 4:41:22 PM
"Channel your outrage into actually doing something to support the victims,"
The victims are dead. We can't "support" the dead.
" to express solidarity with the rescue workers who are working so heroically."
Asshole.
1042. Cellar Door - 9/13/2001 4:42:26 PM
Yep, that's Ace's world. Selfless heroes are "assholes."
1043. AuNaturel - 9/13/2001 4:44:51 PM
"The far-right represents such a threat"
Extremists of both the right and left have as many rights as you or I do. You can't eliminate theirs without elimination of yours and mine. Only criminals subjected to due process of law may have rights generally deleted.
Thought crime, anyone?
1044. AceofSpades - 9/13/2001 4:45:25 PM
Fucking asshole pussies. Too bad you didn't work at the WTC.
1045. jexster - 9/13/2001 4:45:43 PM
. It is not true that the attacks of September 11 were unimaginable; and anyway imagination is no longer necessary, now that we have memory. It is not true that they were crazy, except by our standards and the standards of civilization; but those are not the only standards in the world. It is not true that they were senseless, because they made sense to the people who carried them out, and to the individuals and the movements and the states that supported them or applauded them. It is not true that they are unfathomable: they were actions with reasons. These evil deeds were the results of beliefs. If we do not comprehend those reasons and those beliefs, then all we will do is mourn our dead and heal ourselves back into the traditions of our complacence. History is asking more of this country than sorrow.
And more, much more than the venomous, mindless, deranged spew of the Ace of Spades and its ilk!
1046. AuNaturel - 9/13/2001 4:47:01 PM
The "dunderhead-in-chief" is doing a pretty damn good job so far. I can't identify a single flaw either in his actions or his words so far.
1047. AceofSpades - 9/13/2001 4:49:34 PM
I like his words. He is talking like a fucking pussy. He speaks of "Bringing the perpetrators to justice."
If he is speaking of that, he is not actually planning that.
He is going to do something so vicious and so brutal that our resident faggot bleedinghearts will quit the country for france. And I say good riddance to bad rubbish.
1048. AuNaturel - 9/13/2001 4:49:46 PM
Damn jexter, thats a hell of a great post! Are you quoting or did you write it yourself?
1049. PelleNilsson - 9/13/2001 4:50:05 PM
I heard on the radio just now that Powell named bin Laden as a suspect for the first time. Another official, whose name I didn't get, was quoted as saying that we shouldn't count on any spectacular action; this will be a drawn-out affair.
I think this administration is much les given to the spectacular than the previous one.
1050. marjoribanks - 9/13/2001 4:51:51 PM
Guardian (London)
Thursday, September 13, 2001
So is this war?
by Christopher Hitchens
One day into the post-World Trade Centre era, and the question "how" is still taking precedence over the question "why". At the presidential level, the two questions appear to be either crudely synthesised or plain confused, since George Bush has taken to describing the mass murder in New York and Washington DC as "not just an act of terrorism but an act of war". This strongly implies that he knows who is responsible; an assumption for which he doesn't care to make known the evidence. Instant opinion polls show the same cognitive dissonance at the mass level. Most people, when asked if they agree with the president about the "war" proposition, reply in the affirmative. But in follow-up questions, they counsel extreme caution about retaliation "until all the facts are in". This means, in ordinary words, that they have not the least idea whether they are at war or not.
1051. marjoribanks - 9/13/2001 4:52:36 PM
Over the years since the seizure of the American embassy in Tehran in 1979, the public has become tolerably familiar with the idea that there are Middle Easterners of various shades and stripes who do not like them. The milestones of this - the marine barracks in Beirut, the Gulf war, the destruction of PanAm flight 101 - actually include a previous attack on the WTC in 1993. And on that occasion, the men convicted of the assault turned out to have backgrounds in a western-sponsored guerrilla war - actually a jihad - in Afghanistan.
Osama bin Laden had pretty good name-recognition among American news consumers even before Tuesday's trauma. He's already survived a cruise-missile attack ordered by President Clinton in 1999 (in the same cycle of attacks that destroyed a Sudanese aspirin factory in the supposed guise of a nerve-gas facility). Bin Laden is perhaps unlikely to die in his bed, but his repeated identification as a "Saudi millionaire" - we thought the Saudi Arabians were on our side - makes consistency in demonisation rather difficult; the image somehow doesn't compute.
1052. jexster - 9/13/2001 4:53:04 PM
But can we bind this anger?
1053. AuNaturel - 9/13/2001 4:54:55 PM
"The victims are dead. We can't "support" the dead."
Most of the victims are alive and many were covered with blood, burns and dust. Give blood, give money and voluteer if you have needed skills.
There is a group in Ventura collecting teddy bears for the children of the dead. They too are victims.
1054. marjoribanks - 9/13/2001 4:55:52 PM
My friend Hussein Ibish of the Arab-American anti-discrimination committee tells me that there have already been cases of random violence against Arab-owned shops. But on the whole, it's been remarkable to see how such crude response has been kept to a minimum. The television repeatedly shows film of Palestinian youths applauding the attacks in New York, but instantly "balances" it with a calm and reasoned appeal from the telegenic Dr Hanan Ashrawi. Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's Tuesday evening press conference in Manhattan - one of his very best and almost the first occasion on which any hard information was provided to the public - was notable in the same way. He tersely promised extra police protection to Arab and Muslim citizens, and dismissed any thought of vigilantism.
With cellphones still bleeping piteously from under the rubble, it probably seems indecent to most people to ask if the United States has ever done anything to attract such awful hatred. Indeed, the very thought, for the present, is taboo. Some senators and congressmen have spoken of the loathing felt by certain unnamed and sinister elements for the freedom and prosperity of America, as if it were only natural that such a happy and successful country should inspire envy and jealousy. But that is the limit of permissible thought.
1055. marjoribanks - 9/13/2001 4:56:35 PM
In general, the motive and character of the perpetrators is shrouded by rhetoric about their "cowardice" and their "shadowy" character, almost as if they had not volunteered to immolate themselves in the broadest of broad blue daylight. On the campus where I am writing this, there are a few students and professors willing to venture points about United States foreign policy. But they do so very guardedly, and it would sound like profane apologetics if transmitted live. So the analytical moment, if there is to be one, has been indefinitely postponed.
In any case, the question of "how" is for the moment the more riveting one. Did the murderers have accomplices within the airport security systems? Have there been "sleepers" here for years? How did the coordination work? How near did we come to losing the White House? And - more nerve-rackingly - has all the venomous energy been spent in this one climactic assault?
During the cold war, it was often said that the United States faced an unsleeping foe that was "godless". I don't think it's sufficiently recognised how important this one word was, and how much it is missed. The holy warriors, as these seem to be, are an entirely different proposition. The United States as a country has no fixed position on Islamic fundamentalism. It has used it as an ally, as well as discovered it as an enemy. It could not bomb Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates, even if it found conclusive proof that the hijackers and assassins had actually trained there. So what does the president mean when he says so portentously that "we shall make no distinction between the terrorists and those who harbour them"? It looks like a distinction without a difference, and gives a momentary impression of being decisive, while actually only confusing the issue.
1056. jexster - 9/13/2001 4:56:58 PM
AU..
The ital is from the TNR editorial, an editorial which restates with vastly more eloqence the very same point I have been try to make, to wit that anger must be bound to free the cold hard heart that kills, not randomly, not with out purpose, not, ultimately without success but clear, cold, hard, and effective.
If that's "bromide" so be it for the reciprocal of that bromide is the "random anger" "spastic futility"...the "coon dune" mentality of We-all-know-who
1057. marjoribanks - 9/13/2001 4:57:37 PM
As I write, fighter planes are the only craft in the sky over New York and Washington, and indeed, the rest of the country. The National Guard is on the streets. The Atlantic and Pacific coasts are being ostentatiously patrolled by large and reassuring Navy vessels. Not only does this deployment do absolutely no good today (it has about the same effect as the newly imposed ban on kerbside baggage check-in at airports), but it would have made absolutely no difference if it had started last Sunday.
Yes, it does give the impression that we are "at war", all right. But being on manoeuvres is not the same as warfare, and "preparedness" and "vigilance" are of little value if they contribute to the erection of a Maginot Line in the mind.
1058. PelleNilsson - 9/13/2001 5:01:03 PM
All in all it seems that the administration is adopting ScottLoar's analysis of the situation. A wise move.
1059. concerned - 9/13/2001 5:03:50 PM
Disarm the populace. This is a war, remember.
Really boneheaded. That process intimated here would violate not only the civil rights and privacy of US citizens to a truly unprecedented extent creating chaos, but would fatally divert US governmental resources from the threats at hand.
1060. AuNaturel - 9/13/2001 5:04:45 PM
"Saudi millionaire"
I usually hear of him described as a "renagade Saudi millionaire". It gives him a whole different connotation. Mr. Bin Laudin is personna non grata in his home state.
1061. AceofSpades - 9/13/2001 5:05:49 PM
I find it endlessly fascinating that the fairy cocksuckers are far more willing to go to war with American citizens than foreign terrorists.
Such is life. They really don't deserve to live, and if the world were just, they would not.
1062. jexster - 9/13/2001 5:06:22 PM
We require a lot more intelligence (judging by what happened last week, we require any intelligence at all) and a lot more cunning; but above all we must state clearly as a nation, to ourselves and to the world, that we are preparing to kill anybody who is preparing to kill us.
1063. jexster - 9/13/2001 5:08:35 PM
the fairy cocksuckers
1064. RustlerPike - 9/13/2001 5:09:31 PM
toys?
1065. concerned - 9/13/2001 5:11:58 PM
With cellphones still bleeping piteously from under
the rubble, it probably seems indecent to most
people to ask if the United States has ever done
anything to attract such awful hatred.
Clowntoon is the single individual who can be assigned the highest proportion of the blame here. From his crossing Pakistani air space without permission in his useless attempt at cruise missile bombing of bin Laden's training facilities to the reckless bombing of a Sudanese aspirin factory to the Clowntoon administration's lawless bombing of Kosovo and the Chinese embassy and even the manner in which the Clowntoon administration has botched the Iraqi arms inspections, to his feckless and self-serving Israeli-Palestinian 'peace' attempts, no single person is remotely as responsible as this criminal for the Muslim hatred, the results of which the US is suffering from today.
1066. RustlerPike - 9/13/2001 5:12:02 PM
OK: I have it from impeccable sources that the World Trade Center never went down and this has all been some kind of weird delusion.
I simply choose not to accept that this happened.
I have too much to deal with. I have decided the Twins are back up. If pressed to, I will provide photos as proof.
1067. AuNaturel - 9/13/2001 5:12:21 PM
"it would have made absolutely no difference if it had started last Sunday".
Gotta take issue with this. A carrier off NY and DC at threatcon delta would scambled it's fighters. They would have shot down the plane that hit the Pentagon for sure and maybe the second plane to hit the towers.
1068. judithathome - 9/13/2001 5:12:55 PM
The story about five firemen being found amongst the rubble in an SUV was false...it was five rescuers who had fallen in a hole and later pulled to safety. CNN
1069. CalGal - 9/13/2001 5:12:56 PM
I believe the Saudis have banished him, or whatever. He's no longer a citizen, legally--or something like that, anyway.
1070. jexster - 9/13/2001 5:13:00 PM
is not a policy of retaliation, but a policy of active and sustained aggression against all individuals and groups whom we have confidently identified as terrorists...
It is not the "policy" the putrescent product of deranged psyches viz...the maggot infested brain of the Ace of Waste
1071. jexster - 9/13/2001 5:13:35 PM
It is the cold hard heart that kills...
1072. marjoribanks - 9/13/2001 5:21:11 PM
Of course, it's Clinton we all have to blame.
Concerned is such a bad caricature of himself, it's staggering.
1073. CalGal - 9/13/2001 5:22:22 PM
Looks like they found the black box in Pennsylvania.
1074. PelleNilsson - 9/13/2001 5:22:23 PM
Most accounts say that bin Laden was radicalised during the Gulf War, and in particular by Western infidel troops being stationed in the country that houses Islam's holy places. He has indeed been disowned by Saudi Arabia.
1075. concerned - 9/13/2001 5:23:22 PM
Re. 1072 -
Oh, the 'argument' from the 'Clowntoon, being a Lefty, can not be considered responsible for his abysmal failures' school, I see.
1076. marjoribanks - 9/13/2001 5:25:48 PM
It's not an argument, sad caricature, it's admiration for your unyielding repetition of the mantra - it's Clinton's fault - for every unfortnate incident of the last 10 or so years.
1077. concerned - 9/13/2001 5:26:07 PM
Can Marjoribanks even comprehend the difference between the pigheaded, arrogant, lawless, incompetent manner in which the WH Rapist conducted his foreign policy and the consensus building, goal oriented approach of either of the Bush's?
He appears to be completely oblivious of such.
Amazing!
1078. pseudoerasmus - 9/13/2001 5:28:34 PM
Colin Powell or the Defence Secretary (whatever his name is) should pay a quickly arranged visit to Dushanbe, Tajikistan, and have a meeting in that city with the Russian and Chinese foreign ministres. That would scare the shit out of the Taliban.
1079. marjoribanks - 9/13/2001 5:30:02 PM
Let's see about young Bush, Concerned.
I have very little respect for the man's demonstrated talents or skills, but on one big area of my interest in foreign policy (the subcontinent) he has already indeed been preferable to the vast majority of the Clinton era.
I also, it should be said, vastly prefer Powell to the witch Albright.
Now, I am off.
1080. Andonly - 9/13/2001 5:33:21 PM
"That doesn't translate to hatred of the US, no matter how tortuously you parse it to make that equation work. ...there are mental midgets on this thread who equate this terror attack to the US somehow being at war with various countries... Take away the guns. I want all threats to our security eliminated." 1081. AuNaturel - 9/13/2001 5:33:27 PM Well, I gotta agree with you there, MjB. 1082. uzmakk - 9/13/2001 5:43:10 PM The fog of war has arrived in NYC. 1083. concerned - 9/13/2001 5:54:33 PM Re. 1079 - 1084. Andonly - 9/13/2001 5:55:28 PM 1080: ...supporter of gun control... 1085. iiibbb - 9/13/2001 5:59:40 PM I asked earlier why not allow non-lethal weapons on flights? No guns... I think this is better than air-marshals because an air marshal would just be the first target. When resistance is decentrallized (note that's why we have trouble finding/fighting terrorsists) it is impossible to control. 1086. iiibbb - 9/13/2001 6:00:06 PM toys 1087. iiibbb - 9/13/2001 6:01:47 PM There is also that sticky foam stuff... which basically glues you to yourself. A slight risk of suffocation, but I don't care about that. 1088. concerned - 9/13/2001 6:06:00 PM ACLU Attacks 'Moment of Silence' During Time of National Mourning! 1089. concerned - 9/13/2001 6:07:48 PM Sheldon overstates a bit, but his point is valid. 1090. Cellar Door - 9/13/2001 6:12:19 PM Nothing. 1091. AuNaturel - 9/13/2001 6:28:49 PM Even if the passengers were not allowed to carry on guns, I think the pilot and copilot should. The wall separtaing pilots and passengers needs to be bullet proof and the door very sold. The way to signal a hijacking needs to be impossible to interfere with. Maybe a dead man switch? 1092. concerned - 9/13/2001 6:30:21 PM Re. 1091 - 1093. AuNaturel - 9/13/2001 6:32:26 PM "The shameful attempt of the ACLU to have the Supreme Court block a moment of silence" 1094. amax - 9/13/2001 7:00:57 PM re 1039 1095. LimeGirl - 9/13/2001 7:03:45 PM A society that will trade a little order for a little freedom will lose both, and deserve neither. 1096. LimeGirl - 9/13/2001 7:04:57 PM There is no “slippery slope” toward loss of liberties, only a long staircase where each step downward must first be tolerated by the American people and their leaders 1097. LimeGirl - 9/13/2001 7:05:46 PM Here's the closest one! 1098. jexster - 9/13/2001 7:10:00 PM WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The hijacked plane that crashed into the Pentagon (news - web sites) two days ago circled the U.S. Capitol first and flew down the Washington Mall and over the White House, a U.S. congressman said on Thursday, quoting police. 1099. jexster - 9/13/2001 7:12:03 PM I had thought that such flights were verbotten and would be shot down....I thought...not that we would have shot any of those planes down or would we have???? 1100. AuNaturel - 9/13/2001 7:12:04 PM "you can no longer assume that following the instructions of terrorists will get you out alive. You must resist with all you've got... From now on, you have to assume you're going to die anyway." 1101. AuNaturel - 9/13/2001 7:14:02 PM "Anyone have the exact quote?" 1102. jexster - 9/13/2001 7:15:00 PM People committed to justice and law and human rights must never descend to the level of the 1103. AuNaturel - 9/13/2001 7:15:36 PM If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more, it will lose that too. 1104. jexster - 9/13/2001 7:17:59 PM Surcease from Sorrow.... 1105. jexster - 9/13/2001 7:26:00 PM Where will terrorists strike next? If you've got an answer off the top of your head, it's the wrong answer. To thwart a terrorist, you have to think like one. Imagine the destruction that could be engineered with the help of your car, your credit card, or your computer password. Think of how many people you could kill by hot-wiring a propane truck, breaking into a water tower, or piloting a barge full of unknown cargo into a harbor. The next attack could come by air, land, or sea. All we know for sure is that the route to stopping it begins in our heads.. 1106. jexster - 9/13/2001 7:37:04 PM SUMMARY: Amid sketchy reports about the crash of United's Flight 93 on Tuesday, friends of Mark Bingham believe he tried to combat the plane's hijackers. 1107. Cellar Door - 9/13/2001 8:13:17 PM And here he is -- or rather was. 1108. joezan - 9/13/2001 9:06:04 PM "When you're wounded and left, 1109. joezan - 9/13/2001 9:51:31 PM I am sooooo fucking sick of hearing about "taking a measured response...", and "...remember that there are many fine Arab civilians who harbor no grudge and who anyway are powerless to harm the US...", and "taking care to not over-react...", etc. 1110. Toenails - 9/13/2001 10:05:43 PM 1111. CalGal - 9/13/2001 10:11:07 PM He's too old, isn't he? But I would enlist, if they'd take me. I'm not sure if I'd end up as Doogie Howser or Casper in Starship Troopers, but I'd go. 1112. joezan - 9/13/2001 10:24:46 PM Sadly, I am too old. 1113. Toenails - 9/13/2001 10:28:58 PM 1114. CalGal - 9/13/2001 10:31:08 PM Well, I don't like towelhead comments either. But I don't think that has anything to do with signing up. 1115. CalGal - 9/13/2001 10:35:13 PM I don't know if anyone mentioned this, but the Pentagon is calling up reservists and National Airport is indefinitely closed. 1116. joezan - 9/13/2001 10:36:09 PM Sand monkeys then? 1117. iiibbb - 9/13/2001 10:36:18 PM Message # 1100 1118. joezan - 9/13/2001 10:37:29 PM All airports will be closed again by tomorrow - mark my words. 1119. Toenails - 9/13/2001 10:38:56 PM National Airport should be closed indefinitely--for the "duration". Talk about strategically indefensible locations! 1120. CalGal - 9/13/2001 11:24:47 PM I've been mulling over the whole air travel security thing. Hopefully, we'll drop all of the restrictions fairly quickly and leave only a few in place. If not, I really worry that air travel will become expensive and revert to what it was like in the 70s, when some 80% of all Americans had never been on a plane. 1121. CalGal - 9/13/2001 11:25:27 PM I read at another forum that one of the terrorists paid for a one-way ticket. Cash. 1122. concerned - 9/13/2001 11:30:57 PM Three words: 1123. CalGal - 9/13/2001 11:38:03 PM That's not enough to secure the safety of the passengers; it just makes sure that no one can commandeer the plane. 1124. concerned - 9/13/2001 11:43:56 PM Re. 1123 - 1125. Jamie R - 9/13/2001 11:45:21 PM ABC News is saying two more groups of terrorists tried to board planes at LaGuardia and Kennedy. They were arrested, but one group actually got people on the plane. They turned up on watch lists when the plane's manifesto was checked and a SWAT team was sent in. 1126. concerned - 9/13/2001 11:49:32 PM Re. 1125 - 1127. CalGal - 9/13/2001 11:49:42 PM Concerned, 1128. joezan - 9/13/2001 11:55:06 PM Desperate? 1129. concerned - 9/13/2001 11:55:25 PM Re. 1127 - 1130. concerned - 9/13/2001 11:56:58 PM If all terrorists want to do.... 1131. arkymalarky - 9/14/2001 12:03:31 AM (to Cal from the Cafe) 1132. concerned - 9/14/2001 12:03:38 AM Let's see. All these terrorists think dying in the name of their cause is an honor. We Americans are not interested in being murdered by mentally diseased savage scum. 1133. CalGal - 9/14/2001 12:05:08 AM The commandeering of aircraft is clearly the more serious concern and poses a vastly greater risk to the passengers, as well. 1134. arkymalarky - 9/14/2001 12:05:34 AM I do agree with Joe that we need to do some serious digging in this country. Hopefully their single-mindedness will make it easier to find and link them. Two people were arrested in AR last night. 1135. concerned - 9/14/2001 12:06:32 AM What's all this malarky about 'racist' remarks? 1136. concerned - 9/14/2001 12:07:48 AM Re. 1133 - 1137. Jamie R - 9/14/2001 12:09:52 AM Desperate is not the word I wanted, but what I meant was something like they must desperately want to carry out their plans, if they'll go through with them when it's past the point where success is likely. 1138. CalGal - 9/14/2001 12:11:07 AM 1139. joezan - 9/14/2001 12:17:06 AM Why just in this country, arky? 1140. arkymalarky - 9/14/2001 12:18:14 AM Understand--Their attitude will not change. You do not slap people, individually or collectively, into acceptable attitudes in real life. Believe me, I've tried. No matter what we do, they will want us destroyed. They are fanatics who believe we are evil. We need to do whatever it takes to stop them and destroy them where we can and make it much harder for them to do us harm, and that will take a level of commitment that we've only now become willing to make. You might notice, btw, that the tough approach and commitment haven't made Israel any less a target. Their actions and increased security have hopefully made their enemies less effective in harming them through terrorism, but even with Israel's strong security and responses they're certainly not contained or controlled. 1141. arkymalarky - 9/14/2001 12:18:54 AM Who said just, Joe? 1142. joezan - 9/14/2001 12:23:29 AM arky: 1143. arkymalarky - 9/14/2001 12:26:26 AM I'm not arguing with that. But did they change their enemies' attitudes? Would they not still blow them to bits given an opportunity? Are Israelis not still insecure in their nation? 1144. CalGal - 9/14/2001 12:27:28 AM Believe me, I've tried. 1145. concerned - 9/14/2001 12:28:39 AM Re. 1138 - 1146. joezan - 9/14/2001 12:28:52 AM Have you no concept of geography? 1147. joezan - 9/14/2001 12:33:42 AM I mean, for your analogy to work, we'd need to be working from the premise that Canada, Mexico, and damn near all of Central and South America were lined up waiting to get first crack at us. 1148. concerned - 9/14/2001 12:34:08 AM Re. 1133 - 1149. arkymalarky - 9/14/2001 12:37:55 AM Message # 1144 1150. Stumbo - 9/14/2001 12:39:35 AM CG: 1151. joezan - 9/14/2001 12:39:47 AM My entire point being: You make things extremely bad for the countries that support these bastards, and they will not have that support for long. Without the aid of the (mostly) pissant little backwater, goat-herding, backasswards countries mentioned earlier, these fuckers would be reduced to chucking rocks. 1152. arkymalarky - 9/14/2001 12:41:24 AM There is no damned analogy between us and Israel. It was a simple (I thought) point that their actions did not change the attitudes of their enemies wrt to trying to get to them--it changed their level of success. The attitudes are still there, and the Israelis will never be able to reduce their vigilance as a result. After Tuesday, we may not be able to either. 1153. CalGal - 9/14/2001 12:41:56 AM But that's what I'm saying--I'd rather have a pilot anyway, rather than a wire. I am thinking it's better to focus attention on limiting who can get on the plane, rather than what they can bring onboard. 1154. joezan - 9/14/2001 12:43:24 AM Wrong. We are under none of the diplomatic or physical restraints Israel is under. 1155. arkymalarky - 9/14/2001 12:44:23 AM Yes, Joe, they will--they will simply attempt to be more subversive about it. Which is not to say I don't think we should retaliate severely against every country knowingly harboring or abetting the people who committed Tuesday's atrocities. Bin Laden is independently wealthy--I would think enough so to support a small number of terrorists strategically scattered around the world. 1156. joezan - 9/14/2001 12:46:05 AM Yeah...whatever. 1157. arkymalarky - 9/14/2001 12:48:25 AM Joe, I know. I'm not extending anything to what our powers are as opposed to theirs, simply pointing out that they will always be targets of the fanatics who oppose them. We may be able to make ourselves more secure through doing what I said in '55. It will not change our status as targets, and may actually decrease our security when we travel abroad. Hopefully it will do a lot, combined with other measures, to increase our security at home. 1158. arkymalarky - 9/14/2001 12:50:35 AM Me too. I haven't slept well since Tuesday, and thought I would sleep tonight. I'm glad tomorrow's Friday. 1159. concerned - 9/14/2001 12:51:15 AM Re. 1153 - 1160. CalGal - 9/14/2001 12:52:53 AM The point of my response was that I didn't care about their perception of our attitudes. 1161. CalGal - 9/14/2001 12:56:16 AM And now for something depressing.... 1162. arkymalarky - 9/14/2001 12:57:28 AM it just annoys me when you defiantly rebut something that has nothing to do with the subject. Gets tedious and you do it constantly. 1163. concerned - 9/14/2001 1:07:31 AM Arky was such a Clowntoon lover, that I am absolutely shocked, I mean, totally appalled, that she would imply that a few cruise missiles lobbed into Afghanistan wouldn't be sufficient. 1164. Absensia - 9/14/2001 1:09:48 AM Concerned? 1165. concerned - 9/14/2001 1:12:57 AM I can see that Absensia's love of the WH Rapist still glows bright. 1166. Absensia - 9/14/2001 1:14:17 AM #1151 1167. Absensia - 9/14/2001 1:16:30 AM Concerned, dear...you are such a gem. Hahahah, the only people I know who stick to such stupid name calling are 12 year old boys. 1168. concerned - 9/14/2001 1:23:41 AM There's been a second WTC hoax apparently. Reports of ten policemen reported found alive in the rubble are false. 1169. Absensia - 9/14/2001 1:26:55 AM No doubt given out by the white house. :) 1170. CalGal - 9/14/2001 1:42:29 AM I didn't know that the Queen had ordered the Star Spangled Banner at the changing of the guard. That's sweet. 1171. angel-five - 9/14/2001 1:46:30 AM The Brits have always been a great deal more ready than we are to go in and do what needs done. Wherever American soldiers go in the next several months, Brits will be there. 1172. Absensia - 9/14/2001 1:47:24 AM Oh...I hadn't heard that. 1173. Absensia - 9/14/2001 1:48:27 AM A-5, you are right. 1174. angel-five - 9/14/2001 1:49:38 AM Don't bother with concerned. I absolutely guarantee you that the thought that Clinton is tied up in this terrorist thing somehow has crossed his mind several times in the last few days, which is more or less all that needs said about the axis upon which his ratiocination spins. 1175. CalGal - 9/14/2001 1:50:56 AM It really has been nice to see all the support. I don't know if I was surprised, exactly, but it was nice. 1176. angel-five - 9/14/2001 1:53:13 AM British support was a given. They're quite possibly the best allies we've ever had and given the trouble that Blair has had with acceding to Son of Star Wars he's likely relieved to have something in which he can support the US one hundred percent. 1177. CalGal - 9/14/2001 1:55:36 AM Oh, I knew British support was a given. It was more the nature of the gesture that was moving. I was thinking of the fact that it's not just the US who is taking the biggest hit in their history. 1178. Shannon - 9/14/2001 2:00:09 AM I just watched a BBC video of the changing of the guard. Oddly, I hadn't read the posts here about it yet; I'd just read about the plans to play our anthem earlier, and it just occurred to me to look for a video. Anyway, it was quite moving. 1179. CalGal - 9/14/2001 2:01:44 AM I hadn't heard about it at all and haven't seen the whole thing, only about half a minute. But it really was nice. And from the Queen, too. 1180. Absensia - 9/14/2001 2:04:46 AM A-5, Re 1174....but of course! I've been waiting for that. 1181. LimeGirl - 9/14/2001 2:20:51 AM That's pretty desperate to try the exact same thing the very first day the airports reopen. 1182. Absensia - 9/14/2001 2:51:49 AM Lime Girl, 1183. Khabees Khargosh - 9/14/2001 2:57:36 AM But extremely stupid at the same time. If they don't want to disclose their identity, then it would be too risky to attmept something at this time. Or may be they are too stupid. 1184. Absensia - 9/14/2001 3:16:28 AM They seem to have disclosed their identities, or perhaps false ones, on Tuesday. 1185. Khabees Khargosh - 9/14/2001 3:51:05 AM They are stupid indeed or may be trying to mislead the investigations. Somebody who planned such a grand operation should not be that stupid....should he ? 1186. PelleNilsson - 9/14/2001 6:02:57 AM Right now the countries of the European Union are observing three minutes of silence. Here in Sweden all public transport has been brought to a halt 1187. alistairconnor - 9/14/2001 7:13:54 AM Is anyone asking the question : What does Osama expect to happen now? 1188. ycmeehan - 9/14/2001 7:40:32 AM Alistair, 1189. joezan - 9/14/2001 8:05:01 AM Meehan: 1190. ronski - 9/14/2001 8:12:15 AM According to Andrew Sullivan, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have appeared together on TV and blamed this hideous tragedy on gay people. Literally blamed it upon gay people. 1191. Adrianne - 9/14/2001 8:19:48 AM 1192. ronski - 9/14/2001 8:26:50 AM Adrianne, 1193. RustlerPike - 9/14/2001 8:56:39 AM ronski: 1194. Indiana Jones - 9/14/2001 9:00:47 AM ronski: I know you said according to Andrew Sullivan. Do you have a link to Sullivan's piece (not doubting that he said it, just want to read it)? 1195. Indiana Jones - 9/14/2001 9:02:56 AM BTW, I'm at the 700 Club Web site and haven't yet found anything like that there. 1196. mgleason - 9/14/2001 9:11:09 AM AndrewSullivan.com: 1197. OhioSTOPAS - 9/14/2001 9:13:23 AM FYI, the disturbing story about the men arrested on New York airplanes yesterday with knives and false credentials is being debunked: 1198. Indiana Jones - 9/14/2001 9:18:44 AM Thanks, Maria. I had JavaScript et al turned off and that didn't show up on Sullivan's site without the bells and whistles. 1199. Indiana Jones - 9/14/2001 9:20:32 AM For the record, Biden is IMO talking far too much to the press. Orrin Hatch is who I'm guessing Rumsfeld had in mind the other day, however, when he more or less told people to shut up. 1200. Andonly - 9/14/2001 9:20:51 AM "Just heard they found 10 policemen alive in NYC. Anyone else hear that?" 1201. mgleason - 9/14/2001 9:22:41 AM No, Indiana, it's not. Business as usual when it comes to cheap shots is distressing whether from people like Falwell and Robertson, or from those taking aim at the President, much as used to happen any time President Clinton took action. 1202. Andonly - 9/14/2001 9:23:09 AM "Right. You've had so much experience with terrorists." 1203. judithathome - 9/14/2001 9:24:25 AM But extremely stupid at the same time. If they don't want to disclose their identity, then it would be too risky to attmept something at this time. Or may be they are too stupid. 1204. ronski - 9/14/2001 9:25:02 AM The rain has been quite heavy. I put off driving because of it. I don't know whether it would impede recovery efforts. The tapping noises are encouraging though. 1205. Francis Urquhart - 9/14/2001 9:27:30 AM I am not distresed by business as usual from circus freaks. I mean, let us be honest. 1206. Indiana Jones - 9/14/2001 9:32:54 AM While at the 700 Club Site, I did find a recipe for Pat's Power Shake that allows him to leg press 600 pounds. 1207. evo shandor - 9/14/2001 9:37:44 AM >Bin Laden is independently wealthy--I would think enough so to support a small number of terrorists strategically scattered around the world. 1208. Francis Urquhart - 9/14/2001 9:41:58 AM evo 1209. Andonly - 9/14/2001 9:43:13 AM concerned: "Incidentally, 'fly-by-wire' merely means that electronics instead of hydraulics control an aircraft's flight surfaces." 1210. Andonly - 9/14/2001 9:43:30 AM FBL plans included an overall airplane control system design, and the detailed design, fabrication and flight demonstration of an FBL-controlled aileron electrical actuator (EA) on the NASA Boeing 757. In support of the FBL subelement, an open loop FBL system was designed, developed, ground qualified, and flight tested on the NASA F-18 aircraft. A flight test demonstrating FBL control of the rudder and stabilator on the F-18 will be performed by October 1997. 1211. AceofSpades - 9/14/2001 9:43:45 AM 1212. Francis Urquhart - 9/14/2001 9:48:52 AM < href="http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/binladen_newsmakerbio.html" target="new">Bin Laden Primer 1213. Francis Urquhart - 9/14/2001 9:51:29 AM Crap. 1214. Francis Urquhart - 9/14/2001 9:53:16 AM Crap, crap, crap. 1215. pseudoerasmus - 9/14/2001 9:55:58 AM That "primer" doesn't even mention the USA's connexions with bin Ladin during the anti-Soviet war. 1216. pseudoerasmus - 9/14/2001 9:56:58 AM The USA supplied, financed, and generally built up Saddam Hussein during the 1980s. In 1990 Iraq did something the USA didn't expect. A few hundred thousand people were then blown to smithereens. 1217. Indiana Jones - 9/14/2001 10:03:07 AM The USA supplied, financed, and generally built up Saddam Hussein during the 1980s. In 1990 Iraq did something the USA didn't expect. A few hundred thousand people were then blown to smithereens. 1218. AceofSpades - 9/14/2001 10:03:49 AM 1219. Francis Urquhart - 9/14/2001 10:05:14 AM pseudo 1220. AceofSpades - 9/14/2001 10:08:10 AM 1221. Francis Urquhart - 9/14/2001 10:08:12 AM The analysis is simply irrelevant. 1222. Indiana Jones - 9/14/2001 10:10:21 AM The USA deliberately supplied and financed, not the moderate elements in the anti-Soviet resistance in Afghanistan during the 1980s, but the most radical and fanatical. 1223. Wombat - 9/14/2001 10:11:38 AM Urquhart: 1224. Indiana Jones - 9/14/2001 10:11:47 AM Should we have helped those Afghan peaceniks build printing presses and distribute leaflets protesting the Soviet occupation? 1225. pseudoerasmus - 9/14/2001 10:13:59 AM Afghans aren't Arabs, which I suppose is a severe case of nitpicking for Ace. 1226. AceofSpades - 9/14/2001 10:14:20 AM 1227. Francis Urquhart - 9/14/2001 10:15:58 AM Wombat 1228. AceofSpades - 9/14/2001 10:17:49 AM 1229. pseudoerasmus - 9/14/2001 10:18:06 AM Message # 1220 1230. Wombat - 9/14/2001 10:21:17 AM PE: 1231. pseudoerasmus - 9/14/2001 10:21:27 AM Message # 1228 1232. judithathome - 9/14/2001 10:21:29 AM With all the false reports coming out as "news" lately, I don't see how we can really know what is true and what isn't for days after; for instance, arrests at airports or rescued people saved from the rubble. 1233. Indiana Jones - 9/14/2001 10:21:46 AM PE: Did the US ever directly give money (finance) Iraq or provide Saddam with weaponry (supply) during the 1980s as you stated in post 1216? I have never heard this before. 1234. AceofSpades - 9/14/2001 10:22:07 AM 1235. pseudoerasmus - 9/14/2001 10:22:44 AM Wombat: Massud's was one of the two extremist groups supported by the USA. 1236. jonesatlaw - 9/14/2001 10:22:47 AM Terrorist: "You gave us arms and taught us how to use them (in service of our cramped and twisted version of Islam) it was fated that we attack you. 1237. Indiana Jones - 9/14/2001 10:22:53 AM Strike the "gave" before "supplied." 1238. evo shandor - 9/14/2001 10:23:18 AM >But I suppose ordinary Afghans should be held responsible for the stupidity and shortsightedness of US policies. 1239. jonesatlaw - 9/14/2001 10:23:42 AM US: "It was fated that we would then destroy you." 1240. AceofSpades - 9/14/2001 10:25:46 AM 1241. Indiana Jones - 9/14/2001 10:25:59 AM BTW, PE, you're little personal jabs are irrelevant to me. Save the keystrokes. 1242. Toenails - 9/14/2001 10:26:13 AM Time to rename this thread: 1243. AceofSpades - 9/14/2001 10:28:19 AM 1244. Wombat - 9/14/2001 10:28:47 AM PE: 1245. pseudoerasmus - 9/14/2001 10:29:17 AM And when the degenerate dogs turn on the master feeding them beef, it is, of course, the master's fault. 1246. thoughtful - 9/14/2001 10:29:53 AM PseuE...why? because to americans all afghans are alike...well, actually all mideasterners are alike as are all asians, blacks, etc. You expect us to waste time delving into subtleties of such people? Don't be silly. 1247. Francis Urquhart - 9/14/2001 10:29:56 AM pseudo 1248. pseudoerasmus - 9/14/2001 10:30:03 AM Wombat: Massoud is an extremist. He just looks good compared to the higher order extremism of the Taliban. All the non-extremists have been killed or exiled. 1249. alistairconnor - 9/14/2001 10:30:17 AM Giving the degenerate fuckers aid, money, medicine, weapons, and training apparently just doesn't work. We will try giving them death, maimings, stillborn children, starvation, dehydration, exposure, and disease. 1250. Khabees Khargosh - 9/14/2001 10:31:15 AM Jones, 1251. AceofSpades - 9/14/2001 10:31:47 AM 1252. Indiana Jones - 9/14/2001 10:32:22 AM Though I can't produce any documentary proof... 1253. Francis Urquhart - 9/14/2001 10:32:43 AM Alistair 1254. AceofSpades - 9/14/2001 10:34:35 AM 1255. jonesatlaw - 9/14/2001 10:35:04 AM Any "war on terrorism" will have to be a broad, multi-national effort. It is not enough to strike at Osma Bin Ladin or at Afganistan blindly. We have to cut them terrorists off at the roots. Attack their funding, their weapons, their political cover. No one gets a free pass by saying that they can't control terrorists in their territory. If you can't we will, and you may not like how we do it. No one gets a free pass by saying they have to placate radical fundamentalists who are not actual terrorists for political purposes. 1256. Francis Urquhart - 9/14/2001 10:35:22 AM Actually, a cultural racism answers your question, Ace. 1257. alistairconnor - 9/14/2001 10:35:45 AM Well Francis, if you have proof of Iraqi non-involvement in the attacks, we'd all like to hear it... 1258. pseudoerasmus - 9/14/2001 10:35:54 AM Message # 1243 1259. AceofSpades - 9/14/2001 10:36:43 AM 1260. Seamus - 9/14/2001 10:36:52 AM judith 1261. Francis Urquhart - 9/14/2001 10:37:38 AM jones 1262. pseudoerasmus - 9/14/2001 10:37:57 AM Message # 1254 1263. AceofSpades - 9/14/2001 10:39:04 AM 1264. pseudoerasmus - 9/14/2001 10:41:03 AM Only a complete idiot could compare the entrenched, bureaucratised, mass phenomenon like the Nazis taking place in an advanced industrialised civil and highly educated society like Germany -- with the Taliban, a bunch of peasants in rags whose grip on power is tenuous, who have no organisation, where the country is totally destroyed and without infrastructure, and most of whose people are illiterate. 1265. ScottLoar - 9/14/2001 10:41:56 AM Of course you can take over a country militarily with only 10% of the population behind you: China, Russia, and any number of coups d'etat in Latin America in the 20th century spring to mind. 1266. Francis Urquhart - 9/14/2001 10:42:41 AM alistair 1267. ScottLoar - 9/14/2001 10:43:15 AM 10% of the population in any century as willing participants seems large. 1268. Cellar Door - 9/14/2001 10:43:45 AM And that's only what Ace happens to be, pseudo. 1269. AceofSpades - 9/14/2001 10:44:55 AM 1270. judithathome - 9/14/2001 10:45:25 AM Seamus: 1271. Francis Urquhart - 9/14/2001 10:46:15 AM I do not agree with the mass bombing of Afghan civilians, because pseudo the Monday-morning quarterbask is correct. These people are aimless mules, and there is no message to be sent in saturation bombing of aimless mules. 1272. Cellar Door - 9/14/2001 10:46:24 AM Ace, you don't get out of your wheelchair often enough to actually see the world. 1273. pseudoerasmus - 9/14/2001 10:47:00 AM Only a complete idiot could compare the entrenched, bureaucratised, mass phenomenon like the Nazis taking place in an advanced industrialised civil and highly educated society like Germany -- with the Taliban, a bunch of peasants in rags whose grip on power is tenuous, who have no organisation, where the country is totally destroyed and without infrastructure, and most of whose people are illiterate. 1274. AceofSpades - 9/14/2001 10:48:19 AM 1275. Francis Urquhart - 9/14/2001 10:49:04 AM If I thought targeting civilians would be effective in combating anti-U.S. state-sponsored terrorism, I would advocate it. 1276. Francis Urquhart - 9/14/2001 10:50:16 AM That said, pseudo, your continued failure to suggest policy exempts you from serious consideration in this debate. 1277. thoughtful - 9/14/2001 10:50:34 AM Oh yes, one more why? for PseuE, because America, recognizing how important the nations of the world are to peace and economic success, and how much cheaper it is to pursue good intelligence and support international diplomatic efforts than send in American soldiers to "fix" situations with human lives, spent $291 billion on national defense in 2000 (est.) vs. $17 billion for all international affairs or about 1% of all federal expenditures. 1278. AceofSpades - 9/14/2001 10:51:09 AM 1279. Seamus - 9/14/2001 10:51:54 AM judith 1280. Francis Urquhart - 9/14/2001 10:52:03 AM thoughful 1281. AceofSpades - 9/14/2001 10:52:56 AM 1282. jonesatlaw - 9/14/2001 10:53:38 AM Regardless of our anger, and our emotional need to strike back, we need to carefully analyze what we are dealing with. The reasons for supporting terrorists, apologizing for them, or passively allowing their activities vary from place to place. PE is right about one thing, most Afgans don't actively hate us. Most are far more concerned with keeping their goat alive, and earning enough money, or growing enough food to survive. Blowing up their goats, wheat or opium poppies won't do us any good. 1283. pseudoerasmus - 9/14/2001 10:54:40 AM 1284. Wombat - 9/14/2001 10:54:41 AM The US "creation" of Saddam is a dangerous and utterly mistaken myth. 1285. AceofSpades - 9/14/2001 10:54:54 AM 1286. Andonly - 9/14/2001 10:55:12 AM I wonder if the Russian Army could be given something to do. Say, occupy Afghanistan, with US backing, while we were busy in Iraq finishing off Saddam. 1287. concerned - 9/14/2001 10:55:35 AM Don't bother with concerned. I absolutely guarantee 1288. Francis Urquhart - 9/14/2001 10:56:00 AM I'm not interested in who hates us, or who deserves what. 1289. pseudoerasmus - 9/14/2001 10:56:17 AM Message # 1269 1290. pseudoerasmus - 9/14/2001 10:58:09 AM Message # 1285 1291. Francis Urquhart - 9/14/2001 10:58:46 AM pseudo 1292. pseudoerasmus - 9/14/2001 10:59:25 AM Francis: I've suggested several things already. You just didn't pay any attention until I questioned the US approach. I do distinguish between your approach and Ace's. 1293. Francis Urquhart - 9/14/2001 11:00:08 AM psuedo 1294. judithathome - 9/14/2001 11:01:21 AM You are sports announcer who never played a game in his life. 1295. Francis Urquhart - 9/14/2001 11:01:22 AM pseudo 1296. pseudoerasmus - 9/14/2001 11:02:29 AM I don't understand Thoughtful's Message # 1277. 1297. Francis Urquhart - 9/14/2001 11:03:25 AM juditha 1298. AceofSpades - 9/14/2001 11:03:39 AM 1299. Khabees Khargosh - 9/14/2001 11:05:35 AM FU 1291, 1300. AceofSpades - 9/14/2001 11:05:48 AM 1301. pseudoerasmus - 9/14/2001 11:06:54 AM Francis Urquhart: I am not a military expert. I don't pretend to know such matters. Unlike you or that weapons expert Ace, I can't discourse eloquently on the logistics of whether it's possible to refuel aircraft over Afghan airspace. 1302. Francis Urquhart - 9/14/2001 11:07:43 AM Khabees 1303. concerned - 9/14/2001 11:07:57 AM PE wishes to give the appearance, apparently, that he hasn't been able to reach a decision as to what should be done. 1304. Francis Urquhart - 9/14/2001 11:08:49 AM pseudo 1305. judithathome - 9/14/2001 11:09:23 AM I don't think that anybody really advocates a mass slaughter of Afghanis. 1306. AceofSpades - 9/14/2001 11:09:41 AM 1307. Khabees Khargosh - 9/14/2001 11:10:45 AM The message sent will be nothing but more hatred. 1308. pseudoerasmus - 9/14/2001 11:12:45 AM Message # 1298 1309. Khabees Khargosh - 9/14/2001 11:13:33 AM I sais once before that when people dance on deaths of others , there something deeply wrong. Why doesn't anybody try to think what it could be? 1310. AceofSpades - 9/14/2001 11:13:40 AM 1311. concerned - 9/14/2001 11:13:45 AM To be entirely honest my concern is less the incident 1312. jonesatlaw - 9/14/2001 11:14:32 AM KING HENRY V
You know, Banks, you are failing to see the big picture. Countries that support terrorism are our enemies. Many of them are Arab and north African. Plenty of their citizens do indeed hate us, despite your protestations, or else wish us to become emasculated, and their wishes have just now found a kind of fulfillment. We are at war with their representatives, whether they are terrorists or governments. The people who are represented by such forces will suffer as a result--and others, will, too, I'm sorry to say.
I am as hearty a supporter of gun
Regardless of your opinion of GWB personally, at least he can be said to have advisors who amount to something.
Imagine several highjackers finding themselves tasered from every angle.
The main thing is you can no longer assume that following the instructions of terrorists will get you out alive. You must resist with all you've got... From now on, you have to assume you're going to die anyway.
Washington, DC - "The shameful attempt of the ACLU to have the Supreme Court block a moment of silence in
Virginia's public schools is an affront to this nation during a time of national tragedy," said Traditional Values
Coalition Chairman Rev. Louis P. Sheldon today.
"To try to prevent children from bowing their heads in silence over the terrorist attacks upon this nation shows just
how incredibly insensitive the ACLU has become," noted Rev. Sheldon.
Rev. Sheldon is responding to U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist's refusal to grant the ACLU its
request to block a mandatory moment of silence in Virginia's public schools. The ACLU has challenged the
moment of silence as an unconstitutional violation of the separation of church and state.
Last year, Virginia Governor James Gilmore signed legislation requiring a mandatory one-minute moment of
silence before each school day. During this period, children can pray, meditate, or do any other non-disruptive
silence activity. No child is forced to pray or meditate.
"Last night, we saw the Senate and House join together in a time of corporate prayer and Bible reading over
Tuesday's terrorist attack upon America," said Sheldon. "At a time like this, every person in this nation should
have the right to pray to God for strength and comfort. The ACLU wants to deny this right to children in Virginia
who have been terribly traumatized by the attack on the Pentagon. Many of them lost parents and friends in this
disaster. Supporters and the leadership of the ACLU should be ashamed of themselves for their horrible
insensitivity toward children during a time of national mourning."
WTF is wrong with the ACLU here?
The side of a commercial jet won't rip open just because it was punctured by a bullet. The pilots could be given fragmenting bullets that won't penetrate, like the Sky Marshalls have.
Whatever the hell ever happened to the Sky Marshall program?
Re. Sky Marshal program:
It's back.
Sometimes the ACLU acts like idiots.
Those who would trade liberty to gain security deserve neither and will lose both
T.Paine?
Anyone have the exact quote?
--Thomas Jefferson
--Alan K. Simpson
They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety.
--Benjamin Franklin
The comments by Rep. John Mica (news - bio - voting record), a Florida Republican who heads the House of Representatives subcommittee on aviation, sparked a fresh flurry of speculation on Capitol Hill about a large plane that a number of witnesses reported seeing near the Capitol dome on Tuesday around the time of the terror attacks on the Pentagon and New York's World Trade Center.
As long as it is likely all that will happen is a side trip to Cuba or Algeria, cooperation makes perfect sense. But when you learn you will probably die anyhow and take a lot of other innocents with you, one's natural courage and defiance should come to the fore.
That's the message the passengers on the plane over PA got. They heard news over the cell phone about the twin towers. At least some of them decided it was best to take back the plane at all costs. That courage may have saved thousands of lives.
They reacted as real Americans should. They died as real heroes often must. Just as the heroic emergency personel at the WTC died.
The bitterness of my grief is moderated by a taste of pride for these honored dead.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin
Historical Review of Pennsylvania
perpetrators of such acts. That is the most important distinction of all.
There are people and governments in the world who believe that in the struggle against terrorism, ends always justify means. But that is also
the logic of terrorism. Whatever the response to this outrage, it must not validate that logic. Rather, it must uphold the principles that came
under attack...That is the way to deny the perpetrators of this crime their ultimate victory.
William Somerset Maugham
Zoboomafo airing following McNeil/Lehrer
Terror: If You Think Its Unthinkable, It Will Be Unstoppable - Saletan
So free your mind of anger...the cold heart will provide the answers....
Amid sketchy reports about the crash of United Airlines Flight 93 in Pennsylvania on Tuesday, friends of a gay passenger on the flight believe he may have tried to thwart the plane's hijackers.
Mark Bingham, a "Pussy Cocksucker"
and a faggot rugby player....May he rest in peace.
On Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out,
To cut up your remains,
Just roll on your rifle,
And blow out your brains,
And go to your Gawd,
Like a soldier."
--Rudyard Kipling
I mean, here, it's just all weak farts in a strong wind.
But unfortunately, the only news I get on my radio at work is NPR. And it is these assholes - and their sissy TV brothers and sisters, who play right into the game these animals have got us caught up in.
Fuck all that.
There is no such thing as over-reaction to something like this.
President Bush is talking the talk now. But you wait till he let's fly with the hardware - these fucking towelheads will be stricken with nostalgia for the good ol' days of the Gulf War.
Joezan...I assume you're writing on your portable PC while outside on the street, waiting for the recruiting office to open in the morning.
Sadder, is this: My recently-commissioned little brother, who has been in the AF for 10 years and is stationed at Offutt in Nebraska, changed specialties two years ago.
He has been a meteorologist since receiving his BS a few years after enlisting. But there was no guarantee he'd receive a commission in that field. So, he went back to school to be a "Flight Bomb Technician".
He hasn't been called away, yet.
But he can't go anywhere, either. He's just waiting...
I doubt if any one of us wants a "measured response." Patriotism hasn't been this universal or this high since World War II.
But I could do, forever, without the "towelhead" bullshit.
You can't believe them if they say all they want to do if fly to Cuba or Algeria... They will say whatever they need toif it meas you will be pacified and offer no resistance.
Resist!
But of course, it won't be. It would be sooooo inconvenient!
All because of an incredibly small number of terrorists. It just doesn't make sense.
So why not keep travel the same--but restrict who can buy a ticket? Make the purchase process more stringent, require a validation process to take place well prior to departure (24 hours), and then identity checks at the airport.
Obvious restrictions: non-citizens can only take planes if they are on authorized business travel--and their business is registered or otherwise checked out.
I really hope that's not true.
Fly-by-wire.
"just"?
That's pretty desperate to try the exact same thing the very first day the airports reopen.
I read that Russia is warning that running airliners into nuclear power plants to create several Chernobyl-like incidents may be the next step in this 'plan' that the terrorists have to fuck up America.
Yes, "just".
Jamie,
I don't know about desperate. I think it was just their orders. A couple of them were on the suspected terrorists list.
One of those planes was coming to San Jose. Gleep.
I'd call that pretty damned persistent. They obviously had a whole slew of targets they were supposed to hit Tuesday.
These bastards are still crawling around this entire country like rats - waiting for the opportunity to finish the job.
You almost have to admire their dedication.
We need to be just as ruthless - just as persistent - just as resolute in our response.
Wrong answer. The commandeering of aircraft is clearly the more serious concern and poses a vastly greater risk to the passengers, as well.
If all a terrorist wants to do then is to kill people, they will tend to restrict that activity to other venues simply because they know that fly-by-wire airliners with control override severely limits their options in the air.
Our attitude toward terrorists has not affected their behavior. Our lack of security and intelligence and ability to utilize them to our best advantage have made their behavior effective. They don't care if they die. They're martyred if we hit them (not that we shouldn't--and hard). They are organized in very small "cells" holed up all over the world with the apparent center in a very remote location, and possibly subversive assistance from several sources. The smaller and more dispersed the target, the harder it is to reach. Their behavior will not change, and the only way they will be made less effective is with much effort, probably including war, and more national security on our part. Their opinions toward us will never change, nor their willingness to die if that's what it takes to do us harm, nor their efforts to find new and inventive ways to accomplish that main goal. They will never be afraid of us. That's the nature of extremists.
And who cares that the racist remarks aren't unusual? That makes them ok? I would think that would be worse than a rare racist remark.
Maybe the US can work out a comprehensive and mutually advantageous arrangement in the Mideast.
You'll have the same problem with fly by wire as in most other scenarios. In any event, terrorists can just start blowing up planes without trying to aim them. Most effective at killing a ton of people at once and gets lots of news coverage.
BTW,
Just heard they found 10 policemen alive in NYC. Anyone else hear that?
Blowing up the planes, how....? By huffing and puffing? Explosives, including plastique appear to be effectively interdicted already.
Our attitude toward terrorists has not affected their behavior.
Where did I talk about our attitude towards them? You were the one who just said you didn't give a fuck what they think of us, so you were tracking a moment ago.
Their attitude towards us needs a serious sea change, which will be accomplished, hopefully, by a major change in our behavior (not attitude) towards them. Namely, I hope we turn a number of their regions into smoking ruins and kill untold numbers of them, as well as any unfortunate "innocents" in the area. As it is, they have every reason to think that they can do whatever they like and the worst we'll do is bomb an aspirin factory or take them to court and fucking lose the case.
This is precisely what I'm talking about - we know...have known for a very long time which countries are supporting them.
You don't ask them to give the guys up and please don't train any new ones - you bomb the piss out of them.
Then, when France or Sweden start complaining that we have not taken a measured response, we say, Oh - you didn't like that - how about this? - and we bomb twice as hard, for twice as long.
That's what I mean by persistence.
Israel is surrounded by much larger countries which would bomb it out of existence in a heartbeat. The fact that Israel still even exists is proof of the effectiveness of the "you kill one of ours, we kill 10 of yours" policy.
Right. You've had so much experience with terrorists.
I'm sure they will want us destroyed. I don't expect that to change. That has nothing to do with their attitude--if you like, the context in which they act on that hate. If they know that acting will not only bring our rage on them, but the rage of the community they're slumming in, it will change what they do and how. A whole generation of suicides have grown up knowing that they can off themselves and take as many Americans as they can with them and the most we'll do is hold a press conference or two and tighten curbside checkin for a while. The next generation had better grow up knowing different.
You really have to stop comparing us with Israel. It is an invalid analogy for any number of reasons. In any case, as we discussed earlier, Israel can't do anything like the tough approach or commitment as they want. If they were able to, they'd make Ace look like a milquetoast birkenstock-wearing green tea sipper.
You have a point there. I believe that the only thing that will properly impress these terrorists in such a way as to seriously modify their behavior is what *they* perceive as a calamitous change in their prospects resulting from US actions.
Or the difference in capabilities between the Israeli armed forces and our own?
Guess I couldn't resist making some funnies at the expense of your objection. But, more seriously, perhaps some extra cost and inconvenience will simply be found to be necessary to guarantee the ongoing safety of airline passengers for the forseeable future.
That was a joke. And as a matter of fact, this time it was directed at you, and you missed it. Darn.
No one is comparing us with Israel. I'm comparing attitudes of terrorists toward their enemies before they're severely dealt with and after, using them as a simple example.
WRT attitudes:
From Joe:
These fuckers - Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen - these BASTARDS not only have blood all over their fucking hands...they smear it in our FACES at every opportunity.
Why?
Because of attitudes such as yours.
From me:
Joe, I love you too, but for you to suggest that people who don't share your attitude and feelings share responsibility for what's happened by their attitudes is far beyond the pale.
Cal:
I agree with Joe that it is the predominance of the "but we can't hurt the innocents" attitude that is a key factor in why the radical muslims feel free to do this kind of thing. That's not directed at anyone here; it's just a fairly simple fact.
The point of my response was that I didn't care about their perception of our attitudes.
Government inaction--including reluctance to commit massive human and military resources, security and intelligence lapses, concerns for international diplomacy, economic concerns--is relevant in examining how this might have happened. Vague accusations of wimpy attitudes are not. Actions and attitudes are not the same thing.
You were the one who wasn't "tracking" the attitude discussion, I'm afraid.
"Are you implying that the WTC had more visitors from Maine than from California?" [or words to that effect]
In absolute numbers? Probably not. Per capita? Probably yes.
But, anyway, the more significant factor is that people in Maine, or Pennsylvania, or Florida are more likely to have friends and/or relatives that live in NYC -- and, therefore, to take it personally -- than those in California, or Oregon, or Idaho.
And that was Ronski's point, or at least my understanding of it.
I'm off to bed.
Incidentally, 'fly-by-wire' merely means that electronics instead of hydraulics control an aircraft's flight surfaces.
No, you said you didn't care what they think of us. I quoted it back in the Cafe. I said nothing about their perception of our attitudes. I was discussing the handwringing attitude that has historically been significant enough to prevent us from acting over the past 20 years or so. (Actually, now that I think of it, it probably stems from Vietnam.) It isn't the terrorists perception of that attitude that's an issue, Arky, it's how the dominance of that attitude affects our behavior. Not that this matters, since you finally grasped the issue, it just annoys me when you defiantly rebut something that has nothing to do with the subject. Gets tedious and you do it constantly.
In any event, you've already made your answer to the issue I raised, pathetic though it was--"well, look at Israel, they're tough and they still got troubles, so what good would it do us?" Which is idiotic on many fronts, one of which I've addressed and one that Joe has.
Billions in Claims Expected, but Compensation Could Vary Widely
Hahaha! I wish you could get how hilariously ironic this is.
And you still missed my point about Israel. Your summary is both juvenile and incorrect. Talk about pathetic.
Goodnight and goodnight.
You were right...you are an insenstive jerk!
Absensia - To me, Clowntoon has always been an object of ridicule, and he looks it: a bulbous red-nosed buffoon.
"Without the aid of the (mostly) pissant little
backwater, goat-herding, backasswards countries mentioned earlier, these fuckers would be reduced to chucking rocks."
Many countries are, and that's why they accepted aid from other countries and don't support the US. Joe, you seem to forget, that for many years the US has ignored or spurned these countries unless it needed them.
Now, whoever would spread such hoaxes would be an insensitive asshole.
My humor, OTOH, is quite innocent and even endearing.
Now concerned, dear, who said your humor was innocent and endearing? Hmmmmm?
It turns out that this is the worst terrorist attack in British history, too--they have lost over 100 people.
Anyone else been surprised by the nearly worldwide support of the US?
Britain can't be the only country that lost a lot of lives in the attack, now that I think on it.
I think it's very smart, from a terrorist point of view. People are freaked now, about flying, being in tall buildings. And all the airports are on the highest level of security, while before they were quite lax on security. If the terrorists can pull another attack off, even with all the high security, people will be really really freaked out. For sheer effect on the American psyche, this is the perfect time to strike again.
True. It would be an excellent psychological ploy.
What does he want to happen now?
It looks to me like he is expecting the US to hit Afghanistan very hard, and to try to overthrow the Taliban. The fact that he had their only credible opponent, Massoud, murdered just a couple of days previously, is a good indication of this.
Now, why does he want that?
Militant Islam has been on the decline for the last decade - with the exception of Afghanistan. Here is an opportunity to turn this around. He wants to see the whole of Muslim central Asia coalesce into a jihad against American "aggression".
Your comments in regard to Ben Laden, the Taliban, and Afghanistan, in my opinion, could not be farther from the realities of the moment. The Muslim mentality is one of respect for power and the willingness to use it. If the US decides to eliminate the Taliban, their neighbors, in particular Pakistan, will help the US to accomplish it.
Rather than becoming more militant, militant Islam is more likely to became very docile over the long run. For example, the Taliban have never been in denial to the extent they are at this moment and Ben Laden is making every attempt to distance himself from the bombers. The fact of the matter is, like the Nazis, militant Islam has regarded the US as a paper tiger without the stomach for what is about to happen. Their miscalculation, like that of the leaders of Germany and Japan, has relegated their movement to the pages of history.
I think alistair is right, wrt Osama's intent: this maniac is indeed looking to start the holy war of all holy wars. I don't see that his assessment is too far off from yours. But you're right - it is delusional to think that this will unite Muslims against the Great Satan.
Very soon, they will be scrambling to kiss our ass.
Never forget.
Never forget.
Well, not JUST on homosexuals. On feminists, abortionists, the pagans, the ACLU, People for the American Way, too.
But yeah, he's a real winner.
Yes, you're right. But gays and lesbians are a very particular target. There are gay bashings quite frequently in this country. After Matthew Sullivan, these two clowns pulled back. It seems they are now ready for more Matthew Sullivans. And more physicians being shot to death through their windows.
According to Andrew Sullivan, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have appeared together on TV and blamed this hideous tragedy on gay people.
Maybe they just mean Osama and his men are fags?
Personally, I would have guessed if the religious right wanted to make political capital out of this they would have blamed abortion.
FALWELL GOES BEYOND THE PALE: So far relatively few have used this terrible tragedy for political points. Here is what Jerry Falwell said on the 700 Club: "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way - all of them who have tried to secularize America - I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.'" Pat Robertson concurred: "Well, I totally concur, and the problem is we have adopted their agenda at the highest levels of our government." I cannot express how personally wounded I and so many others are by his attempt to associate many Americans - some of whom were victims of this evil and some of whom were heroes - with the demons who carried it out. It is unspeakably wrong and inappropriate. We are at war. We must stand together or we will fail.
A leading U.S. senator said on Friday there was no connection between airport arrests in New York and the hijackers who smashed into the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon.
``The reports this morning are erroneous over who was arrested, what they had in their possession and why they were arrested,'' said Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
``I have spoken at length with the FBI and the CIA and the truth of the matter is there were no box cutters, there were no knives,'' said Biden in an interview with NBC's ``Today'' show.
- from "Yahoo!" news
It's not an appropriate comment, but it doesn't appear that in general the RR is making their usual targets the focus of blame. Just a cheap shot.
And I agree with Sullivan that now is not the time for our usual in-house squabbling.
Yes, and it was everyone's great hope, late last night, that they would be recovered. But the story is unofficial. Rescue personnel had relayed it to Fox news, on the basis of the fact that they have been able to bang on metal beams and get responses tapped back, and also because one guy trapped in the mall below (on the "second level", wherever that is at this point) had been on a cell phone with his wife for hours. Cops rushed her to the scene.
Hopes seemed pretty high last night--reporters were saying there are whole shops intact below, that people could actually live in there for some time. But then it began to rain, a lot.
No one knows if that's for the best or the worst. On the one hand, it helps mitigate further asbestos exposure; the attendant cooler temperatures also help rescue personnel avoid overheating, and slow the decomposition of corpses. On the other hand, the rain makes recovery attempts tougher. Everything is slippery, and it is feared the dusty debris could turn to extremely heavy mud.
I haven't heard any estimates about how long it will take to reach the survivors, but these EMTs and firefighters are really driven, and tremendously inspiring.
CalGal. She's a schoolteacher.
(And she's right.)
They are neither stupid nor smart; they are engaged in jihad. Just like the kamikazi pilots of Japan, they have committed themselves to destruction of the enemy and we are the ememy. They don't care if we know who they are...they are on a mission from their god.
I have been very jumpy. Last night, long before there were even clouds in the sky, we heard rumbling noises, and saw a flash. It did indeed turn out to be only thunder and lightning, but with the NY airports locked down, I was fearing what it might be.
Would Falwell and Robertson be given the slightest thought if every year, they didn't blame a wholly unrelated catastrophe on gays?
Did not one of these men blame a hurricane on homosexuals a while back?
You can't let dog boy on the set without expecting him to poop on the gaffer.
I think we ought to call a spade a spade: Bin Laden is Saudi Arabian wealthy. I have a feeling he could lose his millions in a minute if the folks back home really wanted him to.
If we are really talking spades here, bin Laden was the 17th son of a reported 50 children sired by his father.
Middle-child syndrome.
And then there's fly-by-light, which involves optical instead of electronic controls.
Fly-by-Light (FBL) technology is the replacement of electronic data transmission, mechanical control linkages, and electronic sensors with optical components and subsystems. Power-by-Wire (PBW) technology is the elimination of hydraulics, variable engine bleed air, and the constant speed drive for power generation through advances in aerospace power system technology. Utilizing FBL/PBW technologies provide lightweight, highly reliable, highly electromagnetically immune fiber optic control systems and all-electric secondary power systems for advanced subsonic civil transport aircraft. Installing these technologies on the aircraft will lower initial acquisition and direct operating costs, reduce weight, and increase aircraft performance and reliability. Specific fuel consumption is also reduced as a result of lower aircraft weight and improved thrust specific fuel consumption obtained by eliminating engine bleed air.
PBW planned to include an airplane Power Management and Distribution (PMAD) System and a starter-generator for a future twin engine, 300 passenger, wide body, civil transport. From this design, a ground test bed was to be fabricated to demonstrate all the functions of the aircraft power system. The PBW technology was also to be integrated with the FBL system in the design, fabrication, and flight demonstration of the aileron electrical actuator on the NASA Boeing 757.
[From a NASA aircraft acquisition proposal involving fly-by-light technology]
bin Laden's father has been smuggling money to him for ten years and should be assassinated.
Bin Laden Primer
The USA deliberately supplied and financed, not the moderate elements in the anti-Soviet resistance in Afghanistan during the 1980s, but the most radical and fanatical. The USA trained Usama bin Ladin. After the Soviets withdrew, Afghanistan dropped off the US radar screen and were left to their own devices. When the Taliban emerged, the US courted them and possibly supplied them through Pakistan -- until the 1998 embassy bombings.
But I suppose ordinary Afghans should be held responsible for the stupidity and shortsightedness of US policies.
Given the circumstances at the time, the US had reason to prefer Iraq to Iran in their war. But how is it that you think we financed or supplied them?
They had plenty of oil money and their weapons were generally Russian.
"But I suppose ordinary Afghans should be held responsible for the stupidity and shortsightedness of US policies."
I agree; they should.
I always find the Arab Apologists amusing. When someone you helped turns against you, should you blame the degenerate betrayers?
Of course not. You should blame yourself.
You've yet to enlighten us as to your recommendations in response to Tuesday's events.
You are my National Security Advisor.
Please share your thoughts, not your Monday-morning quarterback analysis of how we we so short-sighted.
Again, PE finds it incredible that we often attempt to court enemies (hostile and aligned with the Soviets) and turn them into partial allies, or at least neutral parties, by sending them some money and expertise.
And when the degenerate dogs turn on the master feeding them beef, it is, of course, the master's fault.
They're all going to die; they all should die. They will join Allah and they will each have a harem of seventy whores in heaven. Usama bin Laden says so.
We're going to kill them all, and then we're going to heaven to kill their whores, too.
Fuck them. Let the ground run red with degenerate blood. It'll be good for the flowers.
I can see pseudo advising Stalin after Germany invaded during World War II, lecturing him as to his "stupidity and shortsightedness" in cutting a previous deal with the Germans.
Please list the "moderate" Afghanistan groups we should have supported and how we should have supported them.
In rereading yesterday's posts I see that I had lumped you in the massive air strikes and large-scale ground troops crowd; only you were proposing that this be done from carriers. As I am sure you must agree, this would be impractical, and a misuse of the Navy's assets. However, what you were in fact advocating was more in line with what the Navy can do, and I apologise for the misunderstanding.
Marj. Your advocating using these attacks as an excuse to try and disarm hate groups, and attempt to bring about national gun control, is with all respect, silly, and a misuse of resources.
Has anyone heard of a French report that they tipped the FBI on an Algerian national with known experience and connections to Bin Laden who was traveling to the US? This allegedly happened a month ago.
The USA could have chosen to aid the moderate elements in the anti-Soviet resistance. They are not the ones who turned anti-American. Why did the USA deliberately arm and train the known anti-western and anti-American groups?
My point is that the situation Afghanistan finds itself in, is partly (not mostly, but partly) the fault of the USA. The same with Iraq.
The USA tends to make these rather large, usually well-intentioned mistakes which have fateful consequenes for whole peoples; and when something goes wrong, those peoples get the shaft.
"Has anyone heard of a French report that they tipped the FBI on an Algerian national with known experience and connections to Bin Laden who was traveling to the US? "
Only the French have heard of it; I don't believe them.
Several pundits predicted that, after the tragedy, our "allies" would suddenly supply us with tips they should have given us BEFORE. The French's claim of "we told you but you lost it; the dog ate our homework" may turn out to be true, but I suspect it's cover-your-Vichy-French-accomodationist-ass.
I appreciate your concession. I agree that troop transport via carrier group is not the best action. I would much prefer Pakistan to allow us to use territory for military operations. But my plans via the Arabian Sea presume as unilateral and difficult an approach as possible, and despite Pakistan's day-after solidarity, I question whether they will allow for a standing American military presence used as a jumping off point for post-cruise missile/bomb attack mop ups and search-and-destroys.
"The USA tends to make these rather large, usually well-intentioned mistakes which have fateful consequenes for whole peoples; and when something goes wrong, those peoples get the shaft."
Don't blow up American cities. It's a simple rule; I'm surprised that Arabs and Muslims have so much trouble following it.
Apparently it's unfair. Apparently they can't control themselves. "You taught us how to fire a gun; OF COURSE we're going to blow up your cities. What did you expect?"
The suggestion that Arabs and Muslims can't control themselves, and just can't refrain from the occasional act of murder, mayhem, and war, just argues more in favor of their wholesale extermination.
Excuse me. "Extermination" is too charged a word. Let me use the word our defense establishment is using: "extirpation."
Again, PE finds it incredible that we often attempt to court enemies...
No, I don't.
And when the degenerate dogs turn on the master feeding them beef, it is, of course, the master's fault.
Message # 1221
I can see pseudo advising Stalin after Germany invaded during World War II, lecturing him as to his "stupidity and shortsightedness" in cutting a previous deal with the Germans.
Well, given that Stalin cut a deal with the Germans because the allies were too shortsighted about building a united front with the Soviets against Germany.... I don't blame Stalin at all.
Message # 1222
Please list the "moderate" Afghanistan groups we should have supported and how we should have supported them.
There were seven mujahiddin groups. Five of them were nationalists or royalists or moderate Islamists with no anti-western orientation. Two of them were fanatical Islamists. The USA could have supported the former five but it supported the latter two.
I have posted voluminously about Afghanistan in the past. You know nothing about the Soviet war.
US "support" for Iraq mostly consisted of loan guarantees for buying grain, and some technology that was "dual use." Iraq's armaments were almost entirely Soviet and French in origin. The US also reportedly provided satellite info. that assisted Iraqi operations toward the end of the war.
However, the US was also arming Iran (Iran-contra) and not preventing Israel from selling and delivering surplus US-made equipment to Iran (spare parts for F-4s, etc.
In Afghanistan, US support was guided by Pakistan to radical moslem groups at the expense of groups like those run by Massoud.
Is Massoud alive? Dead?
Apparently it's unfair.
Yes, I think it's unfair if a whole nation gets blamed for the actions of a few who had once been nurtured by those against whom the actions were taken.
Don't give me your idiotic parallel with Nazi Germany.
We were against Iran (although we evidently gave supplied them with weapons), but I think it's absurd to somehow portray Saddam as our creature.
PE,
I promise you we won't be making such "well intentioned" mistakes in the near future.
Henceforth, all further mistakes will be badly intentioned, murderously intentioned, bloodily intentioned.
Giving the degenerate fuckers aid, money, medicine, weapons, and training apparently just doesn't work. We will try giving them death, maimings, stillborn children, starvation, dehydration, exposure, and disease.
I am convinced this new tact must work better. It couldn't work worse.
Yes, Pakistan was the one who steered US assistance to the extremists. But the USA knew what the Pakis were doing and let them do it.
US:
No, of course not, we should kill even more Americans, that's the way to make things right! Because everything that goes wrong in the world is America's fault and anybody who kills Americans probably has a good reason to.
Geesh, the self-guilt some people have...
I can't wait for the tens of thousands of refugees swarming to borders, only to be stopped by machine-gun toting Pakistanis, and often shot on sight...
And we will give them no aid. Let them eat their dead.
Testosterone-Soaked Hatemail from
100% Americans who are 'Way More
Pissed Off Than the Rest of Us.
Don't give me your idiotic parallel with Nazi Germany.
Riiiiiight. In what way is it idiotic?
Do you claim that 100% of Germans supported Hitler? Ludicrous! He got only 33% of the vote at his peak, and that during a time of crisis.
So only a smaller percentage actually supported him. And yet we held the german people responsible for the crimes of their madman leader.
Are you fucking claiming, you pompous ignorant apologist, that a lesser percentage of these fanatical raghead swine support the Taliban?
Fuck you and your lies.
Was Massoud an extremist faction? I thought he more of a nationalist, compared to Hekyatmar (spelling?)
The USA knowingly aided the fanatical, rather than the moderate, anti-Soviet groups during the Afghan war. The fanatical groups made impossible any kind of stability after the Soviet withdrawl. The price paid by Afghans for this instability is the Taliban, and, by extension, the extermination you want to visit upon the whole people now for what the Taliban did.
Why? because the CIA et.al. have long supported "stability" in whatever region they are in and have long held the belief that dictators are inherently stable and democracies inherently unstable. Much easier to buy off/control one powerful leader, no matter how insane, than to have to try to control the vagaries of sentiment across political parties.
Why? because american policy has long followed the belief that the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" without regard for the longer term consequences of such actions so we perpetually get in bed with the wrong people because it's expedient, only to find ourselves cleaning up the mess a decade or two later....anyone remember making the world safe from our best buddy Noriega?
Please don't mind me. I'm especially down today. I find myself wearing red white and blue and have a picture on my desk taken last year from Ellis Island in such a way that the flag appears to wave above the twin towers.
My heart aches for every one who lost someone in this terrible attack, and my thoughts go to all whose lives will be forever changed by the events of Tuesday, September 11, 2001.
It is no commendation that you simply jabber on about mistakes made in the past while blithely ignoring a request that you set forth American policy henceforth.
I suppose, however, that playing the game 10 years later is your forte.
Go read another book.
Seems to be working real well with respect to Iraq.
Though I can't produe any documentary proof, It's quite well known a fact that Saddam is a US creation. I think your govt. should tell you more.
OF COURSE there are lots of Afghans who do not suppor the taliban. But there were also lots of Germans who opposed Hitler; lots of Japanese who opposed Tojo; lots of Italians who opposed Mussolini.
Please explain why we can hold German, Japanese, and Italian citizens responsible for the actions of their nations and governments but somehow your precious Muslim Maniacs are always innocent of their nation's actions.
Oh... they're *poor*. They can't *do anything about it.*
Riiiiight, Genius. Tell me what the average German who opposed Hitler could have done about it once Hitler swept away the vestiges of democracy, besides die in a Concentration Camp.
Okay, then.
It works rather well according to Kuwaitis and those under the protection of the no-fly zone and those who may fear having their oil deposits set aflame.
Of course, if Iraq is not a model citizen and containment is not 100%, I suppose it is a collosal failure, as all American policy must inevitably be.
PE back in 1944 (were he Aryan rather than Arabic):
"You can't bomb the German people! You'll be killing Oskar Schindler and all those MILLIONS of 'innocent' germans who just want to make nice-nice!"
Americans have to accept that this will also include some terrorists more acceptable or understandable to them, the "real" IRA, Columbian death squads etc...
Like it or not, we bleed for Eastern European victims of ethnic violence, because they look like us. Africans . . . well, they don't, and they are expected to be savages.
Pseudo unknowingly spouts the similar line with rgeard to Afghans. They are mules. Thus, they should not be held accountable. Whereas, Germany and Italy was loaded more intelligent, willing executioners.
The Nazi analogy is idiotic because the Nazi government was a bureacuratised organisation with a mass party following, whose workings required the compliance, tacit and explicit, of a substantial proportion of the masses.
There is barely a government in Afghanistan, let alone a civil society. The Taliban are not some bureaucratic structure but just a bunch of people in rags with cell phones and radios lording over a population who didn't exactly ever elect them.
Are you fucking claiming, you pompous ignorant apologist, that a lesser percentage of these fanatical raghead swine support the Taliban?
Yes.
Jones:
There is no proof, but you should "know it" anyway.
the reason there's no proof is because your government destroyed the proof.
The fact that their is no proof is just MORE proof of how insidious our government is. If they were less evil, they'd have let SOME proof survive; the total absence of proof proves how systematically, methodically malicious they are.
Message # 1232
Since many "journalists" are not doing the job correctly in verifying info and checking sources before making claims, it means we need to be more careful in checking our own sources. It doesn't mean, however, that all information is wrong. It is quite like information gleaned from the net...some good, some bad.
I agree. When the case is made, I advocate striking eyes-wide open to kill the Taliban and kill their families and neighborhoods.
I need no case to be made against bin Laden and associates. His previous crimes demand his execution, case made on the events of Tuesday or no.
PE back in 1944 (were he Aryan rather than Arabic):
I'm not "Arabic". And Afghans (and Iranians)are Aryans, you idiot. Aryan is a corruption of Iran.
"You can't bomb the German people! You'll be killing Oskar Schindler and all those MILLIONS of 'innocent' germans who just want to make nice-nice!"
Ace, others may be bamboozled by your caricature marathons, but not me.
You are making a false analogy. That's why you can dribble on as you do.
PE:
Once again: 33% of the German people actually supported Hitler, and that in a time of crisis.
It is just total bullshit that a lesser percentage of Afghanis support the Taliban.
You can't take over a country militarily with only 10% of the population behind you.
You may freely take my suggested response and transfer the suggested actions to any government that is tied to Tuesday's attack. For each and any, once the case is made, I advocate the destruction of their governmental and political centers, with specific targeting of the highest levels of those governments and their families (i.e., as was done with Libya in 1985).
I advocate this when the time is most optimum to achieve the maximum results, which may be weeks or even months.
I can wait.
My only surprise is that he hasn't taken Jerry Falwell's position and blamed gays,lesbians and the ACLU for the WTC/Pentagon attack.
PE just continues repeating "Germany is different" without explaining why.
"It's different."
Why?
"It was 'bureaucratized.'"
Who gives a shit about a bureaucracy? Afghanistan is a primative country; they don't have bureaucracy, they don't have airplanes, they don't have 90% of the things a modern state has. Are you suggesting that primativism = innocence or that backwardness = incapable of behaving in a civilized fashion?
And then...
"Less of the Afghans support the Taliban than Germans supported Hitler."
Citation, or mere assertion? No citation of course. Fools like PE constantly tell us that "most" Arabs and Muslims in these backward ass countries "love" America, but oddly enough, enough of them seem to hate us that they can devote substantial parts of their dirt-poor economy into supporting terrorism against us.
It doesn't mean, however, that all information is wrong. It is quite like information gleaned from the net...some good, some bad.
I didn't mean that all information is wrong, just that it is hard to know what to believe until some time has passed and what information we are getting has been proved correct.
Kill the Taliban, their families, and their neighborhoods, and the message to Sudan, Yemen, Iraq, and others becomes a great deal more stark and personal.
Killing a bunch of Afghan civilians just sends the message to terrorist-harboring and sponsoring nations that if you blow up the World Trade Center, you get less mouths to feed.
Not that you'd understand it if you did.
Ah. Now we see-- they're "illiterate" and "disorganized."
I see. Ergo, they are innocent.
Again, they don't build Panzers either. I suppose one could make the case, like you, that they cannot be compared because they don't build Panzers; but that would be idiotic. Again, like you.
You are sports announcer who never played a game in his life.
Other differences:
They don't speak German;
They don't wear -- let's admit it -- cool black uniforms;
They can't be credibly played by Robert Shaw and Robert Duvall in movies;
They didn't invent Oktoberfest;
and they don't wear lederhosen.
As PE can ably demonstrate, they are entirely different. Once can be held accountable (see, inter alia, "The Lederhosen Postulate"), and one can't (they were "rags").
I didn't mean that all information is wrong, just that it is hard to know what to believe until some time has passed and what information we are getting has been proved correct.
Yes, my mistake in making your claim larger than it was. My bad.
My point is simply that I am believing some of what I am seeing/hearing/reading the first time I see/hear/read it because of the source of the information. Much else raises scepticism.
Yes, dear. If we'd only sent bin Laden and Afghanistan more grain and penicillin, the towers would be upright today.
Once = one
were = wear
The Taliban leadership seems to think with a medieval world view, and smashing whatever technology left them is of little importance either. A more medieval response is called for. One that is personal, and apocolyptic.
Francis (Message # 1256)
Pseudo unknowingly spouts the similar line with rgeard to Afghans. They are mules. Thus, they should not be held accountable. Whereas, Germany and Italy was loaded more intelligent, willing executioners.
Afghanistan is a country which was probably 25% literate before the war, one of the poorest countries in the world. Today, almost all educated people are gone. They live in exile.
The idea that Afghanistan is somehow comparable with Germany and Italy beggars belief. It's amazing that someone could believe this.
As for my "Monday morning quarterbacking", well, I have said nothing about Afghanistan which is particularly new. If you ever looked outside the American politics thread or the sex thread, and read Interational, you have seen me say the same things about Afghanistan since the 1998 bombings.
If he was "created" by anyone, it was by the pan-Arabist movement and the Soviet Union. The latter certainly provided him and his followers with arms and training. His intransigent emnity--and geographical distance toward Israel--and his competition with the Shah of Iran, and support for Kurdish rebels against Iran, placed him firmly among the US's enemies until the 1980s.
During the 1980s US policy went from being inimical to being ambiguous.
thoughtful,
Love is the answer.
Make love, not war.
Love works.
Seriously, I think all these problems could be solved if we could just get all the children of the world to join hands and sing a song about hugging and snuggling and caring and sharing.
I'm sure Russian soldiers would like to get paid for a change.
you that the thought that Clinton is tied up in this
terrorist thing somehow has crossed his mind several
times in the last few days, which is more or less all
that needs said about the axis upon which his
ratiocination spins.
Asshole 5 - you cock in mouth lying piece of shit.
Nobody has contributed more useful information and solutions regarding this crisis in this forum than I have.
You wait until well after the fact and enter with unprovoked lies and calumny.
I invite you to go fuck yourself - you're already fucked in the head, rapist lover.
I'm interested in the actions that will most prevent further attacks.
To that end, I disagree with Ace's call for massive and indiscriminate targeting of civilians, not because they may like us, or they may be illiterate, or they may not deserve death.
I just don't see it as effective.
Who gives a shit about a bureaucracy? Afghanistan is a primative country; they don't have bureaucracy, they don't have airplanes, they don't have 90% of the things a modern state has.
Actually, they did have those things until the civil war. That is, they had a bureaucracy and a modern state apparatus. They still have a national air carrier -- Air Aryana!
Are you suggesting that primativism = innocence or that backwardness = incapable of behaving in a civilized fashion?
No, but a country which is 75% illiterate, with few educated people left, and overwhelmingly comprised of peasants, really are not obsessed with politics.
Citation, or mere assertion?
What, you want poll data?
The Taliban had an easy time taking over in their home region (Kandahar), but outside that region they had to fight for the rest of the country, conquer it, inchy by inch, facing determined opposition as it went. That's why it took 2 years and massive Pakistani assistance (and possibly US assistance) to take the country, and it still hasn't crushed the opposition.
Fools like PE constantly tell us that "most" Arabs and Muslims in these backward ass countries "love" America
You're confusing me with someone else. I don't think so at all.
The average Afghan peasant knows nothing about the USA.
Love is the answer. Make love, not war. Love works. Seriously, I think all these problems could be solved if we could just get all the children of the world to join hands and sing a song about hugging and snuggling and caring and sharing.
Ace, this is like your calling Loar a "leftist". Whenever you disagree with someone, he's a leftist. I do not advocate "love". There is something in between love and extermination.
You misunderstand. It is of no help that you've yammered on about something for some time.
Again, what do you suggest as American policy if bin Laden is found to have engineered the attack with the support, cover and assistance of the Afghhan government?
If you cannot answer this question, all your self-serving paens to your service in International Thread will not merit serious consideration of your views.
Tell us that something between "love and extermination".
It can be your first, elementary foray into productive discussion.
Don't be frightened.
As opposed to these gung ho couch soldiers who wish they were Green Berets.
Do the courtesy of replicating in brief the policy you advocate.
I was in the 'Nam.
No wait.
I've eaten Vietnamese food.
No, but a country which is 75% illiterate, with few educated people left, and overwhelmingly comprised of peasants, really are not obsessed with politics.
The dirty pig Palestinians and Egyptian scum are largely (if not overwhelmingly) illiterate, poor, and uneducated, and yet they know enough about "politics" (Politics! Wanting to kill Americans is a "political position!) to sing in the streets and chant "Bullseye, Bullseye!" about the WTC bombing.
Again, your postulate is "uneducated" = "not possessing the brainpower to make a decision on the subject of killing innocent Americans." The three-toothed Egyption semi-retards chanting Bullseye, Bullseye put lie to this idiocy. They are retarded and uneducated, and they know enough of "politics" to know they want Americans killed in great numbers.
Fucking idiot.
You ......,Talibaan don't have the resources to feed themsleves let alone plan such a thing.
PE,
Are you suggesting that the Palestinian and egyptian rabble singing, chanting, and ululating about murdered Americans were all brain-surgeons and captains of industry?
I can only say what I know, which is the Afghan situation.
It is not impossible to go in and overthrow the Taliban, but the USA would only be able to hold the cities, just as the Soviet Union, using methods far more brutal than the USA could ever have the stomach to use, could only hold the cities. The Taliban would be ejected from the cities but would become entrenched in the countryside. And the USA would not be able to pacify it. The opposition Northern Alliance would come out and escalate the civil war.
To be entirely honest my concern is less the incident on Tuesday than how best not to add to the millions of Afghans who have died in the last 23 years.
"support, cover and assistance" no equal "plan."
Ace
How many Afghan civilians do you deem sufficient for death by saturation bombing in order to send the message you want sent?
I don't think that anybody really advocates a mass slaughter of Afghanis. The permanent removal of the Taliban, however, appears to be quite a live option.
I appreciate your inability to suggest American policy.
I don't think you've been reading this thread.
Heh, heh... the eight year old boy, and the obviously-brain-damaged Palestinian woman handing out cake to celebrate murdered Americans, are "educated citizens" who are crafty "students of politics" and thus capable of rendering sober judgment on the difficult issue of bombing American cities.
Fortunately for the Afghanis, they're far too stupid and uneducated to have an opinion on this issue.
Fat retarded Palestinian woman handing out cake = educated, politically-astute trendsetter
Afghanis = do not "rise to the level" of fat retarded Palestinian woman's brainpower and thus have "no opinion" on murdering Americans
The dirty pig Palestinians and Egyptian scum are largely (if not overwhelmingly) illiterate, poor, and uneducated, and yet they know enough about "politics" (Politics! Wanting to kill Americans is a "political position!) to sing in the streets and chant "Bullseye, Bullseye!" about the WTC bombing....The three-toothed Egyption semi-retards chanting Bullseye, Bullseye put lie to this idiocy. They are retarded and uneducated, and they know enough of "politics" to know they want Americans killed in great numbers.
Typical of Ace: nonsensical consistency arguments, followed by caricature dialogues.
Egypt and "Palestine" are much more sophisticated urban societies than Afghanistan. Those Egyptians and Palestinians are most likely quite well educated -- at least better educated than Afghans.
There is a world of difference. But for Ace, there is no difference between an Egyptian and an Afghan.
Again, your postulate is "uneducated" = "not possessing the brainpower to make a decision on the subject of killing innocent Americans."
The average Afghan is concerned with drought, starvation and landmines. The average Afghan is illiterate and barely knows where or what America is.
people are not born with hatred. It's what they see and experience that makes them hate somebody.
How many Afghan civilians do you deem sufficient for death by saturation bombing in order to send the message you want sent?
1) I'm not interested in "sending a message." We have sent messages, and they apparently were not understood. I am interested in a solution to the problem; a final reckoning.
2) As for how many have to die: A lot. A lot a lot. Most of them.
FU,
Given that saturation bombing is safer than surgical strikes and invasion, precisely how many more AMERICAN DEATHS are you willing to countenance to "save" Afghani civilians?
Given that we've already lost more Americans than died in three or four of our wars put together, I'm not sure how many more "free American deaths" you think the Afghanis have on their ledger. It seems to me that their quota of slaughtered Americans is all used up.
on Tuesday than how best not to add to the millions
of Afghans who have died in the last 23 years.
That's pretty obvious. I'm interested in any unique ideas you may have as to why their instincts of self preservation are so completely unsuited to today's world. Have they magnified their lice scratching Bronze Age egos to such an estent that they really believe they will control the destiny of the world from their caves and tents?
How yet resolves the governor of the town?
This is the latest parle we will admit;
Therefore to our best mercy give yourselves;
Or like to men proud of destruction
Defy us to our worst: for, as I am a soldier,
A name that in my thoughts becomes me best,
If I begin the battery once again,
I will not leave the half-achieved Harfleur
Till in her ashes she lie buried.
The gates of mercy shall be all shut up,
And the flesh'd soldier, rough and hard of heart,
In liberty of bloody hand shall range
With conscience wide as hell, mowing like grass
Your fresh