10000. judithathome - 10/13/2001 1:00:54 PM
at least.
10001. mgleason - 10/13/2001 1:01:06 PM
Is it true that POJ is his body double?
10002. don s. - 10/13/2001 1:01:18 PM
*
10003. judithathome - 10/13/2001 1:01:19 PM
:-)
10004. Indiana Jones - 10/13/2001 1:01:20 PM
Crap. One more f and I would have time it right.
10005. Absensia - 10/13/2001 1:01:34 PM
Yes he did!
10006. don s. - 10/13/2001 1:01:58 PM
One more d and you would have spelled it right.
10007. Absensia - 10/13/2001 1:02:03 PM
Grrrrrr
10008. Indiana Jones - 10/13/2001 1:03:59 PM
And Francis thinks I expect too much out of this forum.
Well, I've had my thrill for the day.
10009. judithathome - 10/13/2001 2:51:06 PM
This article looks a little scary:
Officials think al Qaeda has some type of nuclear arms
10010. LohrM - 10/13/2001 3:27:51 PM
Radiological-- i.e., designed to use ordinary high-explosive to scatter radioactive dust. And it's not really likely.
10011. judithathome - 10/13/2001 3:34:59 PM
Some people thought they were too stupid to pull off something like 9/11, too...
10012. AceofSpades - 10/13/2001 3:39:49 PM
Radiological weapons are good terror weapons but not very good actual weapons.
Consider: If you had a pound or so of nuclear material, you could make an actual nuke (in theory). Most likely, these radiological weapons are not made with pounds of uranium then; but a mere two or three ounces.
Now, nobody wants two or three ounces of uranium scattered in NYC. But let's face it, you'd have to be very close to ground zero or very unlucky to get a dangerous amount of uranium in your lungs.
We are bombarded with dangerous radiation every day of our lives. A radiological weapon would be no more dangerous than a bit of steam released from a nuclear power plant. Sure, it sucks, but it's not like we're all going to suddenly keep over from cancer or radiation sickness.
10013. judithathome - 10/13/2001 3:41:34 PM
I don't keep over easily, anyhow. :-)
10014. Indiana Jones - 10/13/2001 6:31:39 PM
Per my earlier post on the terrorists' lack of imagination:
Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda group vowed on Sunday to hit U.S. and British interests in retaliation for U.S.-led strikes against Afghanistan.
In a statement broadcast on Qatar's al-Jazeera television network, Qaeda spokesman Sulaiman Bu Ghaith also warned Americans and Britons, especially Muslims, children and "all those who oppose U.S. policy", not to "ride planes or live in high buildings".
10015. ronski - 10/13/2001 7:01:14 PM
With scores of Muslims dead in the WTC attacks, now he tells them.
10016. jexster - 10/13/2001 7:13:42 PM
Are we on highest alert yet or are we going about our business
10017. jexster - 10/13/2001 7:19:13 PM
10018. arkymalarky - 10/13/2001 7:48:57 PM
Jex,
Both. I almost stepped on a snake (copperhead) today. I think it was planted on our property.
10019. jexster - 10/13/2001 8:40:17 PM
hehehe....must have been don s. bin laden!
Say arky...fine job today over the gamecocks....I couldn't help but notice and laugh at the latest craze among Razorback fans...BUCK TEETH!
10020. jexster - 10/13/2001 8:41:28 PM
Al Jazeera Rocks!
10021. arkymalarky - 10/13/2001 10:35:20 PM
Thanks Jex. Nice change of pace for us from losing. We Arkies are trend setters, that's for sure.
10022. RustlerPike - 10/14/2001 7:20:43 AM
I once saw a 'no arking' sign in Arkansas.
This is not true, of course, but I did once see a very large sign in Hebron which said 'no barking'.
Arabs have a problem with p's and b's.
10023. RustlerPike - 10/14/2001 7:21:10 AM
Or should I say - broblem.
10024. RustlerPike - 10/14/2001 8:28:12 AM
This BBC report is full of coolness.
10025. joezan - 10/14/2001 8:56:13 AM
Our B-2s have to fly over the North Pole to get to Afghanistan?
Wow.
10026. PelleNilsson - 10/14/2001 9:07:49 AM
I've been meaning to ask about the route of the B-2s. I haven't seen any reports that Russia has allowed the use of its air space but I guess it must have.
10027. PelleNilsson - 10/14/2001 9:11:11 AM
Rustler
You may call me Belle, many Arabs did.
10028. Greystoke - 10/14/2001 9:56:27 AM
In listening to the coverage and commentary on the original WTC attack and the subsequent anthrax situations, there is one obvious response that I have not seen seriously advocated -- deport all non-citizens from predominantly Moslem nations who currently reside in the US, and don't let any more in. (Of course we would have to make an exception for diplomats.)
Yes, this would be a drastic measure. And, yes, the vast majority of Moslems in the US are peace loving and America loving individuals ... yada yada yada.
However, it appears all the Al-Qaida operatives involved in the Sept. 11 attacks were in fact non-citizens from Moslem nations. And if there are currently "sleepers" here in the US planning future attacks, they are likely to be in the same situation. So, by deporting this group we would greatly reduce the chances of a future attack, and would likely get rid of the ones who are currently sending out anthrax.
10029. PincherMartin - 10/14/2001 10:07:10 AM
Greystoke,
I agree that your proposal is worth seriously examining.
But keep in mind the last anthrax-laced letter, delivered to Nevada, was postmarked in Malaysia.
10030. joezan - 10/14/2001 10:10:21 AM
Grey:
I agree.
Now, someone will want to say, Well, at least one of these letter attacks came from Malaysia, so...
...but it is much easier to monitor mail coming in from overseas.
10031. joezan - 10/14/2001 10:11:07 AM
Hah! - x-post, Pinch.
10032. Greystoke - 10/14/2001 10:16:03 AM
Pincher
"But keep in mind the last anthrax-laced letter, delivered to Nevada, was postmarked in Malaysia."
What Joe said.
The letter to Tom Brokaw came from New Jersey. And I'll bet my bottom dollar that it was from a non-citizen who came from a predominantly Moslem nation.
10033. PincherMartin - 10/14/2001 10:16:28 AM
Joe,
Under the circumstances, I still have no problem kicking every last Muslim citizen from Algeria to Indonesia out of the United States until they learn to control their crazies.
10034. PincherMartin - 10/14/2001 10:18:51 AM
Greystoke,
I agree your proposal is worth seriously considering.
10035. Greystoke - 10/14/2001 10:24:22 AM
Pincher
I see the deportation proposal not as punishment for the innocent Muslims who failed to "control their crazies", but rather as a national security action to prevent future attacks.
No doubt Al-Qaida would adapt to such a policy by trying to recuit US citizens, or immigrants from non-Moslem nations, to do their dirty work. But it would certainly disrupt any plans that are currently underway for near-future attacks.
10036. judithathome - 10/14/2001 10:32:34 AM
As soon as it is announced we are going to deport people, all hell will break loose and if any who were planning to do anything, they will step up their timetable.
10037. judithathome - 10/14/2001 10:33:21 AM
Delete who from that...
10038. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 10:34:18 AM
Greystoke,
I have considered something along the lines of your proposal. In the end, however, I believe that this would be a mistake. Consider, for example, the possibility that such a policy could deprive us of such interesting characters as pseudoerasmus, who to my understanding is half Pakistani. More profound, though, is the danger of isolating a significant portion of the world's population from the chance of becoming "Americanized" in their outlook on the world. If anything, I think the events of the last month have demonstrated the need to increase understanding of our way of life in the Muslim world. As I have often told my mother-in-law in the past (who frets over the "touristization" of Prague), there is a price to being an open, democratic society. Part of that price is that you risk opening your country to people with dangerous ideas. But as for us, in the long term I honestly believe that this price is counter-balanced by the benefit of exposing people to American institutions and American society.
Nevertheless, I also believe that our immigration has failed us in one important respect: The politics of multiculturalism has led us astray from the duty of, for lack of a better term, "Americanizing" those who come here to seek a new life. This is what we constantly see demonstrated here in Miami, where the identity of Cuban emigres as exiles still takes precedence over their identity as Americans, despite their conservative political leanings. And the naturalization process is a joke; although it seems patriotic to require new citizens to know how many stars and stripes are in the flag, it is worthless information as far as respecting the ideals of our nation and her institutions.
10039. PincherMartin - 10/14/2001 10:37:51 AM
Greystoke,
I see the deportation proposal not as punishment for the innocent Muslims who failed to "control their crazies", but rather as a national security action to prevent future attacks.
What you fail to understand is that once you deport these terrorists, they will continue their acts. If they were in the United States, the U.S. law enforcement agencies would be much more likely to track them down and take them into custody than if they were in a Muslim country.
Perhaps you haven't noticed, but these "innocent" Muslims have given little cooperation with the U.S. authorities. If we send these terrorists abroad, and they continue their attacks on Americans there, do you think you will have an easier time tracking them down?
10040. PincherMartin - 10/14/2001 10:39:41 AM
Judithathome,
In case you haven't noticed, hell is already breaking loose. The question is what are you going to do about?
10041. joezan - 10/14/2001 10:47:19 AM
LC:
Multiculturalism was institutionally adopted as an alternative to assimilation, which had been seen as a failure.
You ask me, everything that was purported as being "wrong" or "failed" in the Melting Pot theory is multiplied exponentially in multiculturalism - the most glaring example of which is the outright refusal of many large immigrant groups to learn the language.
10042. judithathome - 10/14/2001 10:47:21 AM
Pincher...I have no idea what to do about it; I wasn't trying to put a damper on the idea, I was only trying to engage in the discussion.
10043. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 10:48:47 AM
Having said all that, I also recognize that these hijackers were not here on immigrant visas; they entered the country, mostly legally, as students and tourists, as far as I know. And it is also well-known in immigration circles that it is almost impossible to track somebody once they are in the country, and attempting to do so would require vastly increasing the size and powers of an already notoriously incompetent and bumbling federal bureaucracy - the INS. We could try doing what many European democracies do and require foreigners to register their U.S. addresses with local police, but even in Europe this largely depends on the honor system, and is only useful when a foreigner who is suspected of a crime is good enough to remain at his registered address.
Looking at what factors opened the way for the 9-11 attacks to occur, at least three or four significant failures stand out. First, there was obviously a failure to screen these guys when they were issued their student visas by the U.S. consulates or embassies abroad. Then there was the failure of cross-checking them at the point of entry, and the failure of their schools in the U.S. to report that they were not attending classes (or if they did report it, the INS should have had a standing policy to focus enforcement efforts on holders of student visas who "skip out" on attending college).
(Cont'd)
10044. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 10:49:06 AM
Finally, there was the failure of airport/airline security. This is a very thorny problem which, I have concluded, can only be ultimately resolved by allowing pilots to be trained and licensed to carry guns, and also by allowing law enforcement officers and perhaps specially licensed citizens to also carry weapons on board. Even the most professional airport screeners are not going to prevent every potential weapon from getting onboard, and to suggest that this is even possible would be a fraud on the public. No, I have concluded that, if the pilots had been armed on those flights, the hijackers probably wouldn't have even bothered to try. That's why I support the bill currently pending in the House that would allow pilots to arm themselves. People have got to get over their "guns are scary" paranoia and realize that most pilots have military experience in the first place, and should be counted on to behave professionally with a gun if they can be trusted to fly a $100 million airplane with hundreds of people aboard.
10045. PincherMartin - 10/14/2001 10:52:08 AM
LadyChaos,
I have considered something along the lines of your proposal. In the end, however, I believe that this would be a mistake. Consider, for example, the possibility that such a policy could deprive us of such interesting characters as pseudoerasmus, who to my understanding is half Pakistani.
That would really be a shame, but you can't be serious in this moral calculus: lose an interesting character that you interact with online or stop an act that could potentially kill thousands of civilians.
Besides PE can post from overseas. Since he has made it clear that he intends to leave the United States as soon as possible, the only difference for both the U.S. and for himself would be the inconvenience he suffers by perhaps having to leave it a few months early.
More profound, though, is the danger of isolating a significant portion of the world's population from the chance of becoming "Americanized" in their outlook on the world. If anything, I think the events of the last month have demonstrated the need to increase understanding of our way of life in the Muslim world. As I have often told my mother-in-law in the past (who frets over the "touristization" of Prague), there is a price to being an open, democratic society. Part of that price is that you risk opening your country to people with dangerous ideas. But as for us, in the long term I honestly believe that this price is counter-balanced by the benefit of exposing people to American institutions and American society.
Well, this is a more serious argument, but I still say that until we get the threat under control, it has to be an option we look at seriously. Of course, it wouldn't be a permament measure, which is why I told Greystoke it would be "until they get their crazies under control," that is, until we get more cooperation from Muslim countries on policing these organizations in their countries.
10046. PincherMartin - 10/14/2001 10:56:34 AM
Nevertheless, I also believe that our immigration has failed us in one important respect: The politics of multiculturalism has led us astray from the duty of, for lack of a better term, "Americanizing" those who come here to seek a new life. This is what we constantly see demonstrated here in Miami, where the identity of Cuban emigres as exiles still takes precedence over their identity as Americans, despite their conservative political leanings. And the naturalization process is a joke; although it seems patriotic to require new citizens to know how many stars and stripes are in the flag, it is worthless information as far as respecting the ideals of our nation and her institutions.
You're leaving out the information that many --perhaps most -- of these people come in on visas that have nothing to do with putting them on the fast track to Americanization.
10047. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 10:57:58 AM
until we get more cooperation from Muslim countries on policing these organizations in their countries.
I'm afraid that, as soon as we have taken care of Al-Quaeda, we will have to give them the phyrric victory of ending our support for Saudi Arabia and the Mubarak regime, because they have chosen to resolve their own problems with Islamic extremism by allowing their crazies to vent against us. This is hardly the behavior that we should expect from allies. I would think that marginally democratic fundamentalist regime that mostly keeps to itself would be preferable to what we have now in our Arab "allies." Besides, our policy toward the Saudis is premised on the ludicrous notion that, if somebody else is in charge, they might shut off the spigot to Arab oil. The global oil picture has changed significantly from the early 70s, and whoever is in control of Arab oil would hurt themselves more than us by instituting an embargo.
10048. PincherMartin - 10/14/2001 10:59:01 AM
Judith,
Okay, sorry if I sniped at you.
10049. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 10:59:37 AM
Pincher,
See Message # 10043, etc.
10050. pseudoerasmus - 10/14/2001 11:00:30 AM
I have UK citizenship.
10051. PincherMartin - 10/14/2001 11:02:57 AM
I'm afraid that, as soon as we have taken care of Al-Quaeda, we will have to give them the phyrric victory of ending our support for Saudi Arabia and the Mubarak regime, because they have chosen to resolve their own problems with Islamic extremism by allowing their crazies to vent against us.
Well, I'm all for it. I have had a sea change in my attitude towards the Saudi regime since 9-11.
10052. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 11:03:30 AM
Did PE really say that he wants to get out of America asap? Where does he want to go, Peshawar?
I suspect that he would much rather return to Switzerland, or London. I can't imagine him being happy amongst the equivocating French, though.
Btw, has he reported on his journey to Peshawar? I understood that he was to go there for an uncle's funeral.
10053. Greystoke - 10/14/2001 11:03:51 AM
LadyChaos
As Pincher said, this would be a temporary measure to prevent near-future attacks. If we are able to develop better screening and tracking mechanisms for non-citizens, we could allow visitors from Moslem nations in the future.
Judith
"As soon as it is announced we are going to deport people, all hell will break loose and if any who were planning to do anything, they will step up their timetable."
If that is a prediction, then I agree that could happen.
If that is intended as an argument against deportation, then I don't understand. If the attack is going to occur, what difference does it make whether its sooner or later ?
10054. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 11:04:25 AM
Aha. There he is.
Greetings, PE. How goes it?
10055. PincherMartin - 10/14/2001 11:04:41 AM
I have UK citizenship.
Well that solves it for me; let's begin deporting as soon as possible.
10056. Greystoke - 10/14/2001 11:07:03 AM
pseudoerasmus
"I have UK citizenship."
OK. You can stay.
Until the UK becomes a predominantly Moslem nation.
10057. judithathome - 10/14/2001 11:07:34 AM
Pincher, thank you.
Do you think the media is contributing to a sense of panic by focusing on this anthrax scare too much? I mean, if they are this gungho on 4 or 5 cases, what will happen if something much more serious occurs like smallpox which can spread from person to person like wildfire?
I think it's important to keep the public as calm as possible because we're going to need our wits about us if anything like smallpox is set loose...and yet, I also want the public to be as imformed as possible about the dangers they may be facing. Because I think the Bush people saying go on about your lives is fine but I wish they would stress more about the serious need to be more vigilant.
10058. judithathome - 10/14/2001 11:10:21 AM
Greystoke:
If that is intended as an argument against deportation
As I have explained already, it was not intended as an argument against, it was merely to engage in the discussion.
10059. PincherMartin - 10/14/2001 11:10:23 AM
LadyChaos,
I don't see anything I disagree with in your 10043 and 10044, but you do seem to be fighting the last war with your measures for arming pilots, etc.
If these Anthrax attacks are Bin Laden-inspired, which appears more and more likely, then it's obvious that the group has thought of numerous measures beyond using jet-liners for attacking civilians targets. Their proximity to civlians in the U.S. gives them richer targets to hit than if they were deported in mass.
10060. Greystoke - 10/14/2001 11:11:22 AM
Pincher
"What you fail to understand is that once you deport these terrorists, they will continue their acts. If they were in the United States, the U.S. law enforcement agencies would be much more likely to track them down and take them into custody than if they were in a Muslim country."
My goal is to prevent attacks inside the US. What the terrorists do outside our country is still a concern, but largely beyond our control.
Are you saying that because US intelligence / law enforcement did such a great job of preventing the Sept. 11 attacks that we can depend on them to prevent future attacks by terrorists residing in the US ?
10061. Greystoke - 10/14/2001 11:13:20 AM
Judith
"As I have explained already, it was not intended as an argument against, it was merely to engage in the discussion."
That's fine. I was just seeking clarification.
10062. PincherMartin - 10/14/2001 11:21:24 AM
Judith,
Do you think the media is contributing to a sense of panic by focusing on this anthrax scare too much? I mean, if they are this gungho on 4 or 5 cases, what will happen if something much more serious occurs like smallpox which can spread from person to person like wildfire?
I think that the use of Anthrax in a few letters in the post 9-11 environment is worthy of all the media attention it has been given.
I also think that if a serious epidemic broke out then the panic would probably be both inevitable and understandable. These extreme type of attacks are worthy of extreme, even excessive responses.
I think it's important to keep the public as calm as possible because we're going to need our wits about us if anything like smallpox is set loose
If smallpox breaks loose, then your wits ought to be telling you to do everything in extremis: don't go out in public places, carefully monitor everything coming into your house, go to carefully controlled places for food, etc.
...and yet, I also want the public to be as imformed as possible about the dangers they may be facing. Because I think the Bush people saying go on about your lives is fine but I wish they would stress more about the serious need to be more vigilant.
Well, it's a tough balance: on the one hand you don't want to give the terrorists too much respect, because it validates their tactics. But on the other hand, you want a vigilant and responsible public. Tough call at this stage.
Bu it wouldn't be if smallpox broke out.
10063. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 11:21:40 AM
A lot of our government's failure to protect us from terrorism has arisen from a failure to think like terrorists. One looming failure is this nonsense about missile defense. The ultimate wet dream for a guy like Bin Laden is, of course, to detonate a nuclear device in a major American city. If I were Bin Laden, I would have focused a great deal of energy on trying to get my hands on a crude nuclear bomb. Indeed, he has announced this as one of his purposes. But once they get ahold of a nuke, an organization like Al-Quaeda or a terrorist state is unlikely to then spend the hundreds of billions of dollars required to develop an ICBM to lob at the U.S. They are neither so patient nor so rich, and they have demonstrated that an important aspect of their m.o. is to leave as little evidence as possible. If I were Bin Laden, and I had a crude nuke, I would arrange to have it placed in a shipping container in the hold or on the deck of a vessel bound for a major port in the U.S. And there is no shortage of available vessels for doing this. In the week after 9/11, my law firm had to arrest a vessel in the Port of Miami that turned out to be owned by the Egyptian government and to have an all-Egyptian crew. There is no way the Coast Guard or customs can screen every container that comes into the country (if they could, we would have a lot less cocaine on the streets). Missile defense is a fraud, a white elephant waiting to be gestated, and our politicians should stop disinforming the public that such a system could ever be useful.
10064. judithathome - 10/14/2001 11:22:04 AM
Grey:
That's okay...I may be a tad touchy because I've been mislabeled as an apologist for the terrorists by a few on this thread simply because I suggested doing what Colin Powell eventually did.
10065. Greystoke - 10/14/2001 11:25:18 AM
Judith
"I've been mislabeled as an apologist for the terrorists."
Hey, someone has to present their point of view.
Just kidding.
10066. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 11:29:18 AM
Btw, for those of you who may not live near a port city, a cargo container is a 40-foot long metal box, although they also come in the 20-foot variety. One can get a sense of the scope of the problem there just passing by the Port of Miami, where you can glance across the waterway and see the containers piled four stories high.
10067. judithathome - 10/14/2001 11:29:24 AM
My son is an adult now and since I really haven't paid attention to many children starting school these days, I have a question...are kids still required to have smallpox vaccinations these days like they were when we and our adult children were starting school?
10068. judithathome - 10/14/2001 11:31:02 AM
LadyC:
My husband is in the moving business and he has speculated the same thing...shipments of household goods in containers come into this country every day from overseas.
10069. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 11:31:33 AM
Perhaps one way to secure our ports would be to pass legislation to revive the American Merchant Marine. Ever since Congress made it economically unfeasible to operate an American-flagged vessel, we have gone from having the largest maritime fleet in the world to having virtually none.
10070. PincherMartin - 10/14/2001 11:32:37 AM
Greystoke,
Are you saying that because US intelligence / law enforcement did such a great job of preventing the Sept. 11 attacks that we can depend on them to prevent future attacks by terrorists residing in the US?
Oh, I think it's a given that the intelligence services have never been more alert and on top of the situation in their entire histories, than they have been in the post 9-11 environment. Every non-citizen Muslim man in the U.S. between 20 and 45 probably has a bug in his beard and a camara in his Koran right now.
But the U.S. agencies working on these cases would be seriously handicapped, both in finding out the entire scope of the terrorist's operations and in foiling future attacks, if we sent the entire demographic group the terrorists belong to back overseas.
Yes, sending them overseas gives them less access to rich targets of numerous Americans, but I think it's a tougher call than you suggest. I would hate to have some important terrorists leaders in our grip, and under our surveillance, only to ruin our chances at getting at more of these bastards by sending them overseas.
10071. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 11:36:21 AM
Judith,
I have yet to hear a sensible answer to my scenario in Message # 10063 from NMD advocates.
10072. judithathome - 10/14/2001 11:40:47 AM
have yet to hear a sensible answer to my scenario in Message # 10063 from NMD advocates.
I doubt you will because there is none.
10073. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 11:41:50 AM
Re: Message # 10063,
Hell, for that matter, you wouldn't even have to use a shipping container. There are several shipping companies that ship private yachts as on-deck cargo from the Mediterranean, and I know for a fact that these vessels are not inspected whatsoever (except perhaps to check that the fuel tanks have been either capped or emptied). It would be a cinch to have one of these delivered water-to-water, and have it dropped right at the mouth of the Miami River. From there, it would be easy to chug up right next to one of the most densely populated areas south of D.C.
10074. judithathome - 10/14/2001 11:46:09 AM
If these containers had fake household goods in them, they could be trucked to anyplace in the country...how many moving company vans do you see on the road daily?
10075. Andonly - 10/14/2001 12:03:09 PM
"We could try doing what many European democracies do and require foreigners to register their U.S. addresses with local police, but even in Europe this largely depends on the honor system, and is only useful when a foreigner who is suspected of a crime is good enough to remain at his registered address."
I can immediately see a way around this problem. It involves some sort of certification process by which real estate owners could be assured that they were selling or renting to foreigners known to the state. Compliance could be assured via threat of federal prosecution of the property owners, on whom it would be legally incumbent to determine that their foreign clients had registered with police/FBI. The private sector could be involved: the equivalent of title companies would provide real estate owners with researched assurance that prospective renters/buyers checked out with local and national law enforcement. The cost would be born by the foreign student/visitor, or his sponsors.
10076. judithathome - 10/14/2001 12:08:41 PM
They would have to lift the non-discrimination laws on realtors first. They can be sued for any type of discrimination now.
10077. PincherMartin - 10/14/2001 12:12:37 PM
LadyChaos,
I've been amazed at how many people have looked at the events surrounding 9-11, and read into it a sign that their political agenda is correct.
Those who were for a strong U.S. alliance with Israel, say they have been proven right by these events: that the Israelis are the only civilized group in that region.
Those who have been against the strong U.S. relationship with Israel have also been equally validated in their opinion.
NMD proponents suggest that the insaneness surrounding 9-11 shows there are some people in the world willing to do anything to hurt the U.S., and so mutually assured destruction no longer applies.
Those against NMD point to the destruction caused by terrorists and say this shows that someone can harm the U.S., by working secretly inside the states, as much as they could by lobbing a missile at the U.S. from outside.
Those inclined to pacifism say that 9-11 shows the Gulf War was a failure, and that military force never works (blowback, they say).
Those for military force point at the weak and ineffective response by Clinton towards terrorist attacks during his tenure and say this shows that you need to have a more forceful and decisive response to these kinds of attacks.
Andoly, bless her heart, thinks it shows that SUVs have to go, so as to lessen U.S. dependence on Middle East oil.
Basically, the events surrounding 9-11 become a gestalt for a person's political views. I've been amazed at how many people have come out of the woodwork to assure me they knew this was coming. I've also been equally amazed at how little it has changed anyone's views on the matters dear to their heart.
10078. PincherMartin - 10/14/2001 12:14:10 PM
continued ...
But I'll admit, here and now, that 9-11 has changed a few views of mine in almost radical ways.
Before 9-11, I would have argued, and indeed did argue several times in this very forum, that terrorism would never be a effective use of force.
In the same vein, I also argued that effective bio/chemical terrorism, radiological terrorism, and other advanced forms of terrorism were beyond the kin of even the most advanced terrorist group ... that a terrorist with several guns or a truck ful of fertilizer could kill just as many if not more than someone armed with chemical or biological weapons.
I also believed in accomadation with the repressive regimes in the Middle East, so long as we reached an understanding of sorts.
Those beliefs of mine, well-thought out and in most cases backed up with credible sources, bit the dust on 9-11.
But one belief of mine which hasn't chnaged is the idea that the U.S. will need missile defense of some sort in the future. One type of threat to the U.S. does not preclude another, and given the fast development by many regimes hostile to us to develop these long-range missiles, I want to have both secure harbors and airports as well as missile defense.
10079. PincherMartin - 10/14/2001 12:17:40 PM
In the spirit of my last two posts, I hope to hear ways that other people here have not been confirmed in their previous thinking by what happened on 9-11.
It gets a little tiresome to hear someone say, "yes, this just goes to show that I was right all along."
10080. Andonly - 10/14/2001 12:32:18 PM
"Besides, our policy toward the Saudis is premised on the ludicrous notion that, if somebody else is in charge, they might shut off the spigot to Arab oil. The global oil picture has changed significantly from the early 70s, and whoever is in control of Arab oil would hurt themselves more than us by instituting an embargo."
Is there any doubt that a fundamentalist takeover of Arabia would not hesitate to cut off its nose to spite its face? These people are ideologues, not economists.
Moreover, the issue isn't just the supply of oil but the amount of investments in oil development that western countries currently have in Saudi Arabia. And proposed investments--the west has committed to about $100 billion in oil investments in Saudi over the next 20 years. At $3.5 billion, our good friend Britain currently is the second largest investor in SA, plus it has 90+ joint British-Saudi ventures. How far would the US go toward anti-Saudi policies that would wind up putting the UK in the hot seat?
And of course we're not so philanthropic as to be worried about England alone. We've got our own interests. SA is the biggest mideast market for US products, including weapons and probably agricultural stuff; we are their primary trading partner.
Would that apple cart remain upright if the Wahhabi clerics ousted the House of Saud & formally took over? I'm guessing a lot of apples would sure fall. A key objective of people with bin Laden's mindset is to punish western power, so I think it silly to assume they wouldn't stoop to attempting to bring about another world-wide economic tumble as Saudi and Egypt did with the first oil shock.
They'd do it even if their own people starved as a consequence. After all, the serfs would be suffering for a holy cause.
10081. desertlily - 10/14/2001 12:34:32 PM
PincherMartin - and what's your own explanation regarding the cause of 911?
10082. CalGal - 10/14/2001 12:37:08 PM
Well, 9-11 only served to prove two views I've held for the past ten or fifteen years, but since neither of them are political (much) I figure I can be forgiven.
10083. judithathome - 10/14/2001 12:39:30 PM
I was never one that thought "it could never happen here" and I will admit, seeing it happen in real time shook me to my bones. I wasn't a supporter of the VietNam war and I thought the Gulf war was more for oil than a defense of people we wanted to aid but I was for serious retaliation and deadly force against those who did this from about 9:45am on September 11 and it surprised me. I did feel we needed to wait to strike until we knew exactly who we were striking but other than that, I found myself in support of a war. (Despite what some here have implied my feelings were...)
So I think this event has changed what my natural inclination seems to have been in the past which was to avoid war. I no longer think that is an option...my world view has changed dramatically so I could never claim I was right all along. I guess I was naive all along.
10084. PincherMartin - 10/14/2001 12:40:03 PM
DesertLily,
I think there is a virulent strain of Islam that finds the notion of a powerful infidel country that interferes in the affairs of Muslims too much to bear.
10085. Andonly - 10/14/2001 12:41:09 PM
"Andoly, bless her heart, thinks it shows that SUVs have to go, so as to lessen U.S. dependence on Middle East oil.'
Pincher, isn't your historically pro-SUV view (implying unchecked US oil consumption in the US is not a political problem) unchanged in the wake of 9-11?
The direction of investment has to change. We can enagage in all sorts of trade as long as it doesn't contribute to a dependency on despots that becomes intractable. Energy dependency is a fundamental thing.
If you want to drive an SUV, fine, but it's got to be a hybrid.
10086. desertlily - 10/14/2001 12:41:14 PM
I have none.
10087. dusty - 10/14/2001 12:42:18 PM
CalGal!
Been wondering where you were.
10088. desertlily - 10/14/2001 12:43:58 PM
I meant to say "I have no explanation for 911" ----not that I don't have a SUV, words that appeared above my last post, ha, ha.
10089. CalGal - 10/14/2001 12:44:14 PM
Hi, Dusty. Nice to see you.
10090. desertlily - 10/14/2001 12:46:04 PM
So PincherMartin - did you think that before 911 too, or have you changed your views since then?
10091. desertlily - 10/14/2001 12:51:14 PM
By the way...I never did understand that national SUV-hate. I figured it got spread around in the same way that Microsoft-hate did, which was via.........does anybody know?
10092. judithathome - 10/14/2001 12:54:12 PM
I think SUV hate got spread around by us sports car drivers who can't see over the damned things.
10093. PincherMartin - 10/14/2001 12:57:20 PM
Andoly,
Pincher, isn't your historically pro-SUV view (implying unchecked US oil consumption in the US is not a political problem) unchanged in the wake of 9-11?
The direction of investment has to change. We can enagage in all sorts of trade as long as it doesn't contribute to a dependency on despots that becomes intractable. Energy dependency is a fundamental thing.
If you want to drive an SUV, fine, but it's got to be a hybrid.
I just don't see the West's (including Japan) energy dependence on the Third World changing anytime soon, and I don't see how banning SUVs would make a difference in and of itself. If that proposal would make a difference, then yes I would probably be for it.
One major problem you haven't considered is that Europeans and Japanese are both much more dependent on Middle East oil than the U.S. is, and they don't drive SUVs in significant numbers.
So even if banning SUVs would make a difference in the U.S., that still leaves the country with two major trade partners, ones we are economically dependent on, who would still be dependent on Middle East oil.
Like it or not, the developed world is dependent on Third World oil.
10094. PincherMartin - 10/14/2001 1:09:41 PM
Hello CalGal
DesertLily,
So PincherMartin - did you think that before 911 too, or have you changed your views since then?
No, that part has not changed, but I never considered them a serious threat before. I mean everyone knew that they might blow up a plane or a cafe, but I never thought their organizational ability went much beyond that.
When you read about how fumblefingered the Aum Shinryko Cult was in its biological and chemical attacks, you'll have a better appreciation of what I mean. And this was the best-educated and best-financed terrorist group around. It seemed likely given this that only a state could pull off an attack of this magnitude. Some scholars of terrorism actually said as much (much to their current embarrassment).
Now I know better. While the 9-11 attacks did not use chemical and biological weapons, they were equally impressive in how well-organized and planned they were. After this, I don't think anyone will ever underestimate terrorists again. I know I won't.
10095. CalGal - 10/14/2001 1:14:02 PM
Hi back, but you didn't answer my post. I am most devastated.
BTW, has anyone given serious thought to how an Arab terrorist would hide in the country these days? If they aren't calling themselves Jose, Fernando, and Jesus I'd be most surprised. Where better for an oliveskinned terrorist to hide out than in our biggest group of "good" illegals?
Why the feds aren't rousting all illegals is more than I can figure, really.
10096. PincherMartin - 10/14/2001 1:15:01 PM
Good night.
I hope to read someone honestly answer my question of how 9-11 changed a political view they held.
10097. Greystoke - 10/14/2001 1:16:15 PM
CalGal
"The problem with Grey's proposal is that it focuses on countries, which surely won't do."
I think it would work just fine. Do you agree that the 9/11 hijackers and their co-conspirators identified so far were all from predominantly Moslem nations ? Then if we kicked out all non-citizens from those nations, isn't it likely that we would get rid of most of the Al-Qaida operatives in this country ? (Of course I realize that the terrorists wouldn't all go willingly, but we could hunt down the ones who remained.)
"Step 1, deport all illegals, regardless of country of origin.
Step 2, put severe travel restrictions on people coming here on temporary visas, and require all people here on student or business visas to have permission from their sponsor.
Step 3, along Andonly's lines but further, restrict the ability of those in the country temporarily or permanently to rent or purchase anything other than disposables."
I agree with your proposals. But I still think deporting those non-citizens who are here legally based on country of origin is a good idea, also.
10098. PincherMartin - 10/14/2001 1:16:58 PM
Sorry. It's almost one thirty in the morning here and I'm beat.
Try me again next time.
10099. Erin R. - 10/14/2001 1:17:05 PM
I know that many folks have been arrested already, a couple hundred at least is my recollection.
I dont't know that hiding among Mexicans would work all that well.
10100. CalGal - 10/14/2001 1:18:05 PM
Pincher--but I did answer your question, the one you just said you'd like for someone to answer. I was joking about the devastation part, though.
10101. Greystoke - 10/14/2001 1:19:00 PM
pincher
"I hope to read someone honestly answer my question of how 9-11 changed a political view they held."
The main change in my views is that previously I cared nothing about what happened in other countries, while now I care to the extent that we make the bastards pay for what they did on 9/11 and prevent future attacks on American soil.
10102. judithathome - 10/14/2001 1:24:38 PM
I hope to read someone honestly answer my question of how 9-11 changed a political view they held.
I did answer your question and very soon after you asked it, too.
10103. CalGal - 10/14/2001 1:28:22 PM
Grey,
No need to deport them if you basically castrate them. If someone from Pakistan, Sweden, or Germany has an H1B visa and a legitimate job, let them stay. But they can't rent an apartment without approval from their employer, they can't get on a plane without permission of their employer, and the moment their job ends, their apartment complex gives them 30 days and they can only get on a plane to leave the country.
Then if we kicked out all non-citizens from those nations, isn't it likely that we would get rid of most of the Al-Qaida operatives in this country ?
The majority were here illegally, I believe (only 6 of 19 legally and on joke student visas, I think?). And all the terrorists would have to do is get fraudulent ids--or disappear completely and pretend to be illegals from another country (eg, Mexico).
So no, it wouldn't get rid of anyone reliably. My objection to getting rid of people on basis of country isn't a concern for their rights, it's just that it will reduce the scrutiny of people from other countries, where the terrorists will naturally turn to next.
Also, remember that many of the people who are here "legally" are here on a student or business visa and can't be found. In fact, I've always thought it mildly unfair that the attack was viewed as an intelligence failure. The CIA notified the FBI, the FBI checked up with the INS, the INS said "hey, they're at the Marriot hotel, we think." That's an immigration failure, not an intelligence one.
So we'll only be able to nail down the people who are here on H1B visas, who are probably the least likely to include terrorists, and the people who are actually going to school and findable which again makes them unlikely to be terrorists.
No, I'd start with the people who are here illegally, no matter what country, and make it impossible for them to live here, travel, or make a purchase of any kind.
10104. arkymalarky - 10/14/2001 1:30:09 PM
Erin,
Around 700 have been arrested or detained and they're looking for about 190 more.
Arabs look nothing like Mexicans or any other Hispanics.
Nice to know y'all elected to let PE stay in the country if he wanted. Mighty white of you.
10105. CalGal - 10/14/2001 1:31:13 PM
Brooklyn Boy Predicts the WTC Attack and this one, for a change, isn't an urban myth.
There are only three possibilities. One, the youth was clairvoyant. Two, the youth, knowing about the 1993 bombing, was just venting anger in a particularly timely way. Three, word of the attack on the World Trade Center was rumored in his neighborhood and he heard about it.
Sorry if this has been posted.
10106. arkymalarky - 10/14/2001 1:31:52 PM
Well, not nothing like. They have dark hair and eyes and skin.
Oh no. I do too.
10107. CalGal - 10/14/2001 1:32:26 PM
Arabs look nothing like Mexicans or any other Hispanics.
Arabs look nothing like Sikhs or Indians, either. Have you noticed this making a difference to Whitey?
Me, neither.
10108. arkymalarky - 10/14/2001 1:34:19 PM
They weren't trying to hide out in the middle of a bunch of Hispanics.
10109. jexster - 10/14/2001 1:35:35 PM
10110. Erin R. - 10/14/2001 1:36:40 PM
I have been told that I could easily pass for a Saudi, and I am 100 percent non-Arab.
Your point is correct, though: look for illegals in those communities where they would look more like the population.
10111. desertlily - 10/14/2001 1:38:38 PM
I wonder if people will ever understand that calling someone "whitey" is as racist as calling someone "nigger", "kike", etc., ad nauseum?
10112. desertlily - 10/14/2001 1:45:01 PM
If it's 1AM for you, PincherMartin - where are you, Indonesia?
Your question made me realize that I did have a theory and that not only didn't I discard it after 911, but it got amplified while I re-discovered it, just now.
I'm not writing it down here beause I first need to think it through and see if it holds up if I challenge it myself :-)
10113. CalGal - 10/14/2001 1:45:16 PM
Desert,
That was the point.
They weren't trying to hide out in the middle of a bunch of Hispanics.
Exactly. So if you were an oliveskinned Arab and noticed that anyone from the middle or central part of Asia was being subjected to extra scrutiny, why not move to North Carolina, get a driver's license and checking account under the name of Jose Colon, move into a community of mostly illegals, and look furtive whenever anyone asks you your name?
10114. jexster - 10/14/2001 1:45:39 PM
In the years prior to the Big One, WWII, Europeans were mezmerized by fear of ariel bombing...BUT that fear was short-lived
PESHAWAR, Pakistan --As American bombs slammed into Afghanistan for a seventh day Saturday, fighters of the ruling Taliban have taken cover in the mountains or in heavily populated urban areas, according to refugees and the extensive military intelligence network here in neighboring Pakistan.
In fact, city centers are sufficiently tranquil that large numbers of regular Taliban have brought their small arms with them, these sources say.
However, many Afghans fleeing to this border town--most of them ethnic Pushtuns, the same ethnic group that makes up the majority of the Taliban--also say the attacks have strengthened, not weakened, internal support for the regime.
Always Does
10115. CalGal - 10/14/2001 1:46:38 PM
Erin--hey, when did you go back to being Erin? Was I gone that long?
I don't think you could pass for Saudi at all. But you could certainly pass for Egyptian.
10116. Erin R. - 10/14/2001 1:55:27 PM
My husband's Saudi friends seemed to think I could pass for one. A former boss of mine is white and has three biracial (African-American) daughters. Her daughters are scrutinized by security whenever they travel overseas.
I can't seem to find my password for the "racehorse" moniker.
10117. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 1:57:40 PM
I can immediately see a way around this problem. It involves some sort of certification process by which real estate owners could be assured that they were selling or renting to foreigners known to the state. Compliance could be assured via threat of federal prosecution of the property owners.... The cost would be born by the foreign student/visitor, or his sponsors.
I'm afraid that this would raise equal protection issues that would drive our courts crazy.
Pincher,
You haven't addressed the central issue, which is how NMD would really make us any safer. Do you really think that, if we had such a system in place, that we would have the luxury of relying on it? Do you think that if someone like Hussein had a nuclear ICBM, that we would say, "Go ahead and fire away?"
No, I don't think so. In the end, we would have to rely on all the other things that prevent states from launching nuclear attacks, national survival being the primary motivating factor. Saddam may be crazy, but he's not stupid.
10118. CalGal - 10/14/2001 2:00:28 PM
I'm afraid that this would raise equal protection issues that would drive our courts crazy.
Why? We don't owe non-citizens equal access.
10119. mgleason - 10/14/2001 2:02:38 PM
I don't know what it will take to convince people that there are 'Hispanics' in all shapes, sizes, colors, and ethnicities. Before the revolution, for example, there was a sizable Lebanese contingent in Cuba, inexplicably called Polacos (Poles).
10120. don s. - 10/14/2001 2:03:56 PM
mgleason, you mean you can't ID them by their sombreros?
10121. CalGal - 10/14/2001 2:06:49 PM
Erin,
When I lived in Saudi Arabia, I was surprised to discover that most of the people living there weren't Saudis, but from some other Arab country, and that every darkskinned Arab I met was from one of those. I've never met a darkskinned Saudi, or even heard of one. But I wouldn't consider myself an expert, there might be a whole 'nuther appearance type I'm unfamiliar with.
It's also possible that you have lighter skin than my memory filed away, which sounds odd but I imagine you know what I mean.
10122. mgleason - 10/14/2001 2:07:05 PM
Well, yeah, Don, but you need a secret decoder ring for the various sombreros.
10123. Erin R. - 10/14/2001 2:07:11 PM
Hispanics do come in all colors, etc., which is why people often walk up to me and attempt to speak to me in Spanish!
But Arabs have a distinctive "look," which is quite different than that of most Hispanics.
10124. Erin R. - 10/14/2001 2:10:52 PM
Well, I could post a photo and take the conversation in a whole different direction...
I think Saudis are largely outnumbered by foreign workers within their own country. My husband, who has worked there off and on over the years, says that Saudis for the most part hire most of their work out.
10125. CalGal - 10/14/2001 2:11:23 PM
I don't know what it will take to convince people that there are 'Hispanics' in all shapes, sizes, colors, and ethnicities.
Oh, I agree. In fact, one of the Times articles on racism discussed the different experience of black Cubans vs. "white" Cubans.
The Arab terrorists, on the other hand, seem to have a general uniformity of skin color--I don't recall any of them being darker than cafe au lait.
The point only was that there is a large population of olive skinned people who are quite often here illegally, speak with an accent, don't ask questions, and are currently not under much scrutiny. Great place to hide out, if you're an Arab terrorist.
10126. don s. - 10/14/2001 2:11:42 PM
ˇOlé!
10127. CalGal - 10/14/2001 2:12:18 PM
I think Saudis are largely outnumbered by foreign workers within their own country.
Yep.
10128. don s. - 10/14/2001 2:16:25 PM
ˇGloria seculorum amen!
10129. mgleason - 10/14/2001 2:21:15 PM
My point was that there are certainly individuals of Arab descent within the Spanish-speaking world, not the least because of the Moorish occupation of Spain.
10130. don s. - 10/14/2001 2:21:58 PM
ˇ-21r5 + 45r4 - 25r3 + 1!
10131. mgleason - 10/14/2001 2:21:59 PM
You're on the right track, Don!
10132. CalGal - 10/14/2001 2:23:34 PM
My point was that there are certainly individuals of Arab descent within the Spanish-speaking world, not the least because of the Moorish occupation of Spain.
Oh! Lord, that whooshed right over my head. Yes, of course.
10133. PelleNilsson - 10/14/2001 2:25:25 PM
What about people with dual passports? Aren't they suspect too. And people who just recently have become citizens? Couldn't they have ulterior motives? On the whole is citizenship in itself a guarantee for loyalty to the country?
10134. PelleNilsson - 10/14/2001 2:28:01 PM
CalGal
Welcome back!
There are dark-skinned Saudis, remnants from the slave trade.
10135. CalGal - 10/14/2001 2:28:42 PM
Pelle,
Whether they are or not, they are citizens, and have rights.
But as I mentioned in my first post, I think we are at a real risk of creating citizen terrorists. The media has been providing interviews of any number of Muslim teens living in America, being raised and schooled as Muslim, and their comments haven't encouraged me in the slightest.
10136. joezan - 10/14/2001 2:29:26 PM
Judith:
I think smallpox vaccines ended in '72.
10137. CalGal - 10/14/2001 2:30:38 PM
Hadn't seen your welcome, thanks!
Okay, there are darkskinned Saudis. Thanks for clearing that up. Although if I were Erin and wanted to "pass", I'd go with Egyptian, it would raise less questions.
BTW, I had the opportunity to go to Qatar on a contract. Just a couple weeks. I wanted to go, but the contract agency said the client had unrealistic rate limitations. Bummer.
10138. Cellar Door - 10/14/2001 2:31:07 PM
10139. don s. - 10/14/2001 2:32:31 PM
ˇceci n’est pas un sombrero!
10140. Erin R. - 10/14/2001 2:33:36 PM
Cal: just in case I would want to pass and wreak havoc on the Arab world, it's nice to know where I would most effectively carry out my evil plans.
10141. Property of Jesus - 10/14/2001 2:35:44 PM
I think it was wise for Spudboy to leave mote. He's at TT now arguing that the FBI was somehow responsible for the WTC homicide bombings.
Even MSNBC, #4 in cable news, was smart enough to can him.
10142. Andonly - 10/14/2001 2:36:39 PM
"Before 9-11, I would have argued, and indeed did argue several times in this very forum, that terrorism would never be a effective use of force."
One of the people you argued with was me. My views, needless to say, have not changed on that subject (except that I'm actually less concerned about biologicals than I was two weeks ago).
"In the same vein, I also argued that effective bio/chemical terrorism, radiological terrorism, and other advanced forms of terrorism were beyond the kin of even the most advanced terrorist group ... that a terrorist with several guns or a truck ful of fertilizer could kill just as many if not more than someone armed with chemical or biological weapons."
The obvious argument against this position being that the fact that a fertilizer weapon is useful does not make a radiological or biological weapon less useful. The latter also arguably have a more profound psychological impact.
"I also believed in accomadation with the repressive regimes in the Middle East, so long as we reached an understanding of sorts."
So did I. Now I don't--or rather, I believe now the criteria by which we decide to be accommodating must drastically change. I'm thinking we need a return to ideology, and a clearer vision of what we believe is worth dying over.
10143. Andonly - 10/14/2001 2:36:52 PM
"But one belief of mine which hasn't chnaged is the idea that the U.S. will need missile defense of some sort in the future. One type of threat to the U.S. does not preclude another..."
I was never against NMD, just very skeptical of its cost and pace of development relative to immediate needs. I had gradually decided the idea was probably worth pursuing, but had reservations about whether we could afford to get there in time. I should add that among right thinkers it is an article of faith that NMD is a vile and loathsome plan for world domination; therefore I had not discussed my views on this subject with many people. All such exchanges had proven pointless.
After 9-11, a plan of "world domination" that deters distant countries from attacking our distant interests (because they couldn't hit us back if we retaliated) is looking increasingly attractive, and I'm less ambivalent about taking a position on NMD. Barring new information, I'm for it.
10144. judithathome - 10/14/2001 2:37:30 PM
Thanks, joezan...
10145. arkymalarky - 10/14/2001 2:38:47 PM
Yes, I for one know the variety of physical appearances in the Hispanic community, having lived and worked and attended school with a variety of Hispanic groups most of my life. Just among the Brazilian exchange students I've taught alone I've had from lighter-skinned blonde to students of African descent. What was said was in the context of the general idea of Arabs "hiding" within a Hispanic community, which I find exceedingly unlikely anyway.
10146. don s. - 10/14/2001 2:39:42 PM
and just in case anyone misses the clowns and the kittens … 
10147. arkymalarky - 10/14/2001 2:41:07 PM
Rose, shut up.
10148. don s. - 10/14/2001 2:43:42 PM
10149. CalGal - 10/14/2001 2:44:08 PM
What was said was in the context of the general idea of Arabs "hiding" within a Hispanic community, which I find exceedingly unlikely anyway.
What's so unlikely about it? These folks were able to go to flying schools and get lessons in turning only. They had midnight meetings that confused their neighbors, who did nothing.
You think any of the others still here might not have realized that things would get a little hot for Arabs after the attack? All they need to do is find a way to hide in plain sight again.
I'm not saying they are definitely in that community, but it's stupid not to at least consider it. It's certainly not "unlikely", but instead a pretty clever notion that doesn't seem outside their capabilities, from what we've seen so far. They don't have to be brilliant, they just have to understand Americans and their ways.
10150. judithathome - 10/14/2001 2:45:58 PM
These folks were able to go to flying schools and get lessons in turning only. They had midnight meetings that confused their neighbors, who did nothing.
Are these things Hispanics routinely do?
10151. CalGal - 10/14/2001 2:47:29 PM
No, Judith. Try again.
10152. judithathome - 10/14/2001 2:50:33 PM
Cal, I understand what you are saying perfectly well; I just don't think they are doing what you suggest they are doing...or should do...
10153. Andonly - 10/14/2001 2:50:51 PM
Oh, and Pincher, I didn't call for banning SUVs. I called for surtaxing the sale of SUVs and other inefficient vanity vehicles not used for work, I called for massive subsidies of alternative fuel development (the sort which Bush said at Genoa he would not fund), I called for drilling in the Alaskan wilderness and other protected sites, I called for subsidies to existing public transportation and for additional public xpo development.
Moreover, I'd like to see an ad campaign that claims that oil dependency is un-American while innovation is the heart and soul of America. We should make it a WPA-like crusade to spearhead the development of safe, fast, oil miserly vehicles, which we could then recoup some of our investment on by selling them to Europe and Japan. Why not fight big oil with big industry? The public investment wouldn't be about the public sector betting on markets but about betting on increased political manoueverability.
Plus, I'd like to see a pan-western anti-drugs campaign that points out that if you use heroin, you're a traitorous supporter of the Taliban.
10154. Erin R. - 10/14/2001 2:51:36 PM
JAH: I'm not sure that that is relevant. I think the point is that people should have been a lot more diligent. I am astonished that the fact that the terrorists didn't want to learn how to take off or land, just manuver, didn't raise huge red flags.
As for the neighbors, I don't see that behaviour to be atypical. Lots of people get together to do things that seem strange to other people. I don't even see how this behaviour could be reported.
10155. arkymalarky - 10/14/2001 2:55:32 PM
It's relevant to the fact that those are things anyone from any country would do. It's not the same as trying to blend into a completely different culture within the US without being noticed and reported, firstly by the culture you're trying to hide in. In the current climate, any suspicious activity reported would be investigated.
Erin,
it did raise a huge flag for one hijacker. That's why only four were on 93 in PN.
10156. Andonly - 10/14/2001 2:56:24 PM
"Like it or not, the developed world is dependent on Third World oil."
I find this too fatalistic a view.
This country has had a lack of vision for some time (Bush pere). And when we've had vision, we've lacked hardbitten realism (Clinton) or compassion for our own people (Reagan).
Wonder if we're ever going to pull it together. Or will the isolationsit right join hands with the isolationist left in a vain attempt to extract us from the world?
10157. Erin R. - 10/14/2001 2:57:43 PM
Is meeting at midnight with a bunch of friends illegal? Who would have arrested these folks or even investigated.
10158. CalGal - 10/14/2001 3:00:13 PM
Erin,
I'm not saying they should have reported it either--although I think they would have been within bounds. My point was that they were able to act rather oddly in plain sight, so that all they needed to do was become non-Arab, and do it again.
I am astonished that the fact that the terrorists didn't want to learn how to take off or land, just manuver, didn't raise huge red flags.
Totally agree. Worse, one school did report a guy, and the FBI picked him up on an edxpired visa or something. They are whining because they weren't able to get a warrant to examine his hard drive. But they haven't mentioned why it is they didnt' wonder at his odd request and put out an alert to all flying schools to be on the lookout for Arabs who weren't interested in landings.
I read somewhere that James Woods, on the Boston to LA flight, noticed four Arabs sitting in first class, not eating, drinking, reading, or talking. He thought it was odd, mentioned it to the flight attendant, who shrugged. This was a week before 9/11, it was the same flight that crashed into the WTC, and he almost certainly witnessed a dress rehearsal.
But if they weren't citizens, would it have violated any rights for the flight attendant and airline to hold them and call the cops? I dunno. I know there would have been a lot of fury at the time, but I'm not sure that Woods' wasn't right to try and draw attention to it.
10159. Cellar Door - 10/14/2001 3:00:52 PM
Rose/Jesus/Tiernan is a loon, arky. We all know that.
Thinking of opening a hat shop don?
Love your Urban Sombrero !
10160. robertjayb - 10/14/2001 3:02:08 PM
CalGal! Howzit?
10161. CalGal - 10/14/2001 3:03:03 PM
It's not the same as trying to blend into a completely different culture within the US without being noticed and reported, firstly by the culture you're trying to hide in. In the current climate, any suspicious activity reported would be investigated.
Well, at least this is more well thought out than your first try, that Arabs don't look like Hispanics.
But in fact, an illegal community is exactly the sort that wouldn't ask any questions and is certainly resistant to report anything--even given they recognized them as Arabs. Besides, since the Arabs wouldn't need a job, they wouldn't have to interact much with them directly. They'd just have to pick up a few words and speak with an accent to any non-Hispanic they ran into .
10162. CalGal - 10/14/2001 3:03:50 PM
Hi, BobbyJ. Nice to see you!
10163. Erin R. - 10/14/2001 3:07:36 PM
I think it was right for Woods to report the incident to the authorities. I am sure people will begin to report things that seem suspicious. People are already suspicious on airplanes--you can see folks casually sizing you up when you walk down the aisle.
10164. robertjayb - 10/14/2001 3:08:48 PM
Article in the Houston paper today about an attempted airliner hijacking in 1954 where the pilot used a required handgun to shoot and mortally wound the hijacker.
Seems that in those times the pilot was directly responsible for any mail aboard and was required to be armed.
10165. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 3:09:05 PM
Why the feds aren't rousting all illegals is more than I can figure, really.
This would not be a realistic undertaking. It would be at least as difficult as smoking bin Laden out of his cave. Besides that, it would decimate the economies of cities like Miami and Los Angeles, let alone hurt our agricultural industry.
As for the idea of deporting all Muslim immigrants, the result would be a whole lot of people made to sulk in their third world homeland with a great deal of resentment towards the U.S.
10166. joezan - 10/14/2001 3:09:16 PM
CalGal Message # 10105:
There are only three possibilities. One, the youth was clairvoyant. Two, the youth, knowing about the 1993 bombing, was just venting anger in a particularly timely way. Three, word of the attack on the World Trade Center was rumored in his neighborhood and he heard about it.
There is a 4th possibility - that he was a fan of nihilistic rap: 
10167. Erin R. - 10/14/2001 3:09:48 PM
I don't discount that terrorists in hiding would pick any illegal community in which to hide. I don't think anyone should make any assumptions anymore.
10168. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 3:11:57 PM
As for shaking our dependence on Saudi oil, I thought that this article by Larry Kudlow (a disagreeable curmudgeon, imho) was interesting.
10169. Erin R. - 10/14/2001 3:12:38 PM
I don't think deporting all Arab or Muslim immigrants is the answer.
10170. CalGal - 10/14/2001 3:12:41 PM
Joe,
He would have mentioned that, and he hasn't.
LadyC,
You really can't be arguing that we should still wink and nod at illegal aliens, so long as they are from the right countries?
If the economies need them, they can push for a guest worker program, with cards, and the restrictions I mentioned above.
In the meantime, I see no reason why it wouldn't be feasible, if unpleasant. At least it would prove that the government understood the real problem, which is not that Arabs hate us, but that we provide an environment where they can come on over and attack us with our blessings. After all, we can't decimate the Miami and Los Angeles economies, so we must let them decimate the economy of New York ($105 billion and countintg).
10171. CalGal - 10/14/2001 3:14:33 PM
I don't discount that terrorists in hiding would pick any illegal community in which to hide. I don't think anyone should make any assumptions anymore.
Yes, one would have thought this was obvious. But it seems there are still people who have difficulty thinking outside the box. Since it apparently isn't obvious, let me express my appreciation for your grokking. (g)
10172. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 3:32:08 PM
CalGal,
You really can't be arguing that we should still wink and nod at illegal aliens, so long as they are from the right countries?
No, I'm just saying that it isn't feasible to "round up all the illegals" and deport them. The INS doesn't have enough manpower, and our jails don't have enough space.
This is all part and parcel of my own determination, reached over the years, that such problems require counterintuitive thinking (e.g., the drug problem would be better solved by easing drug laws than by making them more draconian). We have "winked" at illegal immigrants for years, now, and Bush has been in talks with Vicente Fox about essentially legalizing most of them (at least, the Mexican ones).
My long-term solution to this problem would be to move toward a non-interventionist foreign policy. We can't do that now without looking like we're appeasing the terrorists, but eventually we should consider it. We have become a bully nation around the globe, and since the Gulf War we have been a bit too enamored of our ability to project our power into remote areas of the world. We are giving too many people reasons to hate us, and we should heed the advice of George Washington and remain non-interventionist whenever at all possible.
So, my advice is to finish off Al-Quaeda, help rebuild Central Asia, then fold up our tent and bring the boys home. Then get rid of the welfare state and have a more liberal (and less hypocritical) immigration policy that welcomes people who want to come here to make something of themselves.
10173. CalGal - 10/14/2001 3:35:43 PM
The INS doesn't have enough manpower, and our jails don't have enough space.
I don't think we need jails, just buses and planes. As for manpower, staff up. We have lots of unemployed lately.
I disagree that our foreign policy has anything to do with it. I think it is a cultural problem and were we just sitting here minding our own business doing nothing worse than buying oil, we'd be on the receiving end of just as much hate. I'm for a return to cultural imperialism, myself.
10174. Erin R. - 10/14/2001 3:40:30 PM
I think our foreign policy is suspect in that we support foreign governments that repress their citizens.
10175. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 3:41:40 PM
I don't think we need jails, just buses and planes. As for manpower, staff up. We have lots of unemployed lately.
Contrary to popular belief, an INS officer doesn't have the power to just roust someone out of bed and put them on the next bus to Guadalajara. You have to detain them (which means putting them in jail) pending a hearing before an immigration court. The immigration court has to issue an order finding the alien deportable and issuing an order of deportation. This order is appealable to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which usually just rubber stamps the IJ, but still it takes time and resources. There are a lot of immigration attorneys out there who would have a field day gumming up the works after the BIA issued its final orders, petitioning for writs of habeas corpus, etc.
In short, it would be a bureacratic nightmare. Congress could trim these procedures somewhat, but it's not clear how far the courts would let them go.
10176. CalGal - 10/14/2001 3:45:51 PM
LadyC,
I thought that rigamarole was only in place for those who were here legally but needed to be deported. If that is true for people who are here illegally, then it can be changed, and I'm not sure there is much the courts can do about it.
Anyone who is here illegally has no right to gum up our court system. That makes a mockery of legal immigration. They aren't here with a legal visa, they go home. Nuff of that nonsense.
10177. alistairconnor - 10/14/2001 3:47:39 PM
We should make it a WPA-like crusade to spearhead the development of safe, fast, oil miserly vehicles, which we could then recoup some of our investment on by selling them to Europe and Japan.
Ando, that's a scream. Only fifty years or so of lagging research to catch up on.
More to the point : why don't you people import economical European or Japanese cars? I mean the real thing, not the upsized models you buy now.
10178. CalGal - 10/14/2001 3:48:21 PM
I find it utterly appalling that we waste time and money on illegal aliens, other than booting them out. The only issue should be whether or not they have to spend time in our jails for some crime first.
So what is the law that gives them the right to cost us so much money? And don't say the Constitution. They might have the right not to languish in jail, but I don't see where they have the right not to be booted out immediately.
10179. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 3:49:57 PM
CalGal,
There are "summary deportation" procedures in place, but these have been notoriously abused. The typical INS employee is too poorly trained to be trusted not to royally fuck up somebody's life.
10180. Erin R. - 10/14/2001 3:50:25 PM
We need bigs cars to carry home all the crap we buy at the mall. ;^)
10181. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 3:52:20 PM
They might have the right not to languish in jail, but I don't see where they have the right not to be booted out immediately.
The issue is finding whether or not they are deportable. This can sometimes be contentious, and they are entitled to procedural due process in reaching that determination. But once they are found deportable, unless we don't have a repatriation agreement with their home country, the actual removal goes pretty quickly.
10182. clydefo - 10/14/2001 3:54:32 PM
If we're going to start deporting illegals,
please don't start with the maids, babysitters, busboys and gardeners.
10183. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 3:55:52 PM
CalGal,
If they're caught before entering the country, they are subject to summary removal. But once they have entered, it gets more difficult.
10184. joezan - 10/14/2001 3:56:35 PM
I agree with Cal's # 10176.
What has galled me (in part because I was so ignorant of our failings here) was all the people who come here on student visas, and simply stay, while we have virtually no mechanism for checking to see if they'd ever left when they were supposed to.
The most galling part (this came from folks in academia and gov't in the report I heard on NPR -and this is post 9-11, folks) was the excuse that, "Well, these foreign students account for 10s of billions in tuition, and a greta number of them come from countries whose students would likely be subject to greater scrutiny..."
Unfuckingbelievable.
10185. Property of Jesus - 10/14/2001 3:56:49 PM
Hundreds of Christians in Nigeria were murdered this weekend by Moslems because the USA attacked the Afghan's "evil doers."
Remember when AIDS/HIV was the biggest killer of people in Africa?
10186. Erin R. - 10/14/2001 3:58:08 PM
There was a program on a few weeks ago about a new program to grant seasonal visas to Mexicans who want to do menial work here. The catch is that they have to be sponsored by an American employer.
10187. CalGal - 10/14/2001 3:58:56 PM
There are "summary deportation" procedures in place, but these have been notoriously abused.
Not for illegals. You can't abuse a deportation procedure if someone is not here legally. So there is no need to "find" whether they are deportable or not. They are, by definition, deportable.
Clyde,
Sure, start with them--oh, and btw, fine people $10K an instance for hiring them.
10188. CalGal - 10/14/2001 4:00:50 PM
There was a program on a few weeks ago about a new program to grant seasonal visas to Mexicans who want to do menial work here.
Yes, and give them visas of some sort to prove it, and they must go home when they are done. They also can't rent an apartment without permission, and they should have to keep their own license from their country and just get a sticker with an expiration date that gives them the right to drive (and insure) in the US.
I could go along with that.
10189. Erin R. - 10/14/2001 4:01:45 PM
There is already a lot of tension between Muslims and Christians in African countries. And since the calls to murder Christians were aimed at Americans, I don't know that there is a direct connection.
10190. CalGal - 10/14/2001 4:02:12 PM
But once they have entered, it gets more difficult.
Truly, how is that so? What law makes it so? It needs changing and I can't believe there is any constitutional issue, provided we just boot them out and not put them in jail.
10191. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 4:03:08 PM
Not for illegals. You can't abuse a deportation procedure if someone is not here legally.
There have been cases where the INS mistook someone as being illegal, and summarily deported them to places like Haiti. One Haitian American man died in a Haitian jail because he didn't have access to his HIV medication. INS officers are dumb, dumb, dumb.
I think that it would be much smarter, in the long run, to stop giving people reasons to want to attack us. You're never going to shut down our borders. Never. It's simply an unrealistic undertaking.
10192. CalGal - 10/14/2001 4:08:56 PM
There have been cases where the INS mistook someone as being illegal, and summarily deported them to places like Haiti.
Oh, bullshit. He's either a citizen, has a visa, or he doesn't. To argue against sensible immigration procedures because of an anecdote like that is just asinine--to say nothing of the fact that we didn't put him in the Haitian jail, and the fact that he had access to American drugs for his AIDs was due to our generosity in the first place, not something he had a right to.
And your notion that we "give people reasons" to attack us is fucking garbage.
10193. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 4:09:21 PM
Truly, how is that so? What law makes it so? It needs changing and I can't believe there is any constitutional issue, provided we just boot them out and not put them in jail.
The Supreme Court has consistently held that, once someone has entered and established ties to this country, they are vested with all the protections of the Bill of Rights (b/c, you see, the BoR uses the term "persons", not "citizens"). Overturning this would require either a constitutional amendment or the Supreme Court to indulge in unabashed sophistry.
10194. joezan - 10/14/2001 4:11:47 PM
...a great number of them...
10195. Erin R. - 10/14/2001 4:12:03 PM
How do they in fact document citizenship? If this is true, while they guy didn't have a right to the AIDS drugs, he certainly has the right not to be deported if he is an American.
10196. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 4:16:20 PM
Oh, bullshit. He's either a citizen, has a visa, or he doesn't.
Have you ever been in a country legally at a time that you didn't have all your papers in order, perhaps due to a lost passport or visa? That's all it takes to fall under a summary removal proceeding.
To argue against sensible immigration procedures because of an anecdote like that is just asinine--to say nothing of the fact that we didn't put him in the Haitian jail, and the fact that he had access to American drugs for his AIDs was due to our generosity in the first place, not something he had a right to.
It's rather asinine to suggest that a Haitian American professional could have only been getting AIDS drugs due to American "generosity."
And your notion that we "give people reasons" to attack us is fucking garbage.
Having an interventionist foreign policy in which the military is treated as an arm of the State Department has created all kinds of resentments, not just in the Muslim world. It is the Muslims, however, who have chosen terrorism as a means of expressing themselves. (The Arab-Islamic world has, for some reason, never turned out a Ghandi.) But don't forget our own home-bred terrorists; McVeigh was triggered by the stupidity of an overzealous government.
Trusting freedom takes more courage than trusting force.
10197. CalGal - 10/14/2001 4:19:57 PM
The Supreme Court has consistently held that, once someone has entered and established ties to this country, they are vested with all the protections of the Bill of Rights
Nonsense. If it is possible to deport them in the first place, it means that they aren't covered by the Bill of Rights. If a "person" has the rights of a citizen, they can't be thrown out of the country. But guess what? They can be thrown out of the country.
If the Supreme Court wants to make all people citizens, then all they have to do is make any immigration law unconstitutional. I'm thinking not.
The nonsensical due process we give illegals can stop, and I wouldn't be surprised if it requires a lot less than you propose. Where are the cites that make it illegal to toss an illegal out upon verifying that he is an illegal? I don't mean the jail time--which only comes about because of the idiotic insistence on due process--I mean the one that gives them that right. I'd like to read up on it.
That said, this country can be very efficient when it wants to be. If due process is required, we can open up a lot of "processing centers" in a hurry, run them day and night, and people can just wait in line.
Bad press, but with any luck the illegals who can afford to will start running in a hurry.
10198. Erin R. - 10/14/2001 4:22:47 PM
I do think the Bill of Rights should apply to non-citizens, but there must be ways to expedite the process.
10199. joezan - 10/14/2001 4:23:06 PM
I dunno, LC..
Trusting force = No attacks on our soil in over 200 years.
Trusting freedom = WTC
"Don't Tread On Me" has always been a fine motto. I'm hoping for its strong return in popularity.
10200. Property of Jesus - 10/14/2001 4:25:37 PM
America is not going to give up on its alien working-class people.
Most of them are better citizens than the native population.
10201. PelleNilsson - 10/14/2001 4:25:52 PM
You know, Sweden keeps track of people to an extent that Americans probably would find unacceptable. But if someone enters on a visitor's visa and then goes to ground it is virtually impossible to track him or her down.
10202. CalGal - 10/14/2001 4:28:02 PM
Have you ever been in a country legally at a time that you didn't have all your papers in order, perhaps due to a lost passport or visa? That's all it takes to fall under a summary removal proceeding.
Yes. Exactly. And any one who is in a country legally hustles to their embassy for a copy of their passport, or they leave the country. I have no problem with that approach.
It is the Muslims, however, who have chosen terrorism as a means of expressing themselves. (The Arab-Islamic world has, for some reason, never turned out a Ghandi.)
I fucking hate it when people can't spell Gandhi.
You really don't know what the hell you are talking about. Islamic people hate us for reasons that have nothing to do with our foreign policy. If you're going to be an ass and blame it on our foreign policy, I suggest you read the Lewis essay in the Atlantic that has been much discussed here (long before the attack, I might add), and answer the many points he makes about the idiocy of such a viewpoint. You want to espouse a cheap viewpoint, do the work to justify it.
10203. CalGal - 10/14/2001 4:29:58 PM
I do think the Bill of Rights should apply to non-citizens, but there must be ways to expedite the process.
It should apply to anyone who is in this country. For example, a non-citizen gets the same rights in criminal court. But there is nothing preventing us from expelling someone who isn't here legally, and I see nothing wrong with summarily deporting someone who is not here legally.
Oh, and I forgot to mock LadyC's "trust freedom". Keerist.
10204. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 4:30:04 PM
Pelle,
That's the basic problem.
CalGal,
Nonsense. If it is possible to deport them in the first place, it means that they aren't covered by the Bill of Rights.
Gee, can anybody here tell what the difference might be between giving people the protections of due process and granting them citizenship?
Any answers, class?
10205. CalGal - 10/14/2001 4:33:01 PM
Gee, can anybody here tell what the difference might be between giving people the protections of due process and granting them citizenship?
I know the difference. But there is nothing stopping us from deporting them. There are plenty of cases where even citizens have to try and fix the mess after the government has acted (IRS, anyone?).
The illegal alien population has benefited from years of a sympathetic lobby and a business population that wants cheap labor. But to pretend that an illegal alien has the same rights as a non-citizen here legally is just bullshit.
10206. CalGal - 10/14/2001 4:35:06 PM
But if someone enters on a visitor's visa and then goes to ground it is virtually impossible to track him or her down.
You don't necessarily track them down, although there is more you can do. For example, if a visitor doesn't show up at his or her next destination, the cops are called. They won't be able to get on a plane, because they won't be able to buy a ticket without it being noticed that they weren't on their scheduled itinerary. They won't be able to rent a car, much less buy a car. They won't be able to rent an apartment or buy a house. And so on.
10207. Erin R. - 10/14/2001 4:36:26 PM
But if they are covered by the Bill of Rights, in what ways do they not have the same rights?
10208. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 4:36:42 PM
joe,
Trusting force = No attacks on our soil in over 200 years.
Um, that's not entirely correct, but I'll grant you that, for the sake of argument, we were not attacked in 200 years. But do you really think that it was "force" that prevented it, or was it luck of geography? What was it?
I have no problem with force, btw, in response to an attack, which is why I think that the current actions are entirely justified. But I also recall that, before September 11, most of the people in this forum probably would have said that the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII was an embarrassment. Are we really going to allow ourselves to stoop to such racial hysteria again? We could, but I think that we would again cringe with regret in fifty years.
Trusting freedom = WTC
No. WTC was caused by not trusting freedom -- i.e., not allowing pilots and specially licensed citizens to be armed on flights.
10209. judithathome - 10/14/2001 4:40:58 PM
They won't be able to get on a plane, because they won't be able to buy a ticket without it being noticed that they weren't on their scheduled itinerary. They won't be able to rent a car, much less buy a car. They won't be able to rent an apartment or buy a house. And so on.
Why couldn't they get someone to do these things for them, though?
10210. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 4:41:27 PM
But if they are covered by the Bill of Rights, in what ways do they not have the same rights?
In that Congress has the nearly absolute right to determine the conditions for allowing aliens to be in this country, and once an alien is found deportable, they no longer have a right to remain in this country. However, a proceeding for finding someone deportable requires comportment with due process.
CalGal,
I didn't make this legal stuff up out of whole cloth. I don't why you're getting so hysterical. I just got a Cuban bomber out of INS detention a couple of months ago, for god's sake. I have not been personally involved in a deportation proceeding, but I have a general grasp of the law. Hell, some of this stuff is first year law school material.
10211. CalGal - 10/14/2001 4:43:58 PM
But if they are covered by the Bill of Rights, in what ways do they not have the same rights?
Can we just take away someone's citizenship if they are born here? No--or at least, not without criminal acts that I can't even envision (espionage, I suppose). Can we take away a non-citizen's visa? Sure, we have a whole list of things that they can't do. But should we be required to prove that they've committed these acts? Absolutely.
So what rights does an illegal alien has? Do they have to have committed one of a list of acts in order to be booted out? No, their mere presence here is sufficient to justify it. So what rights do they have to prevent them from being thrown out? None, short of the right to prove that they aren't illegal after all. But there's no reason to require a court to do that, since any proof is easily verifiable.
Now, where illegal aliens have rights is when they aren't thrown out, but are put into our system. For example, if they commit a crime that we want to punish them and put them in jail, they have the same rights.
10212. CalGal - 10/14/2001 4:47:45 PM
I didn't make this legal stuff up out of whole cloth.
I didn't say that you were; I asked for cites on the specific issue. I know the areas you practice in.
I was not "hysterical", and to the extent that I was scathing I was responding to your asinine suggestion that our foreign policy caused the attack, not your comments on illegal aliens. I am quite aware of the idiocy that passes for SOP as far as our immigration policies go; that's why I said that it was the single biggest contributor to the terrorists' ability to attack as they did.
Again, I'd like to see cites on illegal aliens being tossed out. Not that I don't think we couldn't figure out a legal way around it (24 hour processing centers separate from our regular criminal courts) but I don't see anything that prevents summary booting for anyone who can't prove they have a legal right to be here.
10213. PelleNilsson - 10/14/2001 4:48:41 PM
CalGal
Do you realise what you are proposing?
For example, if a visitor doesn't show up at his or her next destination, the cops are called.
Systems like that have been in existence. In the Soviet Union and its allies.
10214. CalGal - 10/14/2001 4:52:48 PM
Pelle,
So? What reason does a tourist have not to show up at their next destination?
10215. Absensia - 10/14/2001 4:53:57 PM
I know of no single instance in which a US citizen, naturalized or natural born can lose his/her citizenship. There is no provision in the Constitution. If such a person were to commit treason, there is punishment for them, but stripping one of his or her citizenship is not one.
Hi Cal. Good to see you.
10216. judithathome - 10/14/2001 4:53:58 PM
Medical emergency; transportation snafu...
10217. CalGal - 10/14/2001 4:53:59 PM
How do they in fact document citizenship?
It's not just citizenship, it's "legal right to be here". Birth certificate, green card, passport and valid non-expired visa.
10218. ronski - 10/14/2001 4:55:50 PM
A difference between Japanese-Americans in WW2 and Middle Eastern visitors and illegals today is this: Japanese-Americans had committed absolutely no sabotage when they were quite suddenly interned. Middle Easterners have comitted atrocities.
(In February of 1942, Lt. Gen. Dewitt concluded that the fact that no sabotage had been committed was proof that it was about to be. One is tempted here to say, borrowing in part from an old book title, that military logic is to logic as military music is to music.)
I am not in favor of expelling all Middle Eastern non-citizens myself, but in the event of continued attacks on our soil, I would not be surprised if it became a very popular idea among Americans to do just that.
And while it is clear that cultural attitudes among Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere contribute greatly to their hatred of us, I believe it is very largely our interventionist foreign policy, specifically support of Israel and of local governments these people detest, and keeping troops and military advisors in Saudi Arabia (as well as about a hundred other countries), that has caused us to become a target today.
10219. CalGal - 10/14/2001 4:56:01 PM
Hi, Abs.
I didn't think there was; I just wasn't sure there wasn't grounds for booting someone if they betrayed the country. Probably due to having read Man Without A Country as a child, I suppose.
10220. ronski - 10/14/2001 4:56:24 PM
Btw, Cal, nice to see you back.
10221. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 4:57:15 PM
CalGal,
I am supposed to be working on a brief today, and honestly don't have time to go through my old research materials to cite you the Code of Federal Regulations. I have not said that it is necessarily difficult to show that someone is removable; however, even de minimus due process requires resources that would be stretched beyond their breaking point if we decided to engage in a zero-tolerance crackdown on illegals.
And I have never argued that our foreign policy "caused" these atrocities. Everyone has the choice to act or not act in certain ways on their grievances. However, our foreign policy, especially our use of military power, has earned us the enmity of many, and it has given others the pretext for attacking us, though not a valid reason. Explaining a killer's motives and justifying his act is not the same thing. No one seems to be angry at Switzerland, right?
10222. Absensia - 10/14/2001 4:57:22 PM
Let us also remember we have a lot of natural born second or third generation citizens of all ethnic backgrounds. Some of whom could be converted to be "terrorists." So do we include them too, if they are arabs and/or muslims? And what about pure "white" RME US citizens who convert to Islam.
Getting rid of "illegals" isn't going to solve a lot. And the ones who hijacked the planes seem as if they were careful re having the right credentials so as not to be thought illegal.
10223. CalGal - 10/14/2001 4:59:00 PM
Ronski,
Again, I can't stress sufficiently how bad an idea it would be to divide our immigration policy into "good" countries and "bad"--particularly when every European country I can think of has Arab citizens/immigrants. It just creates a monster loophole. No, we have to treat all aliens equally.
The only legitimate objection I can see, that no one has made yet, is that Europeans will be pissed off at the rough treatment our new policy would give them. But I think we could forestall that by asking if they have an open policy as far as Americans go.
10224. PelleNilsson - 10/14/2001 5:00:52 PM
Absensia
know of no single instance in which a US citizen, naturalized or natural born can lose his/her citizenship
I think they can if they have lied in their application for citizenship. I seem to remember a case several years back when a Nazi war criminal was stripped of citizenship and deported.
10225. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 5:02:16 PM
So? What reason does a tourist have not to show up at their next destination?
A change in plans? I was recently in Austria, and we didn't exactly follow a rigorous itinerary.
I know of no single instance in which a US citizen, naturalized or natural born can lose his/her citizenship.
A naturalized citizen can be stripped of U.S. citizenship if it is proved that the granting of citizenship was based on fraud of some kind. This has happened to certain Nazi war criminals, and it seems like it's about to happen to a Cuban who, it turns out, may have tortured political prisoners in Cuba. But this is a rare proceeding, and it requires the very highest degree of due process.
10226. Absensia - 10/14/2001 5:03:58 PM
That would be a naturalized citizen who got citizenship by fraud. Yes, you are right. Unfortunately we are stuck with the real frauds, such as Farwell. And if a naturalized citizen got the citizenship honestly and then did some heinous thing, I think we are stuck with him/her.
10227. PelleNilsson - 10/14/2001 5:04:45 PM
CalGal
What reason does a tourist have not to show up at their next destination?
Calm down. Your grammar suffers. But to answer your question: they simply changed their minds?
10228. CalGal - 10/14/2001 5:05:05 PM
Hi, Ronski--thanks. Nice to see you, too.
Abs,
Again, getting rid of "illegals" and doing a hard line on them will do a lot to eliminate the environment that allowed the terrorists to have a nice life over here while not having a right to be here in the first place.
I don't agree with expelling people who are here legally, although I certainlyh think it's a good idea to review their associations.
10229. CalGal - 10/14/2001 5:08:16 PM
Your grammar suffers.
Whether it does or not, I'm quite calm. Upon reviewing my sentence, I would only reverse the "not" and the "to", but they say the same thing to me. So I'm ungrammatical calm, too.
They can change their mind, but they have to call the hotel, tell them where they are, and the hotel can confirm that. If so, they don't call the cops.
I also see no reason to provide 90 day visas, but that's a different issue.
The more problematic one is the business visa, but I'm still chewing on that.
10230. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 5:08:38 PM
What no one has suggested is that Congress simply change the immmigration laws to favor white Europeans over other groups. But do we want to go there?
Speaking dark-skinned people, I happen to think that the people of India are wonderful, and their country could be a very important ally in the near future. Do we want to piss them off, too?
10231. Absensia - 10/14/2001 5:11:41 PM
Cal, here is basic immigration law site:
http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/lawsregs/
here is the site for the appropriate regs 8 CFR
http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/lawsregs/8cfr.htm
Sorry I did't link it, but I'm not into html much as of yet...and I'm also watching the Mariners go down to defeat. Sigh. I'll try to find the other stuff in a while.
10232. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 5:12:26 PM
CalGal,
Why don't you take a stab at re-writing the U.S. Immigration Code? Be sure and cc: my Congresswoman, Ileana Ross-Lehtinen, R. (Cuban) Fla.
10233. CalGal - 10/14/2001 5:13:38 PM
What no one has suggested is that Congress simply change the immmigration laws to favor white Europeans over other groups.
We would literally have to favor white Europeans--not citizens of white European countries. And I can't see us going for that. There isn't a country in the world that discriminates on immigration by skin color, is there?
How would we piss off the Indians? We've already bonded with Pakistan, what immigration policy could upset them more? I think if you checked immigration legality, India would have the highest percentage of legals.
10234. Andonly - 10/14/2001 5:15:40 PM
"But Arabs have a distinctive "look," which is quite different than that of most Hispanics."
Not all Arabs do.
The Colombian gas station attendant down the street could pass for Arab.
10235. CalGal - 10/14/2001 5:16:32 PM
LadyC,
There is a difference between what I think is legal now and what I am saying we should do. I was asking for a cite on illegal aliens and deportation because I am suspicious about how illegal it is to summarily boot them out. I am not under any illusion that my proposed restrictions on non-citizens here legally are within current law. I also don't think they are all that unattainable.
10236. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 5:18:14 PM
I think that the Indians understand our tactical reasons for needing Pakistan, right now.
As for discriminating by skin color, German immigration policy discriminates by blood, which translates into discrimination by race. It's very easy to get German citizenship if you are of ethnic German blood, while it's extremely difficult if you're not. Nearly all those Turks that you hear about are "guest workers," not citizens. Even their children who are born in D-land have trouble getting citizenship.
In any case, the Constitution grants Congress plenary authority in writing immigration law. Theoretically, we could discriminate on the basis of ethnic origin.
10237. Erin R. - 10/14/2001 5:20:44 PM
Andonly: that why I said "most." Did you miss the entire side conversation about my own "look."
10238. Erin R. - 10/14/2001 5:22:15 PM
You can be of German descent without being white. How do the Germans verify descent?
10239. arkymalarky - 10/14/2001 5:22:30 PM
Well, at least this is more well thought out than your first try, that Arabs don't look like Hispanics.
No, it was what I was thinking all along. It just didn't occur to me that you wouldn't get it without my spelling it out.
10240. CalGal - 10/14/2001 5:22:38 PM
I think India does too, I'm just not sure why you think immigration policy such as I suggest would upset India unduly.
I know that much of Europe doesn't grant citizenship by birth in their countries, but Arab terrorists would probably be much more interested in getting citizenship if it got them through an American loophole.
As for discriminating by color, I think it's a terrible idea, and wouldn't fly anyway. Would you be suggesting revoking all greencards of non-whites?
10241. PelleNilsson - 10/14/2001 5:22:43 PM
CalGal
I was referring to the unusual construct "a tourist ---their".
But leaving the nitpicking aside, you propose the erection of an enormous control and surveillance mechanism which at the end of the day will produce nothing, nada, zilch. Any terrorist worth his salt will adapt to these regulations with no difficulty at all. He will truthfully fill in his next destination as SF when his intention is to hijack the plane and crash it into the Bridge.
10242. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 5:23:53 PM
I was asking for a cite on illegal aliens and deportation because I am suspicious about how illegal it is to summarily boot them out.
I'll give you a shorthand example: If you catch someone at the border who doesn't have proper entry documents, you can put them on the next plane or bus out. That's summary deportation.
If you catch them working somewhere, with kids in the local school, etc., it's a bit more thorny. It is my understanding that, in such cases, they are entitled to a hearing before an IJ.
10243. arkymalarky - 10/14/2001 5:24:05 PM
Erin,
I don't think anyone should make any assumptions anymore.
I do certainly agree with that.
10244. Absensia - 10/14/2001 5:25:36 PM
Many Indians and Pakistanis are similar in looks. Pakistan only became a country in 1947. Some are of Indian descent, and also their family has been muslim too. Many Indians are also muslim.
10245. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 5:26:48 PM
My comment about "pissing off" India was directed more generally at those who are suggesting that we immediately deport all non-citizens who look even vaguely Arab or Central Asian.
10246. CalGal - 10/14/2001 5:27:53 PM
However, our foreign policy, especially our use of military power, has earned us the enmity of many, and it has given others the pretext for attacking us, though not a valid reason.
No, it hasn't given them a pretext for attacking us. It has given the righteous prigs a pretext for showing them sympathy. Besides, if you are seriously suggesting that we should withdraw from the world in the hopes that then people won't pick on us, you're dreaming. Hell, I'm an isolationist and I don't feed on such manure.
I have not said that it is necessarily difficult to show that someone is removable; however, even de minimus due process requires resources that would be stretched beyond their breaking point if we decided to engage in a zero-tolerance crackdown on illegals.
I am saying that the burden is only for them to establish that someone is not here legally. That is sufficient "due process" and it doesn't require a judge. But if it did, we could easily ramp up an expulsion process until we got around to changing such asinine--and expensive--procedures.
10247. CalGal - 10/14/2001 5:31:33 PM
If you catch them working somewhere, with kids in the local school, etc., it's a bit more thorny. It is my understanding that, in such cases, they are entitled to a hearing before an IJ.
And I'm saying that there's no reason for it to be a bit more thorny. There's nothing "summary" about refusing entry to someone who isn't in yet. Summary involves what happens when you find someone who is here illegally. I see no reason to give them more incentive to have children--why should they have more rights?
Which reminds me--all schools will only accept children whose parents can establish legal right to be here, too.
10248. Erin R. - 10/14/2001 5:34:37 PM
That seems reasonable.
10249. Andonly - 10/14/2001 5:36:50 PM
Yes, very interesting:
"While U.S. energy policymakers dither in their plans for expanded domestic production, Russia is showing the way. Could it be that Russia and the U.S., perhaps joined by Britain's North Sea oil producers, will work together to finally break OPEC's stranglehold on oil and the world economy? This could be yet another benefit of the new world order that is standing against terrorism and transforming international relationships in politics and the economy."
[From the Weekly Standard article Lady Chaos linked in Message # 10168.]
10250. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 5:39:05 PM
CalGal,
Do you really think that Palestinians would be celebrating bin Laden's name if we had remained neutral on Israel, or that middle class families in Cairo would have thrown a thousand little soirees to celebrate WTC if we were not propping up the Mubarak regime? An interventionist foreign policy reaps unforeseen problems. George Washington seemed to understand the potential for what the spooks call "blowback."
At a minimum, we should decline to engage in policies abroad that make us look hypocritical. We should stop waging chemical warfare on Colombian peasants in order to protect Americans from their drug habits, and we should stop propping up corrupt Arab regimes for what will ultimately turn out to be relatively short-term gains.
10251. wonkers2 - 10/14/2001 5:40:38 PM
Seems to me that along with security and military steps, in the long run, the real battle is within the Arab and Muslim communities and between these communities and the western religious communities and industrial societies. And I find it hard to come up with easy solutions to bridge the ideological chasms withing the Arab/Muslim world and between them and the West. I suppose leaders and thinkers from all religions should try to promote a greater sense of ecumenism and tolerance among their respective flocks. The United Nations can perhaps do more to promote the same. Western industrial nations can be better world citizens in their approach to worker rights, environmental conservation and terms of trade with less developed countries. This might help ameliorate feelings on the part of people in the Arab world of exploitation by the United States and other advanced industrial countries and broaden support among them for dealing firmly with terrorists. Military action without greater generosity and economic justice is unlikely to end terrorism.
10252. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 5:42:07 PM
Which reminds me--all schools will only accept children whose parents can establish legal right to be here, too.
Hahaha.... Go to Findlaw.com and see if you can find Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 210 (1982).
10253. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 5:44:42 PM
Here it is: Plyler v. Doe.
10254. Erin R. - 10/14/2001 5:46:39 PM
Now that's just ridiculous. Why should communities have to support illegal immigrants in the local schools?
10255. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 5:48:15 PM
wonkers makes an interesting point, that this is more a war of the mind than anything else. Even though this writer, Hani Shukrallah, is an equivocating America-Hater, I thought that his recent column was thought-provoking.
10256. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 5:49:16 PM
Erin,
I don't think that today's Supreme Court, if they encountered the issue anew, would have ruled the same way. But now it's constitutional law.
10257. judithathome - 10/14/2001 5:49:58 PM
Why should communities have to support illegal immigrants in the local schools?
Because we are the Land of Opportunity and welcome everyone, the tired, the poor, the teeming masses?
10258. Erin R. - 10/14/2001 5:52:03 PM
Yes it is the land of opportunity...but it seems it's the land of the handout.
10259. CalGal - 10/14/2001 5:52:13 PM
LadyC,
Do you really think that Palestinians would be celebrating bin Laden's name if we had remained neutral on Israel, or that middle class families in Cairo would have thrown a thousand little soirees to celebrate WTC if we were not propping up the Mubarak regime?
Yes, and yes. Again, you need to read up.
BTW, explain why Indonesia is having pro bin Laden riots. Or Pakistan. Are they pissed about Palestine, too?
You really don't know what you're talking about, and it's quite clear you don't have the first foggiest notion about either Arabs or Islam. I don't mean that they are bad, evil, or ignorant. But they're different, and your absurd First World assumptions don't hold up.
As for the Plyler vs. Doe, again, I've said that I don't think my proposed stuff is currently within the law. That's differnet from deportation of illegals. Of course, given that illegal aliens won't be able to rent houses, it will be very tough for them to send their kids to school anyway, within the new CalGal world.
10260. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 5:53:29 PM
Well, I think that the underlying logic was that the children's parents were paying state taxes, so why shouldn't their kids be allowed to attend a state-funded school?
Of course, when you look at the line-up of the court, the only liberal justice remaining is Stevens. It would have gone the other way, had it been heard ten years later. But now it is Supreme Court precedent, and it could not be easily overturned.
10261. CalGal - 10/14/2001 5:53:47 PM
I don't think that today's Supreme Court, if they encountered the issue anew, would have ruled the same way. But now it's constitutional law.
Hadn't seen this yet--hell, don't go citing it then. If someone wanted to make an issue of it, it'd be overturned. And then it wouldn't be constitutional law anymore.
Judith--we don't give that for illegals, remember? We have the most generous immigration policy in the world as it is, so it's not like you can whine about how mean we are.
10262. CalGal - 10/14/2001 5:56:26 PM
Well, I think that the underlying logic was that the children's parents were paying state taxes, so why shouldn't their kids be allowed to attend a state-funded school?
Lord, it's enough to make me embarrassed for liberals. Disgusting, really.
10263. Erin R. - 10/14/2001 5:57:15 PM
We do have a liberal immigration policy. I was stunned to learn many years back that most if not all European countries do not allow citizenship simply because someone is born in the county.
10264. Erin R. - 10/14/2001 5:58:05 PM
If the illegals are not allowed to stay, then they can't pay taxes, can they?
10265. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 5:58:12 PM
CalGal,
My cite of Plyler was in direct response to a more narrow assertion you made about schools.
As to your assessment of Arabs and Islam, I would agree that they are of a "different" mindset. But I am a sort of person who prefers to play the moral high ground as much as possible -- i.e., don't even given them a pretext for hating us. Then if they attack us, our response would be unquestionably justified in the eyes of the world.
10266. Absensia - 10/14/2001 5:59:07 PM
It wasn't a handout per se. Parents were working and paying state taxes that supported school systems in Texas. And, the Supreme Court doesn't lightly reverse previous case law. It might if presented now, but who knows how it would be decided. A lot of cases that seemed to be sure
reversals ended not, because of a "surprise" swing vote.
10267. Andonly - 10/14/2001 6:01:03 PM
"My long-term solution to this problem would be to move toward a non-interventionist foreign policy. We can't do that now without looking like we're appeasing the terrorists, but eventually we should consider it. We have become a bully nation around the globe, and since the Gulf War we have been a bit too enamored of our ability to project our power into remote areas of the world. We are giving too many people reasons to hate us..."
I hate this sort of slop. What does it mean, exactly, to be a "bully nation" or to "project our power" or to give people "reasons to hate us"? People who make such comments are invariably short on defensible specifics. That is, examples of instances in which having acted differently would not have proven disastrous in some other way than this.
Personally, I'm coming to the conclusion that we need to become much more forthright and committed to becoming a proper imperial power. That means more intervention, not less. Better propaganda. Free gifts.
It'll cost us, and we won't have many fewer problems than we do now. But at least we'll all know what the hell we're about and why we do what we do. And we can lighten up on the moral equivalency crap.
10268. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 6:01:09 PM
If someone wanted to make an issue of it, it'd be overturned. And then it wouldn't be constitutional law anymore.
That's what conservatives thought would happen to Roe v. Wade. It didn't die, though. Ironically, although the doctrine of Roe was narrowed in subsequent attacks, its position was largely solidified more than anything.
10269. CalGal - 10/14/2001 6:02:20 PM
Actually, I didn't see anything about taxes, but I didn't read the whole thing.
However, if I understand it the ruling didn't allow Texas to prevent funding schools that accepted illegal aliens.
So they won't stop funding. They will just require all children to provide proof that their parents are here legally and then notify the INS of any parents who aren't here legally. Parents will be deported and there aren't any children to be denied an education.
10270. Erin R. - 10/14/2001 6:02:40 PM
Roe v. Wade is entirely different.
10271. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 6:05:09 PM
Andonly,
I'm toting the Libertarian Party line on this one. Steve Dasbach does a better job of explaining it than I have.
10272. CalGal - 10/14/2001 6:07:37 PM
That's what conservatives thought would happen to Roe v. Wade.
You say this as if it is relevant. For one thing, your assertion is wrong. Conservatives have won almost every major court decision on Roe vs. Wade save the basic right. Nothing "ironic" about that. But in any event, there is a huge difference between the American attitude towards abortion and that of illegal immigrants.
But as I said, having read the decision, it's not even really on point. There are plenty of ways around it, and nothing that I can see that prevents a school from requiring that they establish parental immigrant standing and notifying those who aren't legal. Nothing to do with withholding funding.
10273. PelleNilsson - 10/14/2001 6:07:55 PM
The bin Laden brand of terrorism has nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict except rhetorically.
And with that pontification I'm off to bed.
10274. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 6:09:17 PM
Actually, I didn't see anything about taxes, but I didn't read the whole thing.
I don't recall if taxes were explicitly mentioned, but simply recall that it was alluded to as an implicit assumption.
However, if I understand it the ruling didn't allow Texas to prevent funding schools that accepted illegal aliens.
Simply stated, the ruling said that Texas' interest in keeping illegal aliens out of state schools was trumped by the rights of those kids to equal protection.
10275. CalGal - 10/14/2001 6:12:10 PM
I missed Erin's post or I would have referenced it.
And I agree about Andonly's reference to LadyC's position as "slop" and the reasons for it. I mentioned earlier that I think we need to bring back some form of cultural imperialism.
I loathe Charlie Rose with a passion, but I stumbled across a show where he was interviewing Jim Hoagland and some Arabic professor from Johns Hopkins (he also wrote for US News). Hoagland made the excellent point that the reason Islamic nations loathe us is because we highlight their utter failure to have ever achieved a viable nation. I'll see if I can find the actual quote. Hoagland makes a lot of sense.
10276. judithathome - 10/14/2001 6:12:41 PM
so it's not like you can whine about how mean we are.
Since I am not doing this, I think it's beside the point for you to assume I will do so. In fact, I don't recall saying anything about the subject except that I didn't think the terrorists were hiding in the Hispanic community nor would they necessarily do so.
But of course, I'm a whining liberal because...I'm a liberal.
10277. Andonly - 10/14/2001 6:13:45 PM
Lester: "Ando, [funding alternative fuel dvlp'mt] a scream. Only fifty years or so of lagging research to catch up on."
I doubt it would take much cutback in fuel consumption to put OPEC in its place. Already happening in fact. Meanwhile, we need continued oil source expansion, nuclear reliance, and research into alternative fuel, plus simply boosting poduction of existing technologies. The new hybrid electric cars are reportedly very comfortable, as safe as comparable vehicles(sedans), accelerate fast, and use very little gas. But they cost $30,000 and have failed to become fashionable. Americans require a PR campaign to tell them what they should want--hell, that's what free market advertising is. No reason a war economy PR campaign can't accomplish change via appealing to American nationalism.
"More to the point : why don't you people import economical European or Japanese cars? I mean the real thing, not the upsized models you buy now."
Because they're not safe in a crowded highway full of SUVs. Part of the reason people buy SUVs in the first place is because unless you drive one you can't see around the other traffic on the road, and if you get hit by that other traffic while driving, say, a Honda sewing machine such we Americans drove in the early eighties, you're meat.
10278. CalGal - 10/14/2001 6:14:06 PM
Simply stated, the ruling said that Texas' interest in keeping illegal aliens out of state schools was trumped by the rights of those kids to equal protection.
Yes, that is what I read. But since the kids have no right to be here, you'd have to prove how that is on point to their checking the status of the parents prior to signing them up. If the kids aren't here, they can't get equal protection.
In any event, I'd say set the requirements and let the handwringers run to the Court and try to change it.
10279. Andonly - 10/14/2001 6:16:56 PM
"Trusting freedom takes more courage than trusting force."
Idiot.
10280. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 6:18:03 PM
CalGal,
How can Plyler not be on point? You stated that "all schools will only accept children whose parents can establish legal right to be here, too." I cited Plyler. Plyler is directly on point with regard to the assertion you made.
Your recollection of the subsequent fate of Roe is hilarious: "Conservatives have won almost every major court decision on Roe vs. Wade save the basic right." Well, the "basic right" is what they were trying to defeat, and they didn't, in effect, defeat it. They did convince the Court to narrow abortion to a "fundamental liberty interest" rather than a basic right, but it was a phyrric victory, to be sure. The right of a woman to get an abortion is now more entrenched than it was at the beginning of the Rehnquist Court.
10281. CalGal - 10/14/2001 6:22:51 PM
LadyC,
The Texans were withholding funding from schools that accepted illegal aliens. If a school's stated policy was to report illegal aliens and ensure they were deported, there would be no 14th Amendment violation.
I shouldn't have used "on point"; I agree that it is the obvious objection. I meant there were plenty of ways to get around it.
My recollection of Roe vs. Wade is most accurate, and if you don't think feminists have been wailing about the setbacks for 20 years you haven't been paying attention. Besides, in a world where a parent can force his child to have a child, I don't think you can crow about "basic rights". I'm not dissatisfied with abortion's current standing (although I would ban all late term abortions and do away with the parental requirement), but you're an idiot if you don't think every major victory has been won by the conservatives. That they aren't completely satisfied doesn't change the fact taht they've won.
10282. Andonly - 10/14/2001 6:23:51 PM
"However, our foreign policy, especially our use of military power, has earned us the enmity of many, and it has given others the pretext for attacking us, though not a valid reason."
Oh, I see. So we must be sure in future never to give anyone a "pretext" for flying airplanes into skyscrapers, let alone a "valid reason".
Did you write episodes for Star Trek, The Next Generation?
10283. CalGal - 10/14/2001 6:26:05 PM
In fact, I don't recall saying anything about the subject except that I didn't think the terrorists were hiding in the Hispanic community nor would they necessarily do so.
You don't recall having just made a post about why we should let illegal aliens' children be educated? Seriously? Well, read back and see what you wrote and then, when you recall it, see if you can say something that makes sense.
10284. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 6:26:20 PM
If the kids aren't here, they can't get equal protection.
Many of the kids were the U.S.-born children of illegals. They couldn't be deported, technically.
Andonly,
One day, you will understand Franklin's statement that he who would trade liberty for security deserves neither.
This is truly amazing. People who have been traditionally conservative on this forum can't admit that the most effective prevention against airplane hijackings would be armed pilots, and people who have previously been liberals are so wrought with hysteria that they can't see any solution other than to quintuple the size and powers of the INS.
Call me naive, but I've always believed that the best solution to what ails democracy is more democracy. This may not seem wise in this current state of crisis, but if the suggestions being made here were to be implimented, we would feel the repercussions for generations.
10285. Andonly - 10/14/2001 6:28:12 PM
"I think that the Indians understand our tactical reasons for needing Pakistan, right now."
They "understand" all right, and they're quite as worried as Israel, only marginally more diplomatic than Ariel Sharon.
10286. Erin R. - 10/14/2001 6:28:15 PM
I agree that our foreign policy should be less interventionist, but for reasons other than the bombings.
The planet has always had countries that have stepped in to fill the Superpower void. We're it now, but we won't always be.
10287. judithathome - 10/14/2001 6:28:20 PM
I made that comment to Erin in answer to her question and it was said mostly in jest...did you honestly think I meant "the tired, the poor, the teeming masses" as anything remotely serious? Jesus, did you leave you sense of humor on vacation?
10288. CalGal - 10/14/2001 6:29:07 PM
Oh, god. LadyC, do you really think people here haven't lugged out the Franklin quote some thousand times? Must you fling it around like it'sx brand new? To say nothing of being completely off Andonly's point.
Many of the kids were the U.S.-born children of illegals. They couldn't be deported, technically.
But the parents don't have a right to stay here. So the parents can be deported and they can decide what to do with their kid.
10289. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 6:29:20 PM
Sorry, "implemented".
10290. Erin R. - 10/14/2001 6:30:13 PM
By all means, give the pilots guns.
10291. CalGal - 10/14/2001 6:32:45 PM
Call me naive, but I've always believed that the best solution to what ails democracy is more democracy.
I know people who have always believed that life on the planet Zorkon is verdant and lush, with nary a soul in need.
Judith,
The difference between your purportedly serious responses and your attempts at humor is nil.
10292. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 6:32:59 PM
CalGal,
The parents can get citizenship through the American-born kids, so their deportation would be deferred, probably.
And Jesus, take a pill. I didn't claim any originality on the Franklin quote. I've been w-o-r-k-i-n-g, and haven't had time to follow all ten thousand posts, here. Get a grip, girl.
Andonly,
Did you write episodes for Star Trek, The Next Generation?
Hahahaha! I did, actually, write a couple of episodes. They were rejected, in part, for being too violent.
10293. judithathome - 10/14/2001 6:35:32 PM
The difference between your purportedly serious responses and your attempts at humor is nil.
Well, thanks, I'm glad to see you're enjoying something.
(That was a joke and yes, I recognize a pithy insult when I see it.)
10294. CalGal - 10/14/2001 6:36:44 PM
The parents can get citizenship through the American-born kids, so their deportation would be deferred, probably.
Oh, be real. It's not that simple, or every woman in Mexico would be running up here pregnant, having their kid, and then filing for green card status.
And I know you didn't mean to be original on the Franklin comment, but at the same time, I think you need to be a bit less cavalier with your assumptions. Given that everyone is quite aware of the concept, don't you think they are making these suggestions from within that context? To say nothing of the fact that Andonly was discussing foreign policy.
10295. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 6:37:59 PM
In any case, I stand by my point. One day, you will have to explain to your grandchildren how we responded to 9-11. Imagine yourself, thirty years from now, telling the grandkids how we rose up and threw all the swarthy types out of the country. Do you think that it will be remembered as a time when this country was at its best? I don't think so. Mobs do such things. The French Revolution was a great example of popular will being expressed in immoderate convulsions.
10296. Property of Jesus - 10/14/2001 7:42:26 PM
U.S. MILITARY FAILED TO KILL TALIBAN LEADER THE FIRST NIGHT OF WAR, NEW YORKER REPORTS
10297. RustlerPike - 10/14/2001 8:08:22 PM
You share a web forum with a guy. You joke with him. You share your secrets with him. You even grow to like him.
Then one day, it turns out he's really an Afghan province. 
10298. arkymalarky - 10/14/2001 8:21:09 PM
If you're going to give it all the appearances of a newsflash, PJ, don't you think it would be nice if the content were actual news?
Condoleeza Rice did well on 60 Minutes. I'd never have known it if I wasn't waiting on Gilligan's Island to come on. ;-)
10299. Andonly - 10/14/2001 10:08:57 PM
Gee, someone at the Boston Globe agrees with me:
The percentage of oil that we import has reached an all-time high of 54 percent. Two thirds of our oil consumption goes toward transportation. Americans now burn up 4 million imported barrels of oil a day. The bill for that oil is $2 billion a day.
Those figures are likely to become worse. Less than 6 percent of the cars and trucks for 2002 can claim to surpass 30 miles per gallon. Meanwhile, 38 percent of the vehicles headed for the showrooms average less than 20 miles per gallon.
The figures are so bad that EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman and Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham are coming stunningly close to saying that fuel efficiency is a patriotic duty. Abraham said, ''Reducing our nation's dependence on imported oil is crucial to our national energy security, now more than ever before.''
Whitman added, ''In addition to helping conserve energy, consumers who purchase these fuel-efficient cars and trucks are helping to protect the environment as well.''
So you SUV owners can no longer say that all this whining about gaz-guzzling cars comes from purple-haired hippies at Greenpeace. Abraham, the former US senator from Michigan, is a staunch ally of the automotive industry. He also received more than a quarter of a million dollars from oil and gas interests in his losing bid last year for reelection. So when Abraham and Whitman say ''our growing thirst for transportation fuel'' is an issue of ''energy security,'' you would think Americans might start paying attention.
10300. AytchMan - 10/14/2001 10:13:03 PM
In the grand bipartisan tradition at a time of national crisis, two examples of selfless sacrifice:
Rep Terry Everett’s (R-Ala) attempt to get peanut subsidies as a matter of urgency after September 11 by saying that “farm aid strengthens national security.” The Wall Street Journal pointed out that the proposed peanut subsidies would just happen to benefit Everett, a farmer as well as a Congressman, to the tune of $30,000.
The Democratic National Committee’s “emergency “ request to the FEC to get a waiver to bend soft money rules to compensate for a fundraising shortfall in the past month. Couching an attempt to change soft money regulations as a response to the September 11 attacks is, in the words of Common Cause, a “cynical and ill-conceived” idea.
Sooner than anyone thought, we're back to normal.
10301. joezan - 10/14/2001 10:18:55 PM
Andonly:
Americans now burn up 4 million imported barrels of oil a day. The bill for that oil is $2 billion a day.
I'm gone to church for 2 1/2 hours, and oil jumps to $500 a barrel?
10302. robertjayb - 10/14/2001 10:36:37 PM
I'm expecting Dubya to turn up in a cardigan any day now...
10303. CalGal - 10/14/2001 10:38:53 PM
Imagine yourself, thirty years from now, telling the grandkids how we rose up and threw all the swarthy types out of the country.
Don't look at me. I'm for throwing out a blond Swede here illegally and keeping the swarthy Muslim H1B.
10304. Andonly - 10/14/2001 10:55:02 PM
"I'm gone to church for 2 1/2 hours, and oil jumps to $500 a barrel?"
Does seem wildly inflated, unless maybe one considers something like development costs expected to be recouped over the next 20 years, or the multinationals' expense for lobbying
Congress, or the cost of stationing troops in Suadi Arabia. Or perhaps $2 billion/day is simply the retail cost of all imported fossil fuels. (Being a journalist, the author surely feels comfortable reporting facts in a very special way.)
My interest in the piece is actully Jackson's claim that Christy Whitman and Spencer Abraham have come out in favor of gas consumption reductions.
10305. Andonly - 10/14/2001 10:59:44 PM
Random achtung: I'm just going to issue a spelling apology right now and be done with any future or past corrections.
10306. ButterfieldSwire - 10/15/2001 1:56:14 AM
The US should return to the days of the Palmer raids. Engaging in subversive political activity should be grounds for deportation for non-citizens. Toss out all these blind clerics who are calling for Jihad against the West and these guys operating "think-tanks" fronting for the Islamic Jihad. French deconstructionists too (sometimes intolerance is its own reward).
10307. clydefo - 10/15/2001 7:25:12 AM
"I hate this sort of slop. What does it mean, exactly, to be a "bully nation"..." 10267. Andonly
Role-reversal may help in understanding
why they see us as a bully.
Viz: The world's only superpower, Afghanistan,
is bombing our cities and demanding
that we give up a legal immigrant
living in our country.
The Taleban offering us
not a shred of evidence of his guilt;
merely asserting that "we know he's guilty".
My own view is that we are more the
well-meaning oaf than the bully.
Although we are justified in calling it War
and going after bin Laden as part
of the "command and control" structure,
I believe in the long-run,
"hearts and minds"-wise,
we are better off treating his gang as criminals
and pursuing them through International
and National courts.
I say let's do one or the other.
Bush's hybrid course of action may screw up
the successful end-game of either.
Bush says, "no negotiations",
but the act of issuing an ultimatum
such as "cough him up"
is an opening of negotiations.
"We'll give you a second chance"
is a subsequent negotiation.
Claiming there are no negotiations
when in fact there are,
will be seen as acting in bad faith.
What if, in a putsch,
power-hungry Taleban factions had in fact
turned over bin Laden
and claimed their second chance?
Would Bush abort the military campaign
and make the same mistake
as was made in the Gulf War?
(Or would he simply admit that he was lying
about the "second chance" part?)
Comments made by the chief USA
law enforcement officer have so poisoned the jury pool
that bin Laden's only chance of getting a fair trial
lies in an International court.
Too bad. It would have been gratifying
to subject him to the fine grind of American Justice
as we did Timothy McVeig
10308. clydefo - 10/15/2001 7:33:46 AM
h.
10309. joezan - 10/15/2001 7:36:12 AM
Clydefo:
Comments made by the chief USA law enforcement officer have so poisoned the jury pool that bin Laden's only chance of getting a fair trial lies in an International court.
You're an ass.
Really.
Now shut the fuck up.
10310. joezan - 10/15/2001 7:43:09 AM
Ex-Kuwaiti Official Assails His Nation for Weak Support of U.S.
In a stunning denunciation of what he called a "shameful" betrayal of the United States, a former Kuwaiti government minister and member of the ruling family has scorned what he called his country's "hesitant and timid" support for America's war against terrorism.
..."This man of the Kuwaiti state, a man of power and influence, has shown how Kuwait has ceded the ground to militant Islamists," said Fouad Ajami, a
professor at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies. "It is a remarkable look at Arab fears behind the scenes of power."...
..."What would have become of us had the United States adopted the same hesitant position towards us that we have adopted of late?" Sheik Saud lamented.
I can smell the Fatwas all the way from here.
I just hope this guy has an opportunity to shame some Saudis into a reassessment of their attitude toward our efforts before they get him.
10311. joezan - 10/15/2001 7:43:48 AM
My toys.
10312. clydefo - 10/15/2001 8:28:10 AM
Have Whitman and Abraham cleared their
conservation ideas with the White House?
They seem to be at odds with the Administration goal
of getting on with our normal lives (road trips)
and spending ourselves out of recession.
What with all the other negative economic
factors currently in play, can we afford
a bust in the oil sector?
I'll bet the wildcatters in West Texas are pissed.
10313. Property of Jesus - 10/15/2001 9:09:51 AM
Egyptian "President" (btw, do they have elections in Egypt?) Hosni Mubarak calls Israel a dictatorship
Our $2.5 billion a year mistake
10314. Property of Jesus - 10/15/2001 9:11:31 AM
Ah, the last sentence in the WP/AP article tells the truth of the matter.
10315. RustlerPike - 10/15/2001 9:28:36 AM
Well, I think I understand Marj's hysteria a bit more now, after the recent posts about how to tell the difference between Arabs and Spics, and whether or not to deport Pe. Marj is afraid this will all turn into an anti-towelhead, anti-brown people thing.
It shouldn't.
And I think it won't.
But I've always advocated splitting the US up into five countries. This total mixture of all ethnicities into one big salad is a problem. There has to be some kind of ethnic theme to a country. Then there is room for infinite variations on that theme, and quite a few exceptions. But you guys have no theme.
Indy's posts on how to make Bin Laden mad were extremely funny.
10316. RustlerPike - 10/15/2001 9:30:09 AM
Joe:
No reaction at all to #10297? A nod of acknowledgement would do.
10317. wonkers2 - 10/15/2001 9:55:54 AM
Every spring and summer for the past 30 years I have gone to war with dandelions in my front yard. We don't like herbicides, so I battle them one at a time with my pocket knife or a patent dandelion digger. If I get an early start, before the first ones go to seed, the battle is easier. If not, it's a never-ending struggle for the rest of the season. One day I dig them all up and the next morning or the day after, thirty more yellow blossums have popped up to replace the ones I extirpated the day before. The seeds remain in the ground for the winter under the snow, and the battle resumes the following spring. Often, just when I fancy I have won the war, a new infestation comes on the wind from my neighbor's lawn. Discouraging, but I'll never give up.
10318. judithathome - 10/15/2001 10:00:59 AM
Wonkers...nice analogy.
10319. rubberducky - 10/15/2001 10:22:32 AM
Bush takes hard line approach:
WASHINGTON (AP) - U.S. warplanes bombarding suspected terrorist targets in Afghanistan on Monday reinforced President Bush's declaration that ``there's no negotiations'' over Osama bin Laden. At home, health officials sought to reassure Americans shaken by recent anthrax cases.
Bush strongly rebuffed a Taliban offer to turn over bin Laden to a third country if the bombing stopped. ``We know he's guilty. Turn him over,'' the president demanded Sunday as the U.S. military strikes in Afghanistan entered their second week.
...
Returning to the White House after a weekend at the Camp David retreat, Bush dismissed the latest offer over bin Laden from the Taliban regime. A Taliban leader suggested the Afghan government would be willing to discuss surrendering bin Laden to a third country if the United States provided evidence of his guilt and stopped bombing.
``They must have not heard. There's no negotiations,'' the president declared. ``All they got to do is turn him (bin Laden) over, and his colleagues and the thugs he hides, as well as destroy his camps and (release) the innocent people being held hostage in Afghanistan.''
The latter was an apparent reference to eight foreign aid workers imprisoned in Afghanistan.
10320. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 10/15/2001 11:08:03 AM
wonk- We welcome dandelions for spring salads--harvesting them when their young and tender--they're delicious.
So maybe America should have adopted the young Afghan war orphans when we had the chance.
10321. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 10/15/2001 11:08:59 AM
. . . and eaten them! ;-)
10322. Andonly - 10/15/2001 11:11:44 AM
It should be obvious why this, if true, is good news.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,573708,00.html
"FBI investigators have officially concluded that 11 of the 19 terrorists who hijacked the aircraft on 11 September did not know they were on a suicide mission, Whitehall intelligence sources said last night."
10323. RustlerPike - 10/15/2001 11:25:05 AM
10324. RustlerPike - 10/15/2001 11:30:09 AM
It's ugly, I know. Blame the Wiz for not agreeing to do it.
10325. RustlerPike - 10/15/2001 11:31:47 AM
A few more coils at the bottom and a more realistic 'neck' area would help it.
10326. jexster - 10/15/2001 11:35:59 AM
You da Mensch RP!
And as for the Saudis...
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia -- As Saudi Arabia's longtime chief of intelligence, Prince Turki al Faisal helped nurture the Afghan resistance movement that begot the country's Taliban leadership
Double Game
10327. jexster - 10/15/2001 11:42:25 AM
I hate to rain on RP's parade but air force insiders are now being reported as concurring in jexster's analysis of last Monday.
Our Warrior King is treating us to
A Fireworks Show
10328. jexster - 10/15/2001 11:43:27 AM
Jexster - First in war, first in peace, first in the pants of.....
10329. jexster - 10/15/2001 11:59:14 AM
DAZED AND CONFUSED....
Despite reports and rumors coming out of Afghanistan about this and that being bombed, fewer than 50 distinct targets were struck in the first week. At the end of the week, only six or seven targets were being hit daily, this in a country the size of Texas. Lots of re-strikes of previously hit targets are included in each day's list.
10330. RustlerPike - 10/15/2001 12:04:19 PM
I'll admit #10327's link makes for pretty depressing reading.
If this wussy-footing continues much longer, Sharon will have to take another jog on the Temple Mount.
10331. jexster - 10/15/2001 12:05:07 PM
Shocking News!
Tommy The Tank Engine Thompson is now saying that anthrax is bio attack!
10332. jexster - 10/15/2001 12:06:54 PM
Hell I thought he was on the way to Mubarak in chains!
10333. Property of Jesus - 10/15/2001 12:27:39 PM
Anthrax letters sent to Senate Majority Leader's office.
10334. judithathome - 10/15/2001 12:45:19 PM
Here is a link to that story.
10335. Property of Jesus - 10/15/2001 1:17:08 PM
CONGRESS WARNED TO LEAVE
Federal security experts are pressing Congress to adjourn for the year in the interest of safety, according to Bob Novak.
But the lawmakers won't be hurried and may be in session for another six weeks.
10336. dusty - 10/15/2001 1:32:45 PM
Nice job Pike (and better than anything created by other graphics wannabes)
10337. Property of Jesus - 10/15/2001 3:06:17 PM
Gore Loyalists are Relieved that Bush is the Commander in Chief
The Republican has more room to maneuver, less baggage, reports Newsweek editor Howard Fineman
10338. janjon - 10/15/2001 3:10:01 PM
Yes, one of the sad commentaries about our own crazies on the right is that had Gore been in office and doing exactly what W's handlers are doing, the cry for his impeachment from said crazies would be more than just loud.
Love the way they've decided to try to play partisan hardball in the House too. Real american spirit, those boys.
10339. OhioSTOPAS - 10/15/2001 3:50:01 PM
Janjon: I think a Gore Administration would be asked about this and this.
10340. janjon - 10/15/2001 3:58:07 PM
Oh absolutely, Ohio. Although the "boys" would have to had found a way around being too directly critical of the FBI. Probably would have concluded that the Gore Administration had tied its hands, etc etc etc. And, the conspiracy theories would abound. Marc Rich would figure in them too.
10341. OhioSTOPAS - 10/15/2001 4:06:11 PM
It's amusing how the righties are looking back over the years 1993-2000, scraping for reasons to say 9/11 was President Clinton's fault, while averting their eyes to avoid examining what was known to the Bush Administration in 2001.
10342. Property of Jesus - 10/15/2001 4:08:24 PM
Maybe if the Clinton administration had attacked Bin Laden (and shared with us more information about the Al Qaeda terrorist network) after the USS Cole disaster in October 2000, the "evil ones" might have been put on the defensive and not had the time to organize the second WTC attacks.
Clinton, for legacy reasons, wishes now that the done more to protect the homeland.
10343. Property of Jesus - 10/15/2001 4:08:56 PM
...wishes now that he had done more...
10344. OhioSTOPAS - 10/15/2001 4:09:15 PM
And (this is my third mention of this, but I'm still flabbergasted) if President Gore were to repeatedly utter an ignorant idiocy like "women of cover", surely it would not go without comment.
10345. PelleNilsson - 10/15/2001 4:10:30 PM
Suspected anthrax letters have now reached Sweden too. And the rain that fell today was slightly reddish which worried people until it was shown that it was due to dust from Sahara -- very unusual.
10346. Property of Jesus - 10/15/2001 4:10:34 PM
Clinton, trying to help Al Gore's campaign, did little to protect the country after the 19 sailors had been murdered.
10347. OhioSTOPAS - 10/15/2001 4:13:06 PM
See? #10342 illustrates my point.
Clinton fails to attack Bin Laden, October-January: Gasp! What a failure! He's responsible!
Bush fails to attack Bin Laden, January-September:
Silence.
10348. janjon - 10/15/2001 4:15:11 PM
"women of cover" indeed.
I am at least pleased to have read that there might be a sound reason why he continues to use that inane phrase "evil-doers", due to the way it translates into Arabic, etc.
But, "women of cover"?
10349. judithathome - 10/15/2001 4:16:03 PM
an ignorant idiocy like "women of cover",
What the hell DID he mean?
10350. Jenerator - 10/15/2001 4:16:53 PM
evil doers translates to an infidel who receives a punishment worse than hell.
10351. glendajean - 10/15/2001 4:17:07 PM
He meant women who have to wear covers (Muslim women)
10352. Property of Jesus - 10/15/2001 4:18:53 PM
Exactly.
10353. judithathome - 10/15/2001 4:19:11 PM
I know WHO he meant, just wondered if he transposed "covered women" or something...what would be wrong with Afghan women?
10355. Absensia - 10/15/2001 4:19:55 PM
I thought all women, except nudists, were women of cover.
10356. judithathome - 10/15/2001 4:20:10 PM
...or Muslim women. "Women of cover" sounds like some blanket worshiper...
10357. OhioSTOPAS - 10/15/2001 4:20:31 PM
He must have heard the phrase "women of color" at some point and malapropped it.
10358. Property of Jesus - 10/15/2001 4:20:45 PM
According to an Afghan woman on C-SPAN, the head clothing the Afghan women have to wear comes from India.
10359. glendajean - 10/15/2001 4:23:25 PM
I didn't mind women of cover so much. It sounds like a politically correct phrase. As one capable of turning a Spoonerism, I think they have a way of creating a little humor.
And frankly, I liked it when he said that they had to "cough up" Bin Laden.
10360. Property of Jesus - 10/15/2001 4:25:58 PM
PC phrase.
I like that. Can I use it?
10361. don s. - 10/15/2001 4:49:32 PM
From Salon:
Richard Gere thinks the best way to combat terrorism is by sending love vibes to those who would harm us.
"It's all of our jobs to keep our minds as expansive as possible," the Buddhist actor told ABC News Radio last week. "If you can see [the terrorists] as a relative who's dangerously sick and we have to give them medicine and the medicine is love and compassion, there's nothing better."
Which is not to say Gere believes that said "sick" evildoers get off scot-free.
"The terrorists," he says, "are creating such horrible future lives for themselves because of the negativity of this karma."
10362. judithathome - 10/15/2001 4:50:38 PM
That is such bull...how about the life we're absolutly SURE of, Richard?
10363. janjon - 10/15/2001 4:55:10 PM
Lord - what rot.
10364. judithathome - 10/15/2001 5:04:19 PM
I'll make a deal with Richared Gere...let's kill them now and he can explain it in their collective afterlives.
10365. janjon - 10/15/2001 5:06:25 PM
He proves that good looks and brains don't automatically go together.
What a twit.
10366. judithathome - 10/15/2001 5:07:04 PM
I've never given him much credit for either.
10367. Jenerator - 10/15/2001 5:10:08 PM
I wonder why he still calls them terrorists. Why not "dangerously sick relatives"?
10368. don s. - 10/15/2001 5:13:31 PM
He must be blinded by all that love and compassion. Stupid Buddhists, with all their "love thy neighbor" and "turn the other cheek" bullshit!
10369. Jenerator - 10/15/2001 5:38:26 PM
The head religious leader of Texas's biggest mosque spoke to us on Sunday about justice and jihad.
Paraphrasing him, he says that there are 2 kinds of jihad. The more important one takes place on a personal level. It is the daily struggle to resist temptation. The other kind of jihad is the fight against unbelief. It's not supposed to involve violence, but rather peaceful conversion. Missionary work, if you will.
As for justice, one's defensive actions are to never outweigh one's offensive actions and only the victim can forgive the perpetrator. To illustrate, if Osama Bin Laden tells Mohammed Atta to crash a plane into the WTC, only Mohammed is guilty and only he could ask for forgiveness.
10370. clydefo - 10/15/2001 5:54:35 PM
"Stupid Buddhists, with all their "love thy neighbor"
and "turn the other cheek" bullshit!" -10368. don s.
It's good to know that Buddhists share these Christian precepts.
Now if only we can bring Islam on board...
10371. Property of Jesus - 10/15/2001 6:16:22 PM
...from The Wall Street Journal
Is Iraq unleashing biological weapons on America?
The Anthrax Source
The usual government and media suspects are advising Americans not to "panic" amid the latest anthrax mailings, and of course that's right...
10372. dusty - 10/15/2001 6:44:45 PM
Bulgarian claims he met Osama in Pak and China
British Intelligence is investigating claims by a Bulgarian businessman that a middleman for Osama bin Laden approached him in Pakistan earlier this year for obtaining highly radioactive material.
10373. RustlerPike - 10/15/2001 7:17:35 PM
Where is Ace? Is everyone getting a life all of a sudden?
10374. Cellar Door - 10/15/2001 8:10:54 PM
THE DANGEROUS DICHOTOMIES OF THE RADICAL RIGHT
MediaWhoresOnline Commentary
We've always known that the conservative extremist ideology can't withstand logical or moral
scrutiny. But what is most fascinating is that they know it, too.
Conservative extremists' own discomfort with their warped world view is evident in the way they
consistently demonstrate a need to rip apart other, often unrelated beliefs, groups, or individuals
in an attempt to fortify their own.
We've all witnessed a particularly virulent strain of these malignant tactics since the September
11 terrorist attacks.
It's not the size of the flag, it's how many people see you waving it
It started immediately, with the hyperbolic comments of right wing figures such as Andrew
Sullivan. While virtually all of the nation, left, right, and center, was instinctively unifying, not
on all things political, but around the belief that America must respond to the attacks and
forcefully, Sullivan couldn't suppress his own conservative extremist instinct, which is to call
into question the patriotism of all non-conservatives. It wasn't quite good enough that there was a
spontaneous surge of patriotism on the part of Americans of all political stripes, in response to
the attacks. Commentators on the right had to use the event to declare that the left was suddenly
"learning" patriotism, a trait they had possessed all along.
In fact, liberalism had always been patriotic, but rejected the cringe-patriotism we're now seeing
in wall-to-wall ads on cable news networks, for "the entire Freedom American Collection,
including the Old Glory flag, the God Bless America flag, the Personal American Pride Pin - but
wait, call now and receive the 4 reusable peel 'n' place flags."
10375. Cellar Door - 10/15/2001 8:11:32 PM
Liberals never believed shouting patriotism from the rooftops signified anything except that the
shouting patriot felt a need to prove something to the other, non-shouters, or had been drinking.
Liberals understand the difference between love of country and gaudy jingoism. But beginning
immediately after the attacks, conservatives, predictably, went about furiously protesting against
comedians for offhand comments and initiating email campaigns against news anchors who
preferred not to wear a flag pin. It all became more ridiculous by the day, with each new report
of yet another flag pin controversy. Their need not to show but to prove their own patriotism
seemed insatiable. Who are they trying to convince?
10376. Cellar Door - 10/15/2001 8:12:22 PM
It happened because we didn't pray in school
Another area in which the right-wingers have demonstrated their characteristic overkill response
has been in their commentary along the lines of, "God is Back," beginning immediately after the
attacks.
Certainly there was greater open expression of religious beliefs after September 11. Thoughts of
an entire nation turned to eternal questions of life and death, and God. It is probably safe to say
beliefs all along the spectrum intensified, as they always do when humans are left to grapple
10377. Cellar Door - 10/15/2001 8:12:52 PM
with unspeakable loss and questions they can't answer. Not only did the religious turn to God for
comfort, but non-believers had their worst suspicions confirmed.
None of the facts mattered to conservatives, though. Suddenly, they said, America had
discovered why we need prayer in school. Again, it wasn't enough that there was a spontaneous
affirmation of the general religiosity of Americans. Right-wingers had to stand up and declare
the death of secularism, and in doing so, again demonstrated their own lack of independent faith,
as they have always done unwittingly through relentless efforts to destroy the vital separation of
church and state.
10378. Cellar Door - 10/15/2001 8:13:24 PM
It's not enough for conservatives to pray with their children on the way to school, or that their
children can pray to their hearts' content at lunch time and recess. Other people's children must
also be held captive in the classroom and forced to pray. It's not enough that polls consistently
show that around 80% of Americans believe in God. It's not enough that they and their families
can go freely to the institution of their choice at any time and practice their faith. They must use
every opportunity they can to force other Americans to acknowledge it, too. They must declare
the United States a "Christian nation," display nativity scenes at City Hall, and post the Ten
Commandments in courthouses. Never mind that Jesus instructed them that praying ought to be
done privately and not on the streetcorner. For some reason, they insist that all others be made
aware of their own belief in God, and of which god they specifically worship.
Who are they trying to convince?
10379. Cellar Door - 10/15/2001 8:14:00 PM
White-collar professionals are so six weeks ago
On September 11 and after, we witnessed and were told stories of awe-inspiring displays of
courage and self-sacrifice, of which the NYPD Firefighters became the symbol. But their deeds
alone, somehow, were not enough for the right. Firefighters and other heroes could not be
regarded as sufficiently heroic unless their fellow Americans were torn down in the process.
Peggy Noonan decided her scapegoats for this purpose would be the professional class,
especially "writers and intellectuals," and specifically men in these categories. (Noonan gave
"businessmen" a special dispensation - one can't be dissing businessmen when writing poison for
the Wall Street Journal, after all..)
10380. Cellar Door - 10/15/2001 8:14:34 PM
Incidentally and just as offensively, Noonan seemed to view the heroes of September 11 in the
way some people view novel, trendy new pets. Firefighters, soldiers, and the like were "back in
style," she said. (Did this mean she is now prepared to exchange her previous interests - writers,
intellectuals, and other professionals - and begin associating with these new, "stylish"
accessories, including "men who are welders and do construction"? Hey, New Yorkers: let us
know if you see elitist-no-more Peg out on the town with her new welder boyfriend.)
Noonan doesn't care that soldiers are able to carry out their missions with minimized risk, thanks
to not particularly "physical" engineers who designed the state-of-the art weaponry, eggheaded
programmers who designed tools enabling the military to engage from a relatively safe distance,
and "intellectuals" who fashion diplomatic strategies that ensure our allies' continued support -
all of whom have saved countless lives.
10381. Cellar Door - 10/15/2001 8:15:18 PM
And never mind that the principles American soldiers are fighting for are perpetuated even
more by the pen than the sword. Without the patriotism, intellect, and eloquence of the
writers Noonan sees a need to disparage as "not good men," American ideals could not
survive. Without the diligence of (real) journalists and intellectuals whose role it is to serve
as watchdogs of democracy by informing us of our government's actions, questioning them
aggressively, and recording them for history, democracy will die.
Even with the mightiest military in the world, the survival of American principles and
values depends on those able to communicate them and their importance to the people.
We believe what we believe because hundreds of years ago, gifted writers and intellectuals
helped convince Americans of the validity and morality of our beliefs, and of the reasons
they were worth fighting for.
10382. Cellar Door - 10/15/2001 8:15:58 PM
Noonan herself even seemed to believe in the power of the written word when she referred
to Bush's speech on terrorism - written by none other than, well, writers - as
"God-touched."
But since that observation just weeks ago, Noonan has evidently changed her mind and
decided, "men who push things and pull things and haul things and build things" represent
the only "good" men left. Not only is physicality itself a virtue, but intellect is a vice. But
why? What could explain adoption of such a monumentally ridiculous and false dichotomy
by conservatives like Peggy Noonan? Is it because so many right-wingers either have
nothing else going for them but brute strength and a claim they would run into a burning
building, or that they doubt their own intelligence and thus must disparage those whose
most distinct quality is their intellect?
10383. Cellar Door - 10/15/2001 8:16:41 PM
The meek shall inherit Ann Coulter's invective
In yet another related, divisive, zero sum proposition, the right tells us women and
feminine virtues must be diminished in importance if masculine virtues are to be
appreciated. Not only did Noonan divide men into subsets of good versus bad, depending
on the degree of physicality required in their occupations, but in doing so also elevated
physical strength as the most important characteristic in a person, reinforcing the
right-wing tendency toward relegation of women (and physically handicapped men) to
second-class citizenship.
Helping Noonan along in this regard was Ann Coulter, who divided Americans along lines of
"good," angry Americans craving revenge, and bad, "womanly" Americans who mourned
the victims. Coulter also used the terrorist attacks as an opportunity to ridicule women in
the military again (in case Ann missed it, our terrorist enemies' warnings and actions
indicate that no man, woman, or child in America should be surprised to find himself or
herself engaged in combat.) Of course Ann's sexism cuts both ways in some cases,
depending on the color of the man in question. As a bonus, she also called for mass
profiling and deportation of all "swarthy males."
10384. Cellar Door - 10/15/2001 8:17:12 PM
But the right didn't stop at jingoism, Christian supremacism, the maligning of crucial
occupations, marginalization of the physically weaker, sexism, or racism. In fact they were
just getting started.
The buck stops with Clinton. Forever.
There has been a constant stream of commentary from the right, set into action
immediately after the attacks, and seeking to build up a White House occupant known for a
lack of gravitas, competence, and legitimacy - by tearing down the most successful
president of our lifetime.
10385. Cellar Door - 10/15/2001 8:17:51 PM
Americans must be kept from recognizing that the terrorist attack happened on Bush's
watch after nine months of inaction against terrorism, the thinking seemed to go.
Despite resistance from the right and their media toadies against every action taken
against bin Laden and terrorism throughout Mr. Clinton's presidency, and despite fact after
fact emerging, demonstrating that it was the Republicans who blocked efforts all along to
focus the nation's resources on terrorist threats, conservative pundits instinctively began to
blame President Clinton for the September 11 attacks.
Why? Because if they failed to throw out distraction after distraction and distortion after
distortion about President Clinton's actions, attention might turn to Reagan and Bush
policies that created bin Laden and resulted in the Taliban coming to power in Afghanistan
- and to Dubya's complete and total abdication of responsibility in preventing terrorism in
the first nine months of his occupancy, in favor of exclusive attention to committing all
resources toward useless "defense" projects that would make his Poppy's friends and his
own campaign contributors wealthier.
10386. Cellar Door - 10/15/2001 8:18:44 PM
In this case, it's clear who they're trying to convince: America, the media, and themselves.
The right would tell you that the left is just as exclusive and divisive when it comes to
patriotism, religion, and dividing Americans by occupation, but they'd be lying. Liberals
were not calling into question the patriotism of Americans based on whether they wore a
flag pin. Liberals have never sought to shut down churches or prevent other people's
children from praying. They have instead fought for inclusion of everyone, and have fought
for both the right to pray and the right not to be forced to pray. No liberal has said that
because writers and intellectuals make important contributions to humanity, therefore
firefighters and construction workers do not. Liberals never mocked mourning by a
grief-stricken nation, least of all their own.
10387. Cellar Door - 10/15/2001 8:19:21 PM
The right has always been unbalanced. Who cares what they say?
So what's wrong with the right-wing desire to completely eliminate the views of their
perceived opponents and replace them with their own, rather than simply allowing differing
views to coexist? After all, is obvious that their need to do so results from a profound
uncertainty of the validity of their own beliefs, perhaps resulting in a nagging conscience
they cannot silence unless all opposition is destroyed. But what harm is there in declaring
that flag pins should be turned into identifiers of true patriots, that their own Christian faith
should be recognized as the real American faith?
Nothing, if there is no risk that such exclusive and irresponsible rhetoric could result in the
chipping away of protections for the minority. But every population is always vulnerable to
creeping extremism, and both that extremism and the risk that its rhetoric could resonate
more strongly in our nation's current, panicked atmosphere are intensified now.
10388. Cellar Door - 10/15/2001 8:19:59 PM
The optimism, rationality, and moderation in America that normally prevail and ensure the
insuperability of certain leaps in principle, have been temporarily diminished since
September 11, reducing the span of those leaps for any opportunistic, extremist interest
that would seek to exploit the current unease and confusion: leaps like turning dissent into
anti-patriotic treason; rejecting religious freedom in favor of "returning the nation to its
Christian roots"/theocracy; rejecting a principle of valuing all members of a diverse society
for their contributions in favor of one that calls for killing the artists and intellectuals;
rejecting a goal of equal opportunity for all in favor of mandating the veil and stoning for
speaking in public; rejecting democracy and self-determination in favor of requiring
10389. Cellar Door - 10/15/2001 8:20:51 PM
allegiance to a dictator not elected by the people, and requiring adherence to his regime's
orders to "watch what you say."
Conservative extremists in America are terrorizing our country using their own strategically
delivered, familiar brand of political Anthrax. They are making themselves willing allies of
the anti-democratic, anti-diversity, theocratic, absolutist terrorists, by seizing on their
attacks against America as excuses to divide Americans along paranoia-driven lines that
have always operated subterraneously in right-wing ideology.
Before September 11, the exclusive, control-oriented nature of the right-wing ideologue
was rarely anything to be regarded with much seriousness or alarm, and was actually
amusing for the most part. But America is fighting for her life now as a result of a
breakdown of forces preventing right-wing Islamic extremists from making their final leap
into power. We have learned again the painful lesson of the evil that results when a lack of
sufficient opposition allows exclusive, dichotomous ideologies to be taken to their
extremes.
10390. Cellar Door - 10/15/2001 8:21:49 PM
We knew conservative extremism here at home was a logically and morally bankrupt belief
system, and we can glean from their need to go as far as to use the recent tragedy to
silence all dissent, that even its own practitioners doubt its validity. But their tactics are
worse than invalid, they're dangerous in the current climate. We must do more than just be
amused by the right. We must be more vigilant than ever in calling right-wing extremists
on their poisonous, exclusive, exploitive and destructive rhetoric wherever we find it. "
10391. AceofSpades - 10/15/2001 8:31:47 PM
Wow.
Mediat Whores Online.
A little message board created by unemployed people who thought Table Talk was too damn right-wing.
Thanks, Cellar!
(But what does FrederickFoont have to say?)
10392. Cellar Door - 10/15/2001 8:36:41 PM
Probably "Go fuck yourself you cowardly fascist asshole!"
10393. AceofSpades - 10/15/2001 8:37:41 PM
It's a bit sad that not even the Nation is publishing the hard-left anti-American peacenik bullshit Cellar craves.
Nope.
He's got to go to Media (giggle) Whores (chuckle) On-Line to get a sermon from the Kumbaya Chorus.
10394. Cellar Door - 10/15/2001 8:39:40 PM
"The Nation"? The home base of Christopher "OK. I'LL play George Orwell this time!" Snitchens
10395. AceofSpades - 10/15/2001 8:45:54 PM
You know, according to "Professor" Cornell West, we've all been "niggerized" by terrorism.
I can't wait to tell all my stories about being abused by cops!
10396. Cellar Door - 10/15/2001 8:52:08 PM
That means your stories were written by Cornell Woolrich.
10397. RustlerPike - 10/15/2001 8:53:37 PM
ACE! Save us from tedium!
So, when do you start killing the artists and intellectuals over there?
How will it be done?
Can you kill the lawyers too?
10398. Cellar Door - 10/15/2001 8:59:25 PM
Well that's what Shakespeare suggested.
10399. clydefo - 10/15/2001 9:01:37 PM
Celler Door,
Right on!
I've wondered if, in his grave,
professional journalistic decision
to fasten his shiney USA flag pin to his lapel,
Brit Hume would do the same
if he were working the streets of Islamabad?
10400. jexster - 10/15/2001 9:07:59 PM
RP:
I think I can get ya a REAL job....
For weeks, the Washington bureau of al-Jazeera, a satellite TV news network, pleaded with the State Department for interviews to give Arab viewers the American perspective on the new war on terrorism. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell appeared for an interview on Sept. 23, but mostly "I was begging them" in vain, said Hafez Al-Mirazi, the bureau chief.
Late last week, policy changed.
Al Jazeera Rocks the Casbah!
10401. ronski - 10/15/2001 9:08:13 PM
The anthrax from Florida I heard tonight was determined to be the Ames strain, developed in Ames, Iowa, and shipped to laboratories around the world for legitimate purposes. This was not stuff scraped off a Haitian sheep skin. Some sophistication had to be involved. Given what the Opinion Journal piece (I was going to get around to posting that one myself) says, fingers are increasingly pointing to Iraq as a possible, if not likely, source.
Some are warning that those who always wanted to get Saddam are using the anthrax attacks as a justification for removing him. Nevertheless, I think it is growing clearer that Saddam will be a target of the U.S. and Britain before long, and if the Saudis do not like it, they will be ignored.
I also have a sense that when bin Ladin claimed immediately after WTC that there would be worse things to follow, he meant it, and was likely thinking of something quite specific. I suggest it may have been the anthrax, which he could have had paid for and had shipped to Muslim terrorists around the world.
But an interesting question would be how did it get into the U.S.? Probably the way tons of cocaine does every year.
10402. jexster - 10/15/2001 9:08:52 PM
Thomas D may be widely recognized as an internet opinion leader but fuck
I'm so damned smart I should be a terrorist target!
10403. ronski - 10/15/2001 9:12:55 PM
Bush himself may go on the network, and he should. And Helms cannot retire fast enough.
10404. ronski - 10/15/2001 9:13:57 PM
jexster,
May I kindly suggest you get a second opinion?
10405. jexster - 10/15/2001 9:20:08 PM
Here it is Ronsk! 
10406. ronski - 10/15/2001 9:22:52 PM
Problem with that flag company is they only sell very little ones, and very big ones. I need an in-between size.
10407. ronski - 10/15/2001 9:25:10 PM
I wonder if Condi is wearing some kind of hood, the way La Bhutto did. That would show respect to the fundamentalist world, and probably be a good idea.
Condi of cover.
10408. jexster - 10/15/2001 9:29:04 PM
I dunno if GWB should go on AJ. I don't think he could handle the abuse.
Besides I saw his appearance with the Italian PM today. He walks like he's got something stuck up his butt.
I nominate Rudy G., ABE
10409. jexster - 10/15/2001 9:38:22 PM
10410. clydefo - 10/15/2001 9:44:04 PM
Advisor Rice should lose the hood.
We are what we are in the West.
American women wearing goggles,
instead of veils,
are bombing the OBL gang.
10411. jexster - 10/15/2001 9:45:00 PM
As Week 2 of the war in Afghanistan unfolds, the contradictions within President Bush's policy have attained an unsettling clarity.
Rumble or Bumble???
But there's HOPE America!
Baboons Demonstrate Ability to Learn Complex Mental Tasks
Help is on the way!
10412. robertjayb - 10/15/2001 10:10:28 PM
Kid gets anthrax...
WASHINGTON (AP) - A child of an ABC News employee has been tested positive for anthrax, two officials said Monday.
The officials, both familiar with the investigation, said the child is being treated with antibiotics and is expected to recover. They spoke on condition of anonymity.
The anthrax diagnosed in the child is the type that is absorbed through cuts or scratches in the skin, not the more dangerous inhaled variety, the sources said.
The child had recently visited the ABC newsroom in New York, probably on Sept. 28, the source said.
10413. ronski - 10/15/2001 10:36:52 PM
All NYC media centers are being swept now by the FBI, looking for anthrax.
10414. ronski - 10/15/2001 10:41:33 PM
Coyotes and dogs have been howling all night long. I haven't heard this much caterwauling for at least a year or more.
I keep thinking about the "dogs of war."
10415. Absensia - 10/15/2001 10:51:07 PM
Apparently this baby was about 7 weeks old.
10416. joezan - 10/15/2001 11:09:30 PM
Message # 10316:
Hahaha!
I saw your post this a.m., but your image wasn't working then.
(And don't tell anyone about that, ok? People are always telling me I look like a friggin' Arab as it is - I don't need them thinking I have an actual homeland full of nasty, pederastic, syphilitic goat herders).
10417. CalGal - 10/15/2001 11:18:23 PM
7 months old, I believe.
10418. Absensia - 10/15/2001 11:36:23 PM
Cal, yes, I was just coming here to make that correction. Thanks.
It feels odd...who would have thought all this would happen? The WTC terrorism was terrible but I only saw it via tv. Likewise the bombings and actions in Afghanistan. But now, with anthrax getting closer "us" it gets very scary. And, having checked out some sites about biotech terrorism, et al., it really is frightening.
I'm not worried about my mail or some how getting anthrax. But I just wonder what, if anything, is next. Sorry, rambling.
10419. Property of Jesus - 10/15/2001 11:41:16 PM
"Sorry, rambling" should be your middle name, Adsensia.
10420. robertjayb - 10/15/2001 11:42:49 PM
The Italians are Coming?...(Aviation Now)
Italian troops could join the ranks of foreign militaries picking up the slack where U.S. forces are being strained by the air campaign in Afghanistan.
Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi met with top U.S. Defense Dept. officials Monday at the Pentagon and Italian officers discussed potential duties with U.S. Central Command staff.
As NATO members deployed airborne early warning and control (AWACS) aircraft and the Royal Australian Air Force joined combat patrols over U.S. cities, Italian troops may plug U.S. troop shortages in the Balkans.
"Italy has played a very big role in the Balkans, and obviously, that's one of the places where we're feeling a certain amount of strain, so that's obviously a place where Italy might play a larger role," DoD Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said.
Although only British planes, ships and submarines have joined the air strikes on Afghanistan, Wolfowitz did not rule out involvement of Italian forces.
10421. CalGal - 10/15/2001 11:51:30 PM
Abs, why do you worry? The Feds are on the job!
Guy in Florida has anthrax. Government says, Not to worry folks, you can get anthrax anywhere, he probably got it from a cow. And anthrax is very low risk and eminently treatable.
Guy dies of anthrax. Government says Not to worry folks, it's not a terrorist attack, he worked with cows. NO FUCKING MENTION, mind you, that he works for a tabloid.
Another guy from the same company has anthrax and really, folks, there's nothing to worry about. Yes, it was a tabloid, but it might still be a coincidence and besides, oh, wait--there was a letter? Okay, we'll check it out and get back to you.
Hey, it turns out there's anthrax on the keyboards! And another guy from the same company has been exposed to anthrax. Now it's four--no, five. Okay, it's not a coincidence. But it might not be terrorists.
Oh, and did we mention that TWO FUCKING WEEKS AGO, before the tabloid incident, we heard from NBC News about a letter to Tom Brokaw that his assistant opened? No? Yeah, turns out they gave us the letter but we didn't test it because we never could interview the assistant herself--turns out she was too sick, but until we can interview her there's no need to test the envelope, is there? It's not terrorists. But her doctor was convinced she had anthrax so we tested again and wow, it looks like the doctor was right. Time to throw our weight around the NBC office building. Terrorism? Well, it's hard to be sure. It's probably just a coincidence that a NY Times columnist got a letter, right? Yeah. Meanwhile more folks at the tabloid and three health care workers, a nurse, and a cop have tested positive for anthrax exposure, but honestly, everything's under control.
10422. CalGal - 10/15/2001 11:52:01 PM
Reno? Oh yeah, we'll be right there and we'll test it. It's anthrax! Wait--no, it's not. Whoops--now another test says it is! We're going to go with "yes" for the time being. Oh, wait. No, it's not. However, it's not a criminal investigation. We want to stress that.
Baby? What baby? Three weeks ago? Oh, that's awful. Is he okay? We'll get right on it. Yes, the publisher's wife rented to the terrorists and yes, we knew that a few weeks ago but we're pretty sure it's just a coincidence, too.
But it's not terrorists. We don't think.
10423. Absensia - 10/16/2001 12:19:30 AM
Cal,
Damn! You're right. Why worry when the Feds are protecting us! And they say, "Stay Calm." So, let's just kick back in our barcoloungers and not worry. All is well here in Pleasantville.
10424. HollyW - 10/16/2001 12:19:59 AM
My husband works for a newspaper (a small one, mind you). The running joke is, "Oh yeah? Keep it up and I'll make YOU get the mail!"
10425. CalGal - 10/16/2001 12:23:26 AM
Ha, ha. Spawn is furious about the baby. I'm furious about the feds. A very grouchy house. Fortunately, I'm in charge. "Do your homework!"
10426. Absensia - 10/16/2001 12:27:06 AM
I think hearing about the baby is what got me too.
Holly, it's a great line!
10427. HollyW - 10/16/2001 12:29:19 AM
I was thinking about freaking out about the baby earlier, then they said it was cutaneous and that the kid is out of the water, so I feel a bit better. I hope there will be no lasting damage to that poor child.
They taught us exactly nothing about anthrax in nursing school. Of course.
Anyone know that Gang of Four song, "Anthrax"? It keeps going through my head. It's making me nutty, but it's an okay song, not like when Neil Diamond gets stuck in my head.
10428. HollyW - 10/16/2001 12:41:46 AM
I guess a local creamery got a package with a suspicious white powdery substance in it. The joke for that one is, "It was probably Cremora. They've just never seen it before."
If you can't laugh you cry, eh?
It's being tested, though.
10429. CalGal - 10/16/2001 12:48:37 AM
I dunno, I'm so cranky about how we seem to be mismanaging things here at home that I don't feel much moved by the anthrax situation. I feel bad for people, and the jokes are funny, but I can't help but feel the US isn't in any shape to deal with internal security. That's one reason why I am so convinced that we need to boot all the illegal aliens out and start managing the legal ones' activities more effectively. It's not that I don't think they might fuck that up, too, but at least they'll be flailing in the right direction, for once.
I'm more sanguine about our international efforts, but as time goes on I become more depressed by how intractable the Islamic and Arab mindset is. I joke about cultural imperialism being necessary--we go in there and brainwash them into weekly "Survivor III" rituals--but I really am not sure if we have the will to go through with it, or if we'll just toddle off and let all these people keep hating us.
10430. Erinys - 10/16/2001 2:29:21 AM
boot all the illegal aliens out
No, no, no, build a Great Wall around them to keep them out. A period of decision, after which no one goes anywhere.
10431. concerned - 10/16/2001 2:57:09 AM
From the AP:
Son of Saddam Praises bin Laden, Signaling Shift in Iraq
A newspaper owned by President Saddam Hussein's son sang the praises of Osama bin Laden on Sunday, likely signaling a shift in the Iraqi government's attitude to the United States' No. 1 enemy. While Iraq has condemned the U.S. airstrikes on Afghanistan, it had previously downplayed the target -- Bin Laden.
However, on Sunday the newspaper Babil, which is owned by Odai Hussein, published a column addressed to the foreign ministers who took part in the Organization of the Islamic Conference meeting that gave quiet support last week to the U.S. airstrikes. It said: "[President] Bush despises you. He did not inform you of the strikes because you have no say. ... Shame on you."
"Compare your faces to Osama's beautiful appearance ... swearing that he will not let America live in peace until Arabs do," referring to Bin Laden's videotaped speech broadcast Oct. 7. "He said it while facing blasphemy's missiles falling ... and the whole world listened."
....bin Laden's 'beautiful' appearance?!? Not sure what gets Saddam Jr.'s rocks off but to me he looks like a cross between Satan and a billy goat suffering abdominal distress from scarfing down too much excrement.
10432. RustlerPike - 10/16/2001 4:05:38 AM
Dust from the Sahara could be laced with anthrax, Pelle.
And red anthrax is the worst, they say.
10433. wonkers2 - 10/16/2001 7:26:34 AM
SAN FRANCISCO
In Afghanistan, the targets are running out. Such are the frustrations of the powerful; Joseph Conrad, writing of an African "heart of darkness" a century ago, well understood:
"Once, I remember, we came upon a man-of-war anchored off the coast. There wasn't even a shed there, and she was shelling the bush...In the empty immensity of earth, sky, water, there she was, incomprehensible, firing into a continent."...
For Americans, Conrad's "incomprehensible" looms near, for cruise missiles and laser-guided bombs will not protect them from terrorism nor shield them from the political challenge they face. The battleground of the new war is not Afghanistan but here, and in his very choice of weapons our enemy has left America at a grave disadvantage, one the country has not begun to grasp, let alone confront.
Mark Danner NYT op-ed 10-16-01
10434. joezan - 10/16/2001 7:26:45 AM
Cellar - Message # 10374, et seq:
Media Whores Online?
You and Wiz are pitiful, scouring the 'net for the nuttiest shit.
Well, I guess that, in it self, is not that pitiful. What's pitiful is that you then copy-n-paste this wacko shit into other fora, demonstrating for the world that the psychotic ramblings of '60s acid casualties is to you a revelation...LOOK - READ THIS!, you scream - This article validates every hateful thought and conspiracy theory I've ever harbored about the Right!.
You whine incessantly that people are held thrall in the grips of "the Scaife/Murdoch/Hearst/VRW Conspiracy", yet you yourself clearly cannot distinguish between objective journalism, and jingoistic diatribe.
And the more "underground" the source, the more valid you find it. You're like all those kids who, a few years ago, rejected any musical group that did anything to promote itself - the less records they sold, the more "sincere", and "genuine" the message.
Because, of course, you simply cannot hold a common position, or a pedestrian taste.
You're a juvenile. A 56 year-old juvenile.
Now, put on some N-Sync and clear your mind, Sr. Guevara.
10435. rubberducky - 10/16/2001 8:32:47 AM
Cellar: please refrain from posting articles like that. it is completely unnecessary to do that when a link and blurb will do.
10436. rubberducky - 10/16/2001 9:30:21 AM
and CalGal says the Feds aren't on top of things!
(requires Adobe Reader)
10437. JayAckroyd - 10/16/2001 9:49:19 AM
HollyW Anyone know that Gang of Four song, "Anthrax"? It keeps going through my head. It's making me nutty, but it's an okay song, not like when Neil Diamond gets stuck in my head.
It's actually called Love Like Anthrax, and it's been whirling through my head too.
Love will get you like a case of anthrax
And that is something I don't wanna catch
10438. judithathome - 10/16/2001 10:09:17 AM
between objective journalism, and jingoistic diatribe.
You must be referring to Ann Coulter.
10439. Property of Jesus - 10/16/2001 10:17:02 AM
Speaking of American female heroes...
Barbara Olsen on Bill Clinton. What would Mr. Bubba have done if he was still president after the WTC/Pentagon homicide bombings
10440. Cygnus X-1 - 10/16/2001 10:47:31 AM
My apologies if this has been brought up before, but I contend that the terrorists are making a huge mistake by targeting the media with their anthrax compaign. They're turning their last potential ally into an enemy. We all know that anti-military, and yes, anti-American-when-there's-a-Republican-president, media would soon start to criticize the campaign in the Middle East. Not now, though; and, it seems there are those who agree with me.
THE OTHER BLOWBACK
Excerpt:
MANHATTAN has now been attacked twice - once on Sept. 11 and once with the NBC anthrax. This choice of target may have been a gross miscalculation on the part of the al Qaeda terror network, because Osama bin Laden has turned a city with an anti-war tradition going back more than a century into a nest of bloodthirsty hawks.
10441. Property of Jesus - 10/16/2001 11:00:55 AM
AMERICAN MUSLIMS ARE TEACHING THEIR CHILDREN "TREASONOUS BEHAVIOR" NEAR MY HOME. NEIGHBORS PLAN PROTESTS OUTSIDE "SCHOOL" 10442. Cellar Door - 10/16/2001 11:26:40 AM I'm 54, joezan. I've said all I've ever had to say about you and your ilk in the past, and there's no real point in repeating it. 10443. CalGal - 10/16/2001 11:36:20 AM Towards that, could Stone please be told not to use large font? His spam is bad enough as it is. 10444. janjon - 10/16/2001 11:45:56 AM If anyone wants to get even more unsettled and depressed, I suggest reading Seymour Hersch's article in the new New Yorker. Although it meanders over to the maddening story about how the drone plane wasn't authorized until it was too late to bomb the hell out of a place where they were sure the Big Cheese Kaliban (Omar) was then hanging, it is mostly about the incredibly fragile state of affairs in Saudi Arabia - both in terms of the corrupt ruling family and the ease with which terrorists could halt much of their oil production for a couple of years. Among other little tidbits, he opines that this would almost instantaneously drive the price of oil up to, say, $100 a barrel. 10445. Property of Jesus - 10/16/2001 11:46:27 AM What is the GROWTH up above the President's left eyebrow? A spore of Anthrax might find that attractive. 10446. ronski - 10/16/2001 11:46:38 AM But of course all those children's comments about Palestinians and Israel mean absolutely nothing because the attacks on America have absolutely nothing to do with Israel. 10447. Property of Jesus - 10/16/2001 12:02:56 PM Of course, Palestine must exist as a state. But the country of Palestine must not be allowed to wage war on Israel. 10448. thoughtful - 10/16/2001 12:06:19 PM Ronski, I agree that anti-western islam has to do with many things, but Israel/Palestine is just the excuse du jour. When it looked like the Israel/Palestine situation would reach resolution under Clinton, did bin Laden and cohorts stop planning attacks on the US? Nope. 10449. Property of Jesus - 10/16/2001 12:07:08 PM must=just 10450. jexster - 10/16/2001 12:10:57 PM The world President Bush has described since Sept. 11 is divided between good and evil, a black-and-white map on which each country must choose its color. "Either you are with us," Bush said in his Sept. 20 speech to Congress, "or you are with the terrorists." 10451. jexster - 10/16/2001 12:11:20 PM and so do I 10452. jexster - 10/16/2001 12:17:09 PM Another Jexster first...first in war, first in peace... 10453. CalGal - 10/16/2001 12:21:37 PM I agree with thoughtful. Israel has very little to do with this. IT's a worst-case scenario, really--if we make a wrong decision about policy, it could make things worse, but making the problem go away entirely wouldn't improve things a jot. 10454. judithathome - 10/16/2001 12:21:50 PM I wonder if it might get so "of one mind" that they would sack Powell? 10455. ronski - 10/16/2001 12:22:06 PM I read Friedman every day he writes. 10456. jexster - 10/16/2001 12:26:34 PM Powell is heads and shoulders above the lot of em when it comes to being an ass-kickin bureaucratic infighter. Its how he made himself at DoD the nastiest nest of hornets in the bureaucracy. But the overweening tendency of the Bushies is towards yippie kay yay "cowboyism"...something Judith is certainly more familiar with than I am being from Tejas and all! 10457. jexster - 10/16/2001 12:27:56 PM Oh the stars at night 10458. jexster - 10/16/2001 12:31:12 PM First in war...first in peace 10459. jexster - 10/16/2001 12:44:56 PM Today is reporting that The Warriour King is royally confused and perplexed at the reaction in the Mohammedin world against his Crusade. 10460. Jenerator - 10/16/2001 12:49:10 PM I'm with Ronski on this; although, Ace had some excellent points in the Israel and Palestine Thread. 10461. Indiana Jones - 10/16/2001 12:58:21 PM If the British had as many nimcompoops as we, someone would be belly-aching about knighting Rudy Giuliani and how that demonstrates "insensitivity" to Muslims. 10462. janjon - 10/16/2001 1:04:02 PM Indiana - anyone with just a modicum of knowledge about the history of the Middle East would have/should have realized that the word "crusade" is about as loaded as it gets. I would have hoped that, even if the President did not, those whom he and his handlers looked to for advice on how to manage/posit/even describe our reactions and plans would have done more than just caution about the use of that word. Especially since it should have been obvious that bin Laden would do everything possible to make this appear to be a general attack against Muslims and Islam. 10463. thoughtful - 10/16/2001 1:14:56 PM ronski, (we don't really need Saudi oil all that much) This is so at odds with anything I've ever read or ever understood about oil markets. 10464. Andonly - 10/16/2001 1:17:34 PM "Among other little tidbits, he opines that this would almost instantaneously drive the price of oil up to, say, $100 a barrel." 10465. Jenerator - 10/16/2001 1:18:37 PM Thoughtful, Ack! 10466. PelleNilsson - 10/16/2001 1:23:35 PM In all fairness I think it is quite easy to overlook the negative connotations of "crusade". After all we mostly use it to describe something (presumably) positive like a crusade against drugs or against AIDS. 10467. rubberducky - 10/16/2001 1:24:28 PM what i guess i dont get is why would bin Laden follow up the spectacularly evil events on 9/11 with a dull and stupid ploy like mailing a non-communicable disease to a fucking tabloid and Tom God Damned Brokaw? 10468. Andonly - 10/16/2001 1:24:51 PM Cygnus: "My apologies if this has been brought up before, but I contend that the terrorists are making a huge mistake by targeting the media with their anthrax compaign." 10469. janjon - 10/16/2001 1:25:49 PM andoly - you've cheered me right up. 10470. janjon - 10/16/2001 1:30:40 PM pelle - a "crusade" against AIDS, conducted here, Sweden or almost wherever, is a lot different than a physical war in the Mid-East in terms of what the word connotes. 10471. Andonly - 10/16/2001 1:30:53 PM From Jexster's link: Perle has advocated using military force against one or two other countries, including Iraq, to make a point beyond Afghanistan. "Whether it is [Iraqi President] Saddam Hussein or [Syrian President Bashar] Assad or the Lebanese or the Sudanese . . . the regimes involved have to be persuaded that we will use whatever tool is necessary and that they are truly in jeopardy," he said. "The best way to give that the necessary reality is to do it in a couple of cases." 10472. janjon - 10/16/2001 1:33:40 PM rd - I wouldn't be surprised to learn eventually that more than just a little/most/maybe even all of the anthrax missives are the work of one or another of our own home-grown hate groups. God knows, the number of media/charitable groups that get death threats etc. on a constant basis is very large. And, anthrax in the forms being used just isn't that difficult to obtain. 10473. judithathome - 10/16/2001 1:41:26 PM to keep them from thinking that we indeed are using this/concocted this to justify our efforts to debilitate Muslims generally. 10474. PelleNilsson - 10/16/2001 1:43:53 PM janjon 10475. Francis Urquhart - 10/16/2001 1:57:34 PM I believe we are probably past the niceties of language, as most governments are during a war. 10476. Property of Jesus - 10/16/2001 1:59:06 PM Christopher Hitchens confronts Oliver Stone over the movie director's comments about the WTC bombings 10477. CalGal - 10/16/2001 2:00:24 PM But they can't--or at least they think they can't. Certainly a theocracy like Saudi Arabia can't go around beheading Islamic fundamentalists all that easily. 10478. AceofSpades - 10/16/2001 2:02:35 PM 10479. Francis Urquhart - 10/16/2001 2:10:33 PM If you behead thousands, just as if you unleash machine gun fire into crowds of angry chanting extremists in Pakistan, you can effect enough control for our purposes. And to the extent you have problems, our revitalized CIA can hopefully assist you in bringing violence to extremist factions within your country, and thereby maintaining power and a free flow of American aid for your military, for decades to come. 10480. Francis Urquhart - 10/16/2001 2:12:02 PM But it is critical that we place the governments of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia in the posistion of ordering the killing of thousands of their own extremists as a gesture that we are all in the same family. 10481. Indiana Jones - 10/16/2001 2:21:54 PM janjon: I characterized "crusade" as a slip, because I see the (anti-Islamic) connotation at its root, though as Pelle points out, the word's usage is much more general than that now. Even so, I also think that all this worry about language is a little too overwrought considering what we're doing. 10482. janjon - 10/16/2001 2:47:59 PM pelle. lecture? you really must be insulated up there. And, of course, "crusade" has been utilized in a wide range of ways in the West. That doesn't mean that, considering that one of our prime objectives is to avoid making it easier for bin Laden and his to make the masses in the Mid-East truly believe that this is a Holy war, that we shouldn't have been nimble enough to not have seen the adverse impact of that word. 10483. Cygnus X-1 - 10/16/2001 2:48:10 PM Andonly, Re 10468: 10484. dusty - 10/16/2001 2:51:40 PM Pelle is right, of course. 10485. PelleNilsson - 10/16/2001 3:11:11 PM I just heard on BBC that a Red Cross warehouse near Kabul has been hit. It had the emblem painted on the roof. Extraordinary bad luck and bad PR. 10486. Property of Jesus - 10/16/2001 3:12:41 PM Give me a break. They kill 6K of our people and destroy a city and we're supposed to "sensitive" to the use of the word "crusade." 10487. janjon - 10/16/2001 3:19:31 PM to coin a phrase, don't be an idiot. We're trying to keep this from being seen by the masses as being a Holy war. It is in our interests that it not be so seen. Ergo, use the word "crusade", with all that that conjures up is dumb. 10488. thoughtful - 10/16/2001 3:19:56 PM dusty, I disagree. I think the hardliners in the administration purposely picked the term "crusade" for the insult is was meant to be as was "infinite justice" and then backed off when it was pointed out how much it could damage the required diplomatic effort with predominantly muslim nations, like Pakistan, if the "get usama" effort was to be pulled off successfully. That they backed off the names were early signs of the learning curve, or turnabout, the Bushies have gone through in the last several weeks vs. the first months in office, facing up to the fact that the cold war is over, the US cannot deal effectively with the world without allies, burning bridges is not a good idea (kyoto, russia, north korea) especially when nothing is gained by doing so, and most importantly that globalization (political, economic, strategic, etc.) is here to stay. 10489. judithathome - 10/16/2001 3:23:37 PM Pelle: 10490. CalGal - 10/16/2001 3:25:21 PM Ace, 10491. PelleNilsson - 10/16/2001 3:28:25 PM Prescient, Judith. Or did you know? I have not listened to the news earlier today. 10492. judithathome - 10/16/2001 3:39:26 PM Pelle: 10493. Property of Jesus - 10/16/2001 3:40:42 PM Give Judith the credit, Pelle. It's very, very important to her. 10495. PelleNilsson - 10/16/2001 3:50:44 PM Well, it is strange that nobody else has commented here. Of course it was an accident but it will provide a new focus for anti-American sentiments and not only in the Muslim world. 10496. judithathome - 10/16/2001 3:53:07 PM I've wondered about that, too...they'll make hay out of it over there; soon enough we'll be seeing in on Al Jeezera. 10497. CalGal - 10/16/2001 3:53:53 PM On one hand, I agree that accidents do happen. On the other, ferchrissakes, it's a fucking zillion dollar system. 10498. jexster - 10/16/2001 4:04:31 PM Debunking the bullshit offered by Tommy the Tank Engine Thompson, Daschle's office reports that the strain of anthrax sent to the Senator was "very potent...the same strain sent to Brokaw" and "not the work of amateurs" 10499. janjon - 10/16/2001 4:04:40 PM Good God. We never promised that there wouldn't be fuckups and that some mistakes wouldn't occur. 10500. dusty - 10/16/2001 4:36:45 PM thoughtful 10501. Indiana Jones - 10/16/2001 4:41:14 PM Can someone delete 10494 for destroying the screen? 10502. Property of Jesus - 10/16/2001 4:43:23 PM THE TABLOID PLOT THICKENS... 10503. rubberducky - 10/16/2001 4:46:32 PM hmm 10504. rubberducky - 10/16/2001 4:48:10 PM here's the original post 10505. Property of Jesus - 10/16/2001 4:50:19 PM From my link, hotlink the NEWS folder one and go from the"Intern in Boca Anthrax Case Checks into Lauderdale hospital." 10506. Indiana Jones - 10/16/2001 4:52:46 PM Thanks, ducky. Must be another Netscape-only weakness. 10507. wonkers2 - 10/16/2001 5:54:10 PM According to this week's The New Republic, Bush has been relying for his advice on Islam on a fundamentalist Roman Catholic law professor who, by his own words "...dabbles in Islamic jurisprudence." 10508. Cellar Door - 10/16/2001 6:01:10 PM Could Rush's hearing loss be anthrax-related? 10509. joezan - 10/16/2001 6:15:31 PM janjon - Message # 10444: 10510. joezan - 10/16/2001 6:25:48 PM Toys 10511. stostosto - 10/16/2001 6:26:12 PM Rustler, 10512. Greystoke - 10/16/2001 7:54:47 PM janjon 10513. CalGal - 10/16/2001 7:59:43 PM The Malaysia one turns out not to have been anthrax, or at least that was the last report. I of course find it most encouraging that our labs apparently can't even decide what anthrax is. 10514. Greystoke - 10/16/2001 8:22:16 PM CalGal 10515. jexster - 10/16/2001 8:24:33 PM 10516. jexster - 10/16/2001 8:25:27 PM I always thought joezan was a Chinese province 10517. jexster - 10/16/2001 8:26:51 PM Message # 10507 10518. jexster - 10/16/2001 8:27:43 PM But it IS now time it appears to return to the pages of TNR...clarity of analysis has returned? 10519. jexster - 10/16/2001 8:32:19 PM When I sent his writings to Marius Deeb, a professor of modern Arab political thought at Johns Hopkins University's Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, he told me, "This guy doesn't know what he's talking about." 10520. jexster - 10/16/2001 8:35:13 PM Even worse, Imam Moron! 10521. jexster - 10/16/2001 8:39:35 PM Aaaah yes, returning to sense and sensibility Tommy The Tank Engine Thompson - Don't Know His Ass from a Hole in the Ground - TNR 10522. jexster - 10/16/2001 8:59:12 PM on the morning of Sept. 11, the entire country was being defended by 14 Air National Guard planes dispersed among seven bases. 10523. robertjayb - 10/16/2001 9:01:29 PM Greystoke, 10524. greystoke - 10/16/2001 9:07:58 PM robertjayb 10525. arkymalarky - 10/16/2001 9:18:11 PM What irritates me most about media coverage now is they'll discuss one topic to deah (anthrax at the moment) to the exclusion of anything else, except essentially one-liner updates. There are in depth "special reports" that are informative and helpful in providing context and background, but the actually main events are scrolled at the bottom for a fairly short period and rarely repeated. 10526. robertjayb - 10/16/2001 9:18:31 PM The Aussies are coming... 10527. Cellar Door - 10/16/2001 9:18:31 PM They have no shame. 10528. Absensia - 10/16/2001 9:19:10 PM Grey, 10529. arkymalarky - 10/16/2001 9:19:19 PM actual 10530. greystoke - 10/16/2001 9:25:45 PM arky 10531. arkymalarky - 10/16/2001 9:28:05 PM I agree. Fox reports a lot of stuff that I never hear verified anywhere else, but don't tell Ace I said that. He's kind of sensitive about Fox. 10532. arkymalarky - 10/16/2001 9:29:25 PM And they rarely make clear retractions, unless it's to clear the name of someone who might sue them. They just sort of drop it and move to the next thing. 10533. CalGal - 10/16/2001 9:36:48 PM Grey, 10534. amax - 10/16/2001 9:50:42 PM Bin Laden's terror justification: Stop Broadcasting Gilligan's Island 10535. CalGal - 10/16/2001 9:58:04 PM I really think the misleading reports recently have been coming from the government, who clearly doesn't know the first thing about anthrax, much less how to handle a possible bioterrorist attack. 10536. arkymalarky - 10/16/2001 10:43:17 PM I could have sworn I heard it on the news last night, but I can't find anything today. Maybe I dreamed it. Hmm. 10537. Absensia - 10/16/2001 10:46:39 PM Interesting. While you were discussing the inaccuracies in the media reports, CNN was doing a show on confusion and info from the government, showing clips of various officials, Ashcroft, Thompson, et al, making contradictory statements. 10538. cmboyce - 10/17/2001 1:27:51 AM I see no evidence whatever that either TV or the govt gives a rat's ass about creating/maintaining an informed public. The one just wants to sell us stuff, and the other wants to sell us it. 10539. CalGal - 10/17/2001 1:56:57 AM Mohamed Atta Squeaked By in Incident at Miami Airport 10540. concerned - 10/17/2001 2:13:22 AM Does this mean that bin Laden is Jewish too because he praised the WTC/Pentagon terrorists? 10541. don s. - 10/17/2001 2:38:21 AM from the onion 10542. Absensia - 10/17/2001 9:28:16 AM CNN's reportig that more than 20 people from Sen. Dashel's office have posted positive to anthrax. 10543. jexster - 10/17/2001 10:05:15 AM WASHINGTON -- In a distant echo of Vietnam, some leading conservatives are quietly questioning whether the Bush administration is allowing its political goals in Afghanistan to excessively shape military strategy. 10544. jexster - 10/17/2001 10:26:32 AM Unraveling the Saudi Role in 9/11 Attacks 10545. jexster - 10/17/2001 10:29:36 AM GREAT NEWS! 10546. jexster - 10/17/2001 10:41:39 AM THERE are increasing signs that Britain's military is being held at arm's length by a Pentagon split over the way ahead in the campaign. 10547. jexster - 10/17/2001 10:42:06 AM Worry 10548. janjon - 10/17/2001 11:29:39 AM well, unfortunately, the news about the Daschele letter being the product of very sophisticated people (with at least one report saying that the form of anthrax used could not have been prepared except at a very few highly sophisticated labs) and (to a lesser extent) the fact that it really appears that the Daschele and Brokow letters were sent by the same source rather make greystone's reaction to my thought that much of this was being done by our local hate orgs. an apt reaction. 10549. Cellar Door - 10/17/2001 11:32:17 AM But did you see the envelopes? Absolutely classic crazy-scrawl. 10550. janjon - 10/17/2001 11:35:39 AM I noticed that they used pre-"stamped" envelopes too. No possible fingerprints (if pre-adhesive stamps) or DNA if licked. 10551. ronski - 10/17/2001 11:45:19 AM Last I heard the Nevada case was confirmed as anthrax and the letter to NBC vowed "Death to America, death to Israel," which does not sound McVeigh- or Aryan Nations-like to me. 10552. dusty - 10/17/2001 11:46:41 AM Greystoke 10553. jexster - 10/17/2001 11:50:35 AM crazy scrawl 10554. janjon - 10/17/2001 11:50:57 AM For whatever the reason, I appreciated today's "Boondocks". (It may help indeed if you had been reading this almost always nicely acerbic comic over the past couple of weeks.) 10555. jexster - 10/17/2001 11:56:34 AM OTOH... 10556. jexster - 10/17/2001 11:57:09 AM Boondocks...sort of a black Ace of Spades thing eh? 10557. jexster - 10/17/2001 11:58:51 AM Unattended bag found at SFO...officials "very concerned" 10558. jexster - 10/17/2001 12:02:08 PM anthrax spores in Pataki's office.... 10559. janjon - 10/17/2001 12:27:22 PM Boondocks is usually funny, frequently astute. 10560. Cellar Door - 10/17/2001 3:38:47 PM 10561. jexster - 10/17/2001 3:45:55 PM 10562. PelleNilsson - 10/17/2001 3:59:26 PM AKA Hercules. 10563. alistairconnor - 10/17/2001 4:15:33 PM The anthrax business must be a huge disappointment to its perpetrators. One death? The western world is on its knees. 10564. janjon - 10/17/2001 4:26:54 PM white powder of all types is definitely out of fashion. 10565. jexster - 10/17/2001 4:37:05 PM Imam Moron's Declares War On Saudi Arabia!!! 10566. jexster - 10/17/2001 4:52:15 PM Is this a Bushism???? 10567. CalGal - 10/17/2001 5:04:51 PM Did I just overhear they found anthrax in Pataki's office? 10568. CalGal - 10/17/2001 5:07:25 PM 10569. janjon - 10/17/2001 5:07:43 PM yes. In his mid-town Manhattan office. 10570. janjon - 10/17/2001 5:08:42 PM we're sort of used to this shit now. 10571. Greystoke - 10/17/2001 5:25:36 PM dusty 10572. wonkers2 - 10/17/2001 5:36:49 PM There have been too many of the usual talking heads bloviating their opinions and speculations and too few facts and comments from people who really know something about Islam, for example. As somebody pointed out a bit of accurate history on the the Crusades and the history of the relationship between the Muslim world and the West would be of interest as background. The coverage has been repetitive and superficial, IMO. 10573. concerned - 10/17/2001 6:28:12 PM 10574. aunaturel - 10/17/2001 6:42:00 PM Uh, jexter, "people will get tired of..." indicates the tiredness will come at some time in the future. Not right now. The remainder of the sentence asserts the war will take time. Taken together it makes perfect sense that Shrub is concerned that people will tire of it before it is through. 10575. Cellar Door - 10/17/2001 6:45:43 PM Very festive, connie! 10576. aunaturel - 10/17/2001 6:49:51 PM Yes, Connie, how did you do it? 10577. concerned - 10/17/2001 6:52:54 PM Who's 'connie'? 10578. concerned - 10/17/2001 6:53:58 PM It does save space, though, doesn't it? 10579. concerned - 10/17/2001 6:55:02 PM I just created two marquees scrolling in opposite directions with each having the width defined as half the page. 10580. aunaturel - 10/17/2001 6:55:56 PM Yes, Connie, how did you do it? 10581. aunaturel - 10/17/2001 6:56:18 PM oops! 10582. concerned - 10/17/2001 7:06:07 PM 10583. Cellar Door - 10/17/2001 7:08:51 PM Just fine. 10584. concerned - 10/17/2001 7:11:18 PM Ace seems to love everybody nowadays. 10585. Cellar Door - 10/17/2001 7:13:19 PM Yes it's One Big Love Fest over in "New Threads and Feature Suggestions" 10586. dusty - 10/17/2001 7:19:15 PM Say what? There is a huge difference between surviving the collapse of the WTC and getting stuck in the rubble sometime after the collapse. I am surprised that you don't see much distinction. 10587. dusty - 10/17/2001 7:19:30 PM On the text scrolling at the bottom of the screen on CNN it said that anthrax had been found aboard two airplanes and gave the flight numbers. 10588. Cellar Door - 10/17/2001 7:21:57 PM ALL news must be carefully analyzed -- now more than ever. There are SO many mistakes and half-truths floating through the air.I've never seen a time so ripe with misinformation. 10589. dusty - 10/17/2001 7:26:23 PM 10590. dusty - 10/17/2001 7:27:02 PM Cellar Door 10591. dusty - 10/17/2001 7:29:38 PM For fairness, I'll post the last paragraph of the article linked above—the hindustandtimes appears to have a less strict standard for reporting than some places. 10592. concerned - 10/17/2001 7:30:38 PM Re. 10590 - 10593. concerned - 10/17/2001 7:31:15 PM couple of typos in my last.... 10594. Cellar Door - 10/17/2001 7:33:34 PM There were all sorts of stories reported in the wake of the WTC attack that turned out to be false. The one about the fireman who "rode" the building down as it collapsed was reported on CNN as actual news. It never happened. 10595. Cellar Door - 10/17/2001 7:35:11 PM Meanwhile, here's an interesting story. 10596. dusty - 10/17/2001 7:42:01 PM Cellar Door 10597. dusty - 10/17/2001 7:44:45 PM 10598. Greystoke - 10/17/2001 8:10:43 PM dusty 10599. Greystoke - 10/17/2001 8:20:13 PM dusty 10600. dusty - 10/17/2001 8:30:36 PM Greystoke 10601. dusty - 10/17/2001 8:35:13 PM This article suggest that the two source rule applies in the case of confidential information. 10602. arkymalarky - 10/17/2001 8:36:41 PM I will say one thing, they've beaten the anthrax topic to death. 10603. Greystoke - 10/17/2001 8:44:46 PM dusty 10604. jexster - 10/17/2001 8:55:43 PM ORONTO, Oct. 16 — Talisman Energy (news/quote), a Canadian company with oil and gas operations in Sudan, offered a defense today against criticism that its activities were aiding a repressive government suspected of harboring and helping Al Qaeda, the terrorist network held responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States. 10605. jexster - 10/17/2001 8:57:29 PM CD.... 10606. jexster - 10/17/2001 9:02:11 PM 10607. Cellar Door - 10/17/2001 9:56:00 PM The media beateverything to death. Constant repetition of ahandful of "facts" with no real information. Everything is couched in terms of an ongoing story with a 'threat" of something dire aout to unfold. 10608. Jenerator - 10/17/2001 10:12:30 PM Hindsight is always 20/20. Hisham Mubarak wrote an article for the Cairo Times in January 1998 titled "A Tragedy of Errors." The government is wasting its breath on the dangers of Islamist extremists in Europe. The real problem is and always has been Afghanistan. 10609. CalGal - 10/17/2001 11:08:30 PM In all of the cases you've discussed, I believe that the language was "It is reported that a woman got a phone call from her husband..." which is quite different from "A woman received a phone call from her husband..." 10610. Cellar Door - 10/17/2001 11:16:56 PM "Reported" by whom? 10611. Snowowl - 10/18/2001 1:28:05 AM Good grief. A bookshop owner in Hamilton (a smallish city in New Zealand) is claiming that months before September 11, 2 "Arab-looking men" were photocopying aircraft manuals in Arabic which 10612. CalGal - 10/18/2001 1:40:09 AM Why would they need to photocopy them, for heavens' sake? You New Zealanders, anything to get into the act. 10613. Snowowl - 10/18/2001 1:46:24 AM Too true, Cal. We've had several "anthrax" scares already, all of which have turned out to be groundless. 10614. joezan - 10/18/2001 6:55:06 AM I would think anthrax more common than flu in NZ anyway, considering the sheep/people ratio. 10615. robertjayb - 10/18/2001 7:35:49 AM Canadians on the way, armed with mayonnaise... 10616. iiibbb - 10/18/2001 7:38:39 AM Wouldn't it have just been easier to buy a photocopier? 10617. robertjayb - 10/18/2001 7:39:27 AM And where are the Kiwis? 10618. robertjayb - 10/18/2001 7:51:50 AM Seen any French folk, any wannabe Lafayettes around? 10619. dusty - 10/18/2001 8:05:37 AM Greystoke 10620. greystoke - 10/18/2001 9:47:42 AM dusty 10621. Shannon - 10/18/2001 10:24:47 AM CBS is reporting on their webpage that an employee from Dan Rather's office has tested positive for cutaneous anthrax. 10622. glendajean - 10/18/2001 10:39:09 AM I'd sure be nervous if I worked at CNN or Fox right now. 10623. Shannon - 10/18/2001 10:42:22 AM Me too, GJ. 10624. jonesatlaw - 10/18/2001 11:01:45 AM For PE- 10625. rubberducky - 10/18/2001 11:05:26 AM a joke e-mail: 10626. dusty - 10/18/2001 11:08:02 AM glendajean 10627. janjon - 10/18/2001 11:39:43 AM The leadership of the House, both Hasert and Gephardt, should be tarred and feathered. 10628. greystoke - 10/18/2001 11:45:25 AM janjon 10629. jexster - 10/18/2001 11:45:31 AM Get Ready for Some "Nation Building" - a la Somalia 10630. janjon - 10/18/2001 11:55:08 AM grey - this particular decision apparently cuts across the party lines. Shame on both sides. 10631. glendajean - 10/18/2001 12:05:54 PM I've been mulling over the past couple of days things I wish that our government was doing (or doing it more quickly). 10632. CalGal - 10/18/2001 12:10:34 PM Did I just hear that Dan Rather has anthrax? 10633. rubberducky - 10/18/2001 12:13:39 PM 10634. CalGal - 10/18/2001 12:15:11 PM GJ, 10635. janjon - 10/18/2001 12:16:11 PM There are confirmed reports of anthrax spores at CBS (and seemingly from mail addressed to Dan Rather). No report that Rather himself has tested "positive", as far as I know. 10636. glendajean - 10/18/2001 12:28:24 PM Cal -- 10637. judithathome - 10/18/2001 12:30:08 PM Does anyone know at what point in the chain of exposure smallpox is contagious? 10638. glendajean - 10/18/2001 12:35:29 PM Judith -- smallpox is incredibly contagious and easily spreads. A public health official who has done work on this said on NPR a few weeks ago that 50 people infected with smallpox could walk through the public areas of a major city and kill hundreds of thousands. 10639. Cellar Door - 10/18/2001 12:35:52 PM This whole "weapons grade" business is another piece of mis/dis-information that's been making the rounds. When the new reports anything untoward it's for maximum Scare Potential. Beware! 10640. CalGal - 10/18/2001 12:36:20 PM GJ, 10641. judithathome - 10/18/2001 12:41:51 PM My husband posited the idea that someone with smallpox could take a ride on an airplane and infect the entire planeload who then exit and go on to infect eveyone they come in contact with; multiply that by 20 people on 20 flights and you'd see a epidemic very quickly. He was thinking airplane flights because of the contained environment and recirculating air. 10642. janjon - 10/18/2001 12:42:22 PM Oh, I think there is no question that the powers that be are scared shitless about the potential havoc that a smallpox breakout could create. Supposedly, only we and the Russians have a (very very tightly controlled....supposedly) supply of smallpox since it officially was eradicated from the world several decades ago. Ergo - no more vaccinations as a matter of course for, I think, about 25 years. 10643. glendajean - 10/18/2001 12:44:04 PM Federalizing it would do nothign to solve the problem; worse, it would mean that oversight of it would become a political issue, with the overseers being pressured not to point out problems 10644. janjon - 10/18/2001 12:47:11 PM airport security becomes a political issue because of the black helicopter mentality of much of the GOP. simple as that. 10645. CalGal - 10/18/2001 12:50:26 PM I don't see what would cause security to be a political problem and who or how overseers would be pressued. 10646. CalGal - 10/18/2001 12:52:06 PM Simply absurd that we haven't professionalized and standardized airport security and placed it in the Federal government's hands. 10647. glendajean - 10/18/2001 12:59:18 PM There was a decent article in the New Yorker a few weeks ago about how we have made hijacking a plane much more difficult in response to the 1970s spate of hijackings in pre-security times. 10648. glendajean - 10/18/2001 1:01:04 PM Cal -- I'd like to hear what you think are the right problems to tackle. 10649. janjon - 10/18/2001 1:05:46 PM A few empirical comments. I have traveled a lot by air. Both here and abroad. There is no question that the scrutiny that passengers, and their carry on AND hold luggage, receive in other countries (at least the ones I've been to, including a whole gaggle of Latin American ones. Very few Asian ones however, and Athens only twice) is far superior to almost any airport or airline I've used here. It may very well be that we have not, hopefully until now, imposed the right kind of standards on this process. But, it also seems so clear to me that a large part of the problem is the personnel involved. When the security process is handled by people paid very low wages (which broadly speaking then correlates with their abilities, I believe to be true) AND with very high turnover, you have a sloppy and leaky system at best. God knows that I have had many bags go through security with no or cursory at best inspection. 10650. CalGal - 10/18/2001 1:13:02 PM Actually, the other countries have stricter standards, but there's nothing we couldn't implement while still privatizing security. The two are orthogonal. And the stricter standards wouldn't have made a difference. Finally, air travel in other countries is extremely expensive, and that's not something I want to emulate given that the security has, at best, a marginal chance of improving safety. 10651. ronski - 10/18/2001 1:14:43 PM I favor a federal role in airport security (though not necessarily federalization of airport security workers, in fact, I don't think I want that at all, as I don't want my life in the hands of the same people who sort the mail). 10652. Francis Urquhart - 10/18/2001 1:16:35 PM Jim Hoagland on George Orwell 10653. CalGal - 10/18/2001 1:16:38 PM GJ--I read that New Yorker piece. Actually, there really isn't any assurance that the innovations in the 70s stopped hijackings or terrorist use of planes. It just changed the method they used. 10654. Francis Urquhart - 10/18/2001 1:17:49 PM 10655. CalGal - 10/18/2001 1:18:02 PM But stronger Federal rules which airports should follow I think are overdue. 10656. ronski - 10/18/2001 1:19:16 PM And "weapons grade" is indeed misleading, an instance where the media has failed to explain things properly. The size of the anthrax particles is weapons grade, in that they have been small enough to be inhaled. But the virulence, as I mentioned a few days ago, is not very great; even simple penicillin will kill this stuff if given early. So the the virulence is not weapons grade. 10657. CalGal - 10/18/2001 1:21:17 PM I absolutely love that Hoagland piece--in fact, I agree with everything he's written since 9/11. But that one in particular is terrific 10658. ronski - 10/18/2001 1:21:52 PM The Times has criticized the Administration for not giving daily briefings on this matter directly to the public, say from Tom Ridge. They are right to criticize. I've generally thought the administration is performing well in this crisis, but more information is needed from them in the hands of the general public about these health threats. 10659. Francis Urquhart - 10/18/2001 1:24:49 PM ronski 10660. ronski - 10/18/2001 1:25:52 PM Cal, 10661. CalGal - 10/18/2001 1:26:09 PM But at least the government could be acting as if it were as capable of anticipatory action as, say, bin Laden. 10662. thoughtful - 10/18/2001 1:28:59 PM What I've learned from this administration is the effectiveness of managing expectations. When Bush gave his press conference, commentators were making remarks like, "He really seems to have grasped these issues!" Can you imagine them making any such comment about Clinton? The baseline with Clinton was that he understood very well the issues at hand with the focus on what he was going to do about them. With Bush, if he can utter an unmangled sentence, it's considered an achievement. 10663. CalGal - 10/18/2001 1:29:12 PM Ronski, 10664. Francis Urquhart - 10/18/2001 1:30:59 PM thoughtful 10665. ronski - 10/18/2001 1:32:41 PM Health care workers are also grousing that they are not being told what is going to happen in the unlikely event of a large-scale bio or chemical attack, just that the government has things under control. They know that they would have to have a role in dispensing care, but they don't what that will entail, and it is unsettling to them. That is communicated to their patients. 10666. vw - 10/18/2001 1:36:25 PM A breakdown of the 19 alleged terrorists from Sept. 11 reveals the following: 10667. janjon - 10/18/2001 1:37:10 PM Here is an editorial from today's Times which addresses the need for better (more frequent and coherent) communication from the administration, in this case about the anthrax situation(s): And Above All The Administration Should Have Put The Kibbosh On The Absurd Decision Of The House To Close Itself Down 10668. Francis Urquhart - 10/18/2001 1:37:24 PM They don't have things under control. We are big and unwieldy. The best thing we have going for us is that the post 9/11 terrorism is a low-grade threat. If it remains such, we'll have been lucky. Hopefully, it will buy us the time we need to do certain basic things, such as stock up on vaccines; install proper doors in airplanes; and tighten security in other areas. 10669. janjon - 10/18/2001 1:41:25 PM frankie - there is no question that W seems to be engaged and deeply so, but the jury is understandably still out in terms of assessing whether he has the capacity to engage himself on all of the facets that need his deep attention on a concurrent basis. His sound bites too quickly take on too muchof a repetitive nature. He becomes shrill instead of convincing. 10670. CalGal - 10/18/2001 1:41:43 PM VW, 10671. CalGal - 10/18/2001 1:43:43 PM Regardless, this is a war, and given the unconventional methods of the enemy, there is only so much you can do. 10672. thoughtful - 10/18/2001 1:43:50 PM Where this administration has failed seriously is in the area of leadership. They are so focused on squelching leaks and looking (not being) on top of things that they have shown very little leadership. Compare the DC response with that of Guiliani's to 9/11. Guiliani was there giving real time information, giving really specific, actionable instructions, discussing the mobilization of the various agencies and efforts and the coordination of them to see that needs were met, people and issues were dealt with and contingencies were considered and acted upon. 10673. vw - 10/18/2001 1:47:30 PM I strongly agree, Cal. All this fuss and bluster about air marshalls and arming pilots is bullcrap. 10674. thoughtful - 10/18/2001 1:51:22 PM This is an economic crisis...where's Larry Lindsey? Glenn Hubbard? Instead they've been calling up Rob Rubin looking for some sensible leadership in what Congress needs to do to keep the economy from deteriorating. Greenspan and monetary policy can't do it alone at this point. 10675. amax - 10/18/2001 1:51:42 PM I'm with Calgal re the airline security thing. The whole point is that the security procedures worked: The terrorists were deterred from attempting to smuggle anything more deadly than a razor blade on board. I can't imagine any remotely practical security procedure that would prevent shivs from being smuggled on board aircraft. For that matter, a belt + medium sized belt buckle can arguably be a more effective weapon than a box cutter. It doesn't matter how stringent the policy is -- the terrorists would have succeeded one way or another with that particular MO. 10676. dusty - 10/18/2001 1:54:22 PM janjon 10677. thoughtful - 10/18/2001 1:55:43 PM Instead we have air traffic controllers on the today show making remarks about inadequate security, pointing out security at one TX airfield consists of 2 orange cones which blew away in the wind storm last night. 10678. Francis Urquhart - 10/18/2001 1:57:26 PM thoughtful 10679. CalGal - 10/18/2001 1:58:16 PM I know that I would probably have gone along, prior to 9/11, because it appeared the safest thing to do. 10680. janjon - 10/18/2001 2:01:04 PM specific localized threat? We've had it all. And, we are the logical target for a lot more. 10681. thoughtful - 10/18/2001 2:01:18 PM Then there was this whole bizarre incident where Ashcroft says there's going to more terrorist incidents, then 4 days later a Congressman says the same thing and gets soundly trounced by the administration for "leaking secure information" only to be followed on by the President saying the FBI warns of more terrorist attacks and putting the nation on "full alert" without any specifics whatsoever as to what that means or what we should do about it....only to deny it's a terrorist act when the anthrax events start to unfold. 10682. Francis Urquhart - 10/18/2001 2:01:51 PM Evrybody appears shocked that we are ill-equipped for a domestic war, defending against terrorists. 10683. janjon - 10/18/2001 2:03:45 PM frankie - you know better. We're now five weeks into this. They should have their act much better put together. 10684. Francis Urquhart - 10/18/2001 2:04:18 PM janjon seeks, and gets, reassurance. 10685. Francis Urquhart - 10/18/2001 2:06:19 PM janjon 10686. amax - 10/18/2001 2:06:43 PM I think one thing the administration needs to brainstorm on is some task that is energy intensive and lets people feel that they are doing something -- even if it serves no real purpose. Victory gardens and such didn't have much to do with victory in WWII, but it did let the more action-minded types focus their energies on doing something. What that could be, I have no idea. I can't come up with anything that would pass the laugh test. 10687. CalGal - 10/18/2001 2:09:12 PM Evrybody appears shocked that we are ill-equipped for a domestic war, defending against terrorists. 10688. CalGal - 10/18/2001 2:10:20 PM It is that we need to do more. 10689. amax - 10/18/2001 2:11:40 PM On the domestic front, we're playing defense. That essentially means being reactive, keeping our heads down, and trying not to lose our nerve. It's a position that Americans don't have a lot of experience in dealing with. 10690. Erin R. - 10/18/2001 2:11:48 PM Airport security needs to be tightened and federalized. While it's unlikely that another commercial jetliner will be successfully hijacked, it is still possible to get explosives into the cargo areas of planes. As far as I know, checked baggage is not screened, and there are no provisions to ensure that those checking baggage actually board the plane. 10691. Francis Urquhart - 10/18/2001 2:14:10 PM amax 10692. janjon - 10/18/2001 2:14:38 PM frankie - for starters, read the NY Times editorial I linked to in Message # 10667. 10693. CalGal - 10/18/2001 2:17:23 PM No, Amax has it exactly wrong. We are being reactive, we are playing defense, and that is the only type of problem solving we're good at--which is exactly why we're doing it even though it is fucking pointless. 10694. thoughtful - 10/18/2001 2:17:38 PM FranU, you have an unusual sense of picayune. Expecting leadership out of an administration in a time of crisis...the first major attack of war against the US in 50+ years resulting in the death of thousands of innocent civilians...is hardly picayune. It's what the President was elected to do. It's in his job description. 10695. Francis Urquhart - 10/18/2001 2:18:18 PM janjon 10696. Francis Urquhart - 10/18/2001 2:22:04 PM Cal 10697. glendajean - 10/18/2001 2:22:28 PM I wouldn't personalize it to Bush (although frankly Tommy Thompson is coming across as the guy on the Titantic who says, "have another drink" when the ship hits a little bump Which is to say, his assurances don't feel reassuring. 10698. janjon - 10/18/2001 2:24:00 PM ludicrous bitching about tone? 10699. CalGal - 10/18/2001 2:26:02 PM Janjon--no, I agree with Francis's response to you. You and thoughtful both do seem to be personalizing it, as GJ calls it (not that he has said that about you). 10700. janjon - 10/18/2001 2:28:43 PM frankie - it isn't necessarily more press conferences that are needed. It is coherence, details when helpful (such as in defusing much of the kneejerk reactions that abound through out the entire country about anthrax). It is especially surprising that they haven't done a better job of this since this Administration has from the git-go done everything it could to tightly control matters and present a solid facade. 10701. Francis Urquhart - 10/18/2001 2:30:23 PM janjon 10703. CalGal - 10/18/2001 2:41:41 PM Amax--take that to WWTD? I have a scenario there, too. 10704. thoughtful - 10/18/2001 2:42:30 PM FranU, What information do you suspect is in the possession of Washington that you do not have, and you want to have, by way of more press conferences? 10705. thoughtful - 10/18/2001 2:43:48 PM I believe this lack of leadership is a result of the fact that Cheney is the real power behind the office. He's gone underground to run things. But he can't let it look like he's in power so he keeps a very low public profile. W is not capable of filling his shoes. Remember the presidential and vice presidential debates? The reaction of many people in both parties was, we should reverse the tickets! 10706. Cellar Door - 10/18/2001 2:45:07 PM Ace sneers at Media Whores Online as a pack of shiftless "unemployed" lefties. Well read this. 10707. amax - 10/18/2001 2:45:18 PM No, Amax has it exactly wrong. We are being reactive, we are playing defense, and that is the only type of problem solving we're good at--which is exactly why we're doing it even though it is fucking pointless. 10708. Erin R. - 10/18/2001 2:50:00 PM I personally think the Anthrax cases are home-grown terrorism. And not just because I read Tom Clancy novels. 10709. Snowowl - 10/18/2001 2:54:44 PM It seems a bit odd that the anthrax case in Kenya was contracted from a letter posted in the US. If it had been the terrorists planning an attack on Africa I would have thought there would have been places closer at hand to strike from. 10710. thoughtful - 10/18/2001 3:00:35 PM FranU, First, the mail isn't safe to the extent that it is being used as a weapon of terror. Do you think lying to the public, denying there's any potential problem with the mail, that it is in no way connected to terrorism makes the administration look more in charge, more in control, more trustworthy and believable, especially after they announce it's ok for postal workers to wear gloves and gas masks while they work? 10711. amax - 10/18/2001 3:00:46 PM Perhaps it is a myth, but FDR managed to talk the nation down while conducting government under unsual circumstances. The President, his administration and the Congress are coming across as ignoring the people. And in a war, the people need to be encouraged and brought together. 10712. Andonly - 10/18/2001 3:01:08 PM "Knives were allowed on planes prior to 9/11, as were boxcutters. No security breach." 10713. Erin R. - 10/18/2001 3:01:21 PM I think that operation was not that well planned. Expect militia men or just plain homegrown nuts to emerge from this investigation. 10714. judithathome - 10/18/2001 3:02:39 PM Bayer stock must be rocketing these days. 10715. Erin R. - 10/18/2001 3:08:44 PM I have had butter knives confiscated on trips to Orlando. 10716. CalGal - 10/18/2001 3:11:50 PM Amax, 10717. rubberducky - 10/18/2001 3:12:21 PM Amax - any problem with my moving your 10702 to WWTD? it'll get a better response there, i'm thinking 10718. CalGal - 10/18/2001 3:13:08 PM Does anyone know how much air travel costs in Israel. A whole lot. Why should we go through all that when all but a miniscule percentage of travellers might wish to harm a plane? Something that isn't true in Israel, I might add. 10719. CalGal - 10/18/2001 3:14:30 PM I was stopped at DFW security sometime in the late early '90s for a small pocket knife I forgot I had on me. 10720. Erin R. - 10/18/2001 3:21:43 PM We should have tighter security because even if we manage by some miracle to get control of our borders and to keep out illegal immigrants and other undesirables, we will still have home grown nuts, or inside agents from overseas who will adapt themselves superbly to our way of life, and will do us harm. 10721. amax - 10/18/2001 3:24:33 PM re: 10717 10722. glendajean - 10/18/2001 3:29:27 PM amax -- I've seen the tower ruins along the Delaware beaches left over from WWII. They were lookout posts. 10723. rubberducky - 10/18/2001 3:30:08 PM amax: done 10724. amax - 10/18/2001 3:32:14 PM Knives and such I am sure are confiscated if they are found, but the security plans in place were never predicated on the fact that all knives could be found. The operative part of a box cutter is composed of a 1" piece of metal that weighs less than an ounce. If you include non-metallic weapons, I know of no procedure short of full body cavity searches and confiscation of all clothing that would provide the level of security that people seem to want. That would be too impractical for any kind of air travel. And, as I pointed out earlier, it would be pointless in the sense of not having anything remotely to do with the problem. 'A gun is just a tool designed to change the enemy's mind'. The same can be said for knives. Only in this case, a knife is not going to be enough to change passenger's minds. 10725. amax - 10/18/2001 3:33:36 PM any longer, I mean. 10726. janjon - 10/18/2001 3:40:12 PM Any plan for airplane security that doesn't focus at least as much on what to do inflight should there be hijacking attempts is inane. Whatever the security measures effected, it seems highly unlikely that they will catch, say, all plastic bottles filled with what is then stated by hijackers to be, and very well may be, acid or some explosive. Flight crew have to be trained and passengers have to be alert as to what to do in those instances. And, paramount above all else, is no matter what havoc is going on in back, including slaughters, the pilot must never put him or herself into a position where control of the plane can be taken. 10727. CalGal - 10/18/2001 3:42:34 PM In flight is much more important, but there's no need for any sort of preparation. Lord help the first fool hijacker who isn't an Arab terrorist. 10728. PelleNilsson - 10/18/2001 3:43:53 PM These are young members of the bin Laden familiy on a visit to the (then) mining town of Falun some 200 km NW of Stockholm. Usama is thought to be the second chap from the right. 10729. janjon - 10/18/2001 3:45:09 PM aha. somehow I just sensed that Sweden was to blame for all of this. 10730. janjon - 10/18/2001 3:46:21 PM hmm. a more western looking group you couldn't find. 10731. Erin R. - 10/18/2001 3:46:51 PM Or squashed. There was a guy a few months back who picked a fight on a flight and was sat upon for his troubles. Poor guy died. 10732. glendajean - 10/18/2001 3:50:40 PM I know a guy here in Indy who joined others in beating up and subduing a hijacker on an American domestic flight a few years ago. He told me the story last year. 10733. CalGal - 10/18/2001 3:50:45 PM I remember the one guy, Erin, because it was apparently caused by passengers overreacting, not his behavior. 10734. Erin R. - 10/18/2001 3:53:09 PM Yes, it was the passengers. And how hard can it be to reinforce the cockpit door, just weeks after a devastating terrorist attack, for Christ's sake??? This is why I don't think the airlines can be trusted to handle security. 10735. CalGal - 10/18/2001 3:54:55 PM It's actually pretty hard, but more than that it is expensive. That said, I think they are doing it. It just takes time. 10736. Erin R. - 10/18/2001 3:57:51 PM You're both wrong. Our security measures are not uniform, not enforced, the personnel are not properly trained and don't do their jobs long enough to get good at them. 10737. CalGal - 10/18/2001 4:01:15 PM But the point is that our security measures were followed, and you simply can't come up with an airline security policy that would have prevented 9/11. 10738. Erin R. - 10/18/2001 4:03:37 PM Why didn't our security measures raise a bigger red flag in the Woods case you described a couple of days ago? 10739. CalGal - 10/18/2001 4:07:41 PM Why didn't our security measures raise a bigger red flag in the Woods case you described a couple of days ago? 10740. CalGal - 10/18/2001 4:13:12 PM They are uniform in everything that matters. But you're right that airlines can do more, if they want. They can't do less. And federalizing it won't make enforcement any less uniform. 10741. amax - 10/18/2001 4:23:35 PM I would also point out that uniform security can actually be a bad thing: If you have a uniform system, then once someone evolves a way to evade security in one place, then they can bypass it everyplace. Moreover, you can do multiple 'dry runs' to test and establish where the holes are, and give yourself some idea of the probabilities involved. Having variable levels of security in depending on location that itself varies according to time in different ways exponentializes your risk assessment if you are a terrorist. Centralizing it all, even if centralization calls for given procedures based on 'threat level 3 today' gives much clearer info to someone attempting to subvert security -- and thus makes it much easier on them. 10742. Erin R. - 10/18/2001 4:38:39 PM I'm talking about design and execution. I don't think we can talk about security without talking about both. 10743. CalGal - 10/18/2001 4:40:44 PM I still think these ought to be somewhat secure, attractive jobs. 10744. CalGal - 10/18/2001 4:41:35 PM As for the difference between design and execution, it is design, analysis, and strategy where we failed before--and are currently failing. Execution we do relatively well. 10745. Erin R. - 10/18/2001 4:42:58 PM The fact that the terrorists evidental targeted Logan in particular says something about the cost of not having uniform security procedures. 10746. Andonly - 10/18/2001 4:43:41 PM The Washington Times just called me. They're going to print a short letter I sent in response to their recent editorial, "Syria as Peacemaker?". 10747. Jenerator - 10/18/2001 4:43:59 PM Speaking of execution, my friend Dayna seems to be doing well and hopefully Heather is recovering. Although they're being kept in a dreadful jail cell - all eight of them together, their spirits are high. The attorney is optimistic about their release, assuming they live through the jail sentence. 10748. glendajean - 10/18/2001 4:46:48 PM Jen -- yesterday on the Today show, they inteviewed a British female reporter who was briefly imprisioned (she had snuck across the border for a couple of days and was on her way back to Pakistan). She was imprisoned next to your friends and spoke of their courage and good cheer. That's the only reference I've heard about them in the media lately. FYI. 10749. Jenerator - 10/18/2001 4:52:54 PM I saw it here yesterday, it made me feel better. That and hearing from a family member that they have access to a fax machine. 10750. CalGal - 10/18/2001 4:53:15 PM From the time a person attempts to purchase a ticket to the time he leaves the airport upon reaching his destination. 10751. Snowowl - 10/18/2001 4:56:19 PM Not only do they have access to a fax machine, one of the Australian girls involved sent a handwritten fax to her parents saying that they had been moved to motel-type accomodation, were allowed to cook their own food and order restaurant food to be brought in. That was last week, so I don't know the situation now. 10752. Erin R. - 10/18/2001 4:57:56 PM I think there should be some tracking mechanisms for air travel, but I worry about this one. The Tom Clancy novel I'm currently reading has the fictional President shutting down all travel in the face of a terrorist-initiated Ebola outbreak. The moment I read the passage, I was like, "hey, that unConstitutional!" 10753. Andonly - 10/18/2001 5:00:02 PM "If it had less than a 4" blade, it was allowed. I'm not sure when that law went into effect, but they got tired of the Swiss army knife problem." 10754. CalGal - 10/18/2001 5:00:56 PM I don't see how it could be unconstitutional--we just closed down all airports for two days or more last month. 10755. Jenerator - 10/18/2001 5:01:10 PM Snowowl, 10756. Andonly - 10/18/2001 5:03:28 PM "Our security measures are not uniform, not enforced, the personnel are not properly trained and don't do their jobs long enough to get good at them." 10757. glendajean - 10/18/2001 5:07:12 PM The British reporter described a situation in disarray. She was in the room next to your friends and talked with them. She thought she was going to be stoned to death and they ended up abruptly letting her go. 10758. Erin R. - 10/18/2001 5:14:05 PM In the book, the President had actually sort of declared Martial Law and was forbidding public assembly of any kind. 10759. thoughtful - 10/18/2001 5:14:24 PM Here's a great example of the leadership shown by the Bush administration, from Meet the Press with Tim Russert: 10760. Jenerator - 10/18/2001 5:14:40 PM From what I've heard through private correspondence is that the cells were filthy and that they (the 8 aid workers) were kept in one and the reporter was right next to them. Also, that the Taliban were agitated and inconsistent. 10761. CalGal - 10/18/2001 5:15:41 PM Oh, that's quite different. I was only responding to what you'd described. Closing the airports in a time of national security is not unconstitutional. 10762. Erin R. - 10/18/2001 5:20:15 PM Exactly. That's my point. People are way too focused on slamming security people and asking money-losing businesses to provide security, when security is a loss center. People are focused on checkpoint security, rather than trying to plug the holes in the entire system. 10763. CalGal - 10/18/2001 5:25:12 PM Oh, well that I agree with. But believe me, when people say "We need to federalize airport security" all they mean is they want to turn the security workers into federal employees. There is no proposal to improve the system, other than maybe say we only get one carryon. 10764. Erin R. - 10/18/2001 5:34:04 PM I don't particularly think we need *any* carryons, but that's just me. 10765. glendajean - 10/18/2001 5:43:21 PM Amen to no carry ons. If I were only allowed a book or a newspaper, I would be ok with that. Traveling a few weeks ago, I was shocked at how people are still trying to move their houses by loading incredible amounts of crap in the overhead. 10766. CalGal - 10/18/2001 5:50:09 PM Front and back, for starters. I've never seen why that wasn't acceptable. 10767. Erin R. - 10/18/2001 5:52:56 PM I've seen empty paper cases reused as overhead bin carryons. 10768. janjon - 10/18/2001 5:53:47 PM Used to be done. On 727s at least. Before Cooper (the parachuter who presumably hit a tree or something when he landed). 10769. amax - 10/18/2001 5:55:44 PM Oh, well that I agree with. But believe me, when people say "We need to federalize airport security" all they mean is they want to turn the security workers into federal employees. There is no proposal to improve the system, other than maybe say we only get one carryon. 10770. Erin R. - 10/18/2001 6:15:09 PM Lax airport security has been an open secret for many years in the country. 10771. wonkers2 - 10/18/2001 6:35:06 PM Once the dust settles, Afghanistan should be made a United Nations protectorate with order and human rights ensured by a multilateral force. Possibly this would work in Palestine also. 10772. ronski - 10/18/2001 7:21:39 PM Strangely, I think I may agree. I know Israel would hate having the UN on the West Bank and in Gaza, but times have changed in the last month. 10773. joezan - 10/18/2001 7:27:47 PM Here is the text of one of the messages being broadcast to the Taliban from a US "Flying Radio Station", an EC-130: 10774. ronski - 10/18/2001 7:34:23 PM John Tierney's Take on Airport Security 10775. dusty - 10/18/2001 7:46:34 PM They do unload front and back in Bermuda. I make a point of getting a seat in the back, usually easy becuase most people think they want a front seat, then zip off to be first in line for immigration. 10776. jexster - 10/18/2001 8:03:12 PM From KRON Channel 4 - High Speed Gunboats now on anti-terror patrol in the Bay... 10777. ScottLoar - 10/18/2001 8:06:41 PM Every time I've flown an airplane that was not moored to a covered gangway we did disembark front and back. Every time I've flown an airplane that was moored to a covered gangway we disembarked front and, if a 747 size, middle. 10778. Greystoke - 10/18/2001 8:10:37 PM I missed this on the AP wire yesterday: 10779. ScottLoar - 10/18/2001 8:11:38 PM And the airlines continue to tolerate luggage lugged onto planes. Each person should be allowed a single piece of carry-on no larger than a computer case. Period. 10780. ScottLoar - 10/18/2001 8:18:44 PM Almost every time in a 747 we've unloaded front and middle, depending on the configuration of the docking bay and number of gangways. 10781. amax - 10/18/2001 8:45:42 PM Greystoke, 10782. joezan - 10/18/2001 8:47:17 PM Jex: 10784. joezan - 10/18/2001 9:10:09 PM Test 10785. joezan - 10/18/2001 9:11:10 PM Ok - what happened to Abs's 10783? 10786. Greystoke - 10/18/2001 9:12:40 PM amax 10787. CalGal - 10/18/2001 9:20:15 PM I was surprised at Powell's comments too, but at the same time I think amax is correct about Afghanistan. It's going to be difficult enough fixing Afghanistan and practicing cultural imperialism without trying to purge the Taliban. I don't know what he means about them "having points". 10788. amax - 10/18/2001 9:23:34 PM Which part do you like best: the subhuman treatment of women, the persecution of non-Pashtuns, or the harboring of terrorists ? 10789. joezan - 10/18/2001 9:34:13 PM The Taliban, as I understand it, are made up mostly of members of just a few different tribes (with a stray Saudi or Egyptian here and there). 10790. Andonly - 10/18/2001 9:41:03 PM Joke: 10791. Andonly - 10/18/2001 9:46:35 PM From the Washington Times roundup of other news reports: 10792. Andonly - 10/18/2001 9:46:56 PM Behind opposition lines about 40 miles north of Kabul, the Afghan opposition alliance presented what it said were 10 Taliban defectors to foreign reporters. They claimed morale among Taliban fighters was low. 10793. amax - 10/18/2001 9:50:23 PM 'bout a month ago I read a book called Black Hawk Down: A study of modern war. -- a history of the Somalia intervention and the firefight that eventually led to the US pulling out. I highly recommend it. One of the really salient points of the book was its description of how the UN and then the US were trying to form a coalition government in a tribalist/clanish system, and how it was pretty much doomed to failure. One quote from it went something like 'If you go out on the streets, and ask a little old lady if she wants peace, she'll say "Of course I do, I pray for it every day", but if you ask her if that means she would support a government that incorporates several different clans, she will reply "What! Share power with those murderers and thieves? I'd rather die first!" I am pretty sceptical that setting up a coalition govt would work. 10794. CalGal - 10/18/2001 10:26:49 PM I love that joke; do you know the source? 10795. amax - 10/18/2001 11:04:45 PM I reiterate, I am not praising the Taliban, I am not sympathetic to them, and I definitely do not want any members of the aforementioned group dating my sister. That said, however, I do not regard the existence of the Taliban to be a threat to us if they give up bL and his crew. If people out there really want to do a world community service project, I'd suggest starting with a place that needs it more than Afghanistan, like say Iraq. Just be sure that you can guarantee in advance that the American polity will back your project 10 years down the line after we lose our 4,000th (or 40,000th) guy to local partisan activity. If you can't, then you've wasted all of those american lives plus untold numbers of the natives. 10796. amax - 10/18/2001 11:15:13 PM 10797. don s. - 10/19/2001 12:43:48 AM Oh, CalGall, you forgot to correct amax's spelling of "sceptical." 10798. mgleason - 10/19/2001 12:46:38 AM Brava, Andonly! 10799. CalGal - 10/19/2001 12:56:04 AM Didn't forget at all, Don, I only observe spelling errors when it amuses me to do so. 10800. amax - 10/19/2001 1:07:06 AM Bah, who has time to check spelling? Anyone who can think of only one way to spell a word has a limited imagination. 10801. amax - 10/19/2001 1:07:56 AM If ya wanna criticise me on style, you should start with my occasional non-use of paragraphs. 10802. RustlerPike - 10/19/2001 2:45:07 AM Amanpour tries to get information from Rumsfeld on insertion of special forces, fails miserably. Real funny interview. 10803. RustlerPike - 10/19/2001 2:51:19 AM amax - that .swf is brilliant!!! 10804. Absensia - 10/19/2001 3:02:03 AM amax, thanks for the link. It is funny, very funny! 10805. RustlerPike - 10/19/2001 5:41:23 AM But this statement by Colin Powell, who appears to be a Neville Chamberlain wannabe, is simply beyond the pale. 10806. dusty - 10/19/2001 9:28:44 AM Hmmm, no commentary on Cheney's excellent speech last night? 10807. Erin R. - 10/19/2001 9:32:58 AM What did he speak about? 10808. jexster - 10/19/2001 10:24:50 AM excellent speech? 10809. jexster - 10/19/2001 10:25:57 AM Make no mistake about it, Dick Cheney is an evildoer! 10810. glendajean - 10/19/2001 10:27:48 AM Good story in the Washington Post about how the post office and FBI may be able to find who sent the anthrax from Trenton, New Jersey. 10811. jexster - 10/19/2001 10:28:01 AM Four slow-moving EC-130E 'Commando Solo' psychological operations aircraft have been deployed to broadcast the message, in local Afghan dialects, that troops were on the ground. 10812. Jenerator - 10/19/2001 10:31:11 AM (amax, you didn't misspell sceptical, it's the Bristish spelling you used. CalGal stuck her foot in her mouth the other day in the sex thread and is too proud to admit it.) 10813. judithathome - 10/19/2001 10:33:27 AM Jen, you'd be better off letting it drop. 10814. Jenerator - 10/19/2001 10:39:09 AM I know. 10815. jexster - 10/19/2001 10:40:33 AM That's OK Jen we are all Anglicans under the skin! 10816. dusty - 10/19/2001 10:40:42 AM 10817. jexster - 10/19/2001 10:42:09 AM Yes indeed Cheney's "excellent" speech is making me patriotic all over -again... 10818. Erin R. - 10/19/2001 10:42:27 AM Well, would anyone like to say what he talked about? 10819. dusty - 10/19/2001 10:42:31 AM Jen 10820. dusty - 10/19/2001 10:45:47 AM jexster 10821. jexster - 10/19/2001 10:46:36 AM 10822. Jenerator - 10/19/2001 10:47:34 AM (hugs to Jexster) 10823. glendajean - 10/19/2001 10:49:20 AM That's OK Jen we are all Anglicans under the skin! 10824. dusty - 10/19/2001 10:49:27 AM Erin R. 10825. jexster - 10/19/2001 10:49:41 AM I wish he would have announced that you can get Cipro in Tijuana for 30% of what it costs in San Diego. 10826. judithathome - 10/19/2001 10:49:50 AM Is there a link to Cheneys speech? I'd like to read it and so would Erin, probably. 10827. CalGal - 10/19/2001 10:51:47 AM I wasn't all that impressed, frankly. I like Cheney, though, and he looked very good in the tux, given he's a vice president and all. 10828. judithathome - 10/19/2001 10:52:17 AM I wish he would have announced that you can get Cipro in Tijuana for 30% of what it costs in San Diego. 10829. CalGal - 10/19/2001 10:53:19 AM I don't understand why the rush for Cipro; any antibiotic will do. 10830. Erin R. - 10/19/2001 10:54:43 AM I actually like Cheney, too bad he's a hard right conservative with a bad ticker. 10831. jexster - 10/19/2001 10:59:45 AM Well according to CNN they are having a SALE down there. 40% off the regular price which is 50% of the US price - natch! 10832. janjon - 10/19/2001 11:03:44 AM Tom Friedman is still on top of his game. Here's his column today: Tweezers, No Less 10833. janjon - 10/19/2001 11:07:55 AM Here's the meat of what he had to say: 10834. janjon - 10/19/2001 11:08:06 AM Here's the meat of what he had to say: 10835. jexster - 10/19/2001 11:08:16 AM I actually like Cheney 10836. janjon - 10/19/2001 11:08:34 AM And, indeed it does. 10837. jexster - 10/19/2001 11:09:02 AM I am so funny I should be a terrorist target! 10838. janjon - 10/19/2001 11:13:18 AM Tom Ridge was better than not yesterday. But the gov't. still has a long way to go to get its act together, along the lines discussed yesterday. 10839. jexster - 10/19/2001 11:20:33 AM Looking for current compendium of Afg psywar...didn't find but this is very interesting 10840. judithathome - 10/19/2001 11:21:28 AM It sure is expensive to get cutaneous anthrax these days! 10841. janjon - 10/19/2001 11:22:54 AM And here's an interesting article on public hysteria: 10842. jexster - 10/19/2001 11:28:18 AM that's chump change JAH...my 5 drug cocktail ~$1700/mo. 10843. ronski - 10/19/2001 11:40:00 AM In a way I see the anti-American, anti-Western anger among Muslims as a form of hysteria, similar to the current anxiety over anthrax in the U.S. Except that the anthrax fears will subside if the attacks do, where as the madness among the poor and the disaffected middle class in Islam will continue. 10844. ronski - 10/19/2001 11:41:45 AM And I agree that Hastert should not have closed the House. Very bad move. 10845. Jenerator - 10/19/2001 11:49:05 AM Jexster, 10846. greystoke - 10/19/2001 11:49:10 AM amax 10847. CalGal - 10/19/2001 11:50:15 AM Well, as someone pointed out to me on another forum, the one country under fundamentalist rule is actually doing surprisingly well. 10848. Cellar Door - 10/19/2001 11:50:28 AM 10849. judithathome - 10/19/2001 11:51:30 AM Ronski: 10850. Erin R. - 10/19/2001 11:52:18 AM Why did Hastert close the house? Anthrax is not contagious, nor is it life-threatening in most cases. 10851. janjon - 10/19/2001 11:52:56 AM I agree with most of what Ronski has just said about the ineffectiveness of our aid programs in the Middle East. I think that our shove-$$$-and-food-etc. policy reflects our Marshall Plan mentality. Obviously, it worked post WWII, but obviously it hasn't in the MidEast. 10852. judithathome - 10/19/2001 11:56:54 AM Thanks for that link, Cellar...I learned a new word from it; chthonic. 10853. jexster - 10/19/2001 11:59:35 AM Wednesday dozens of hazmat types were called to the SFSU library....someone split some brown sugar. 10854. janjon - 10/19/2001 12:02:19 PM A whole gaggle of hazmat experts rushed to scene in Chicago a couple of days ago in response to concerns over a green substance on a floor. 10855. ronski - 10/19/2001 12:05:29 PM I'd be content to continue what can be construed as humanitarian aid, even if it in some perverse way (human nature being what it is) makes some of these folks dislike us even more. (A recent post here pointed out that we will be hated no matter what, because we are powerful.) 10856. ronski - 10/19/2001 12:07:07 PM You can't take chances with some people's guacamole, imo. 10857. Slackjaw - 10/19/2001 12:10:43 PM Had not heard about any Guacamole. Where'd you hear that Jexster? 10858. ronski - 10/19/2001 12:11:15 PM greystoke, 10859. janjon - 10/19/2001 12:13:13 PM it was me, Slackjaw. And, it came from a piece on Jim Lehrer's Newshour last night. A videoclip of Mayor Daley using that episode as an example in his exhortations that everyone should calm down! 10860. ronski - 10/19/2001 12:14:06 PM I also thought a good point was made in the Times about Ridge. I have always liked Thompson as a governor, and though I did not like Ashcroft as a Senator thought he was doing an okay job as attorney general, but one of their joint news conferences last weekend left me quite disappointed, if not anxious. They both seemed a bit confused, if not scared (assuming I was not projecting). Ridge is better at handling this stuff. 10861. Slackjaw - 10/19/2001 12:15:20 PM Sorry. 10862. ronski - 10/19/2001 12:15:23 PM Increased security in NYC subways, though no details will be given out. Probably a good idea no matter what is going on. 10863. janjon - 10/19/2001 12:25:17 PM Ridge has a very good manner. I especially liked the way he handled the question about whether it was planned to have all Americans get smallpos vaccinations. A "yes" answer would have been especially disconcerting in view of the fact that we don't have enough vaccine yet and won't until sometime next year. Ridge's response along the lines that that was a decision that would be made when we have enough vaccine to do so if desired was perfect. (in other words, it was "yes" but done in a way that wouldn't escalate public concerns.) 10864. ronski - 10/19/2001 12:33:41 PM A NY Post employee has skin anthrax, though has essentially already been "cured." 10865. ronski - 10/19/2001 12:37:29 PM And the Czechs are saying that Atta may have visited with Iraqi officials on several occasions, not just once. 10866. janjon - 10/19/2001 12:37:50 PM I'm sure that the envelope stuffers are most disappointed at the results to date. 10867. janjon - 10/19/2001 12:38:47 PM Oh, no question in my mind that all of this will serve well to provide a most "legitimate" basis to go out after Saddam. 10868. dusty - 10/19/2001 12:51:30 PM Erin R. - I haven't found a complete version of the speech, but here is a report on it, with some excerpts: 10869. ScottLoar - 10/19/2001 12:52:29 PM Influenza coming out of south China claims 20,000 Americans every year. 10870. ScottLoar - 10/19/2001 12:53:05 PM "Claims" meaning kills. 10871. dusty - 10/19/2001 12:55:34 PM Erin R. - Here is a slighly more in-depth article: 10872. dusty - 10/19/2001 1:03:50 PM Erin R. 10873. thoughtful - 10/19/2001 1:04:12 PM Ronski, I still think the best thing to do is, after we have removed bin Laden, to reduce our presence in the middle east, not to increase it. 10874. bubbaette - 10/19/2001 1:06:51 PM I'm starting to get pissed off about his over-reaction to the anthrax threat. 10875. thoughtful - 10/19/2001 1:13:24 PM I agree bbbtt. Stiff upper lip and all that. 10876. CalGal - 10/19/2001 1:18:32 PM Thoughtful, 10877. janjon - 10/19/2001 1:19:13 PM yes, we definitely have to toughen up. The process is underway, for sure. 10878. judithathome - 10/19/2001 1:21:46 PM Some of the ladies at the antique mall Wednesday were twittering about being terrified of anthrax...I said get real....the likelihood of one of use being exposed to this is about as high as one of us getting pregnant. Of course, it went over their heads that we are all "up there" in age and they went nuts with scenarios of how we could be exposed. To anthrax, not to sperm. 10879. thoughtful - 10/19/2001 1:22:30 PM Awhile back I had a discussion with psych prof on cognitive dissonance and he sent me to a web site...excerpts from that web site: 10880. thoughtful - 10/19/2001 1:22:43 PM cont'd. The question is this then: How does one persuade an irrational person? The simple answer is....conditioning. Mode 2 thinkers can only be persuaded by subtle conditioning, by adding the gist of the argument that is to persuade them as a subtext to the plots of the stories that they consume as entertainment. Vicarious identification seems to be the only effective means of persuading mode 2 thinkers. One on one debates....ineffective. Informational propaganda...ineffective. Manipulating the story characters with whom they identify and controlling the means of propagating this stories (movies, television, etc)......very effective. 10881. thoughtful - 10/19/2001 1:28:50 PM I couldn't help but remember this when reading an article in the NYer a couple of weeks back about the reporter in Egypt interviewing professors and students at islamic schools there. One declared that in Islam it is always wrong to kill women, children and cattle. However it's ok to kill all Israelis since they are all in the military anyway. Another cited the internet story that the WTC was a Jewish plot against Islam as 4000 jews didn't show up for work on 9/11. Another cited the bit that the holocaust never happened...another Jewish plot. There is no reasoning with these beliefs. 10882. dusty - 10/19/2001 1:30:32 PM judithathome 10883. ScottLoar - 10/19/2001 1:52:09 PM Mississippi tractor deaths, not bad. Or, one can review the Darwin Awards to see how many made corpses by outlandish, incredible and just plain dumb stunts trump death by anthrax. 10884. Webfeet - 10/19/2001 2:20:40 PM janjon 10885. ronski - 10/19/2001 3:18:18 PM Has anyone posted this from Krauthammer? 10886. jexster - 10/19/2001 3:28:15 PM "Anyone who mails anthrax is evil" Bush said as he thumped the podium. 10887. ronski - 10/19/2001 3:29:39 PM And in France, authorities have arrested a 15-year-old boy who organized an anti-American demonstration among his fellows cheering bin Laden, burning a pair of stars-and-stripes underwear, and chanting "Down with America." 10888. Cellar Door - 10/19/2001 3:32:51 PM Yikes. 10889. jexster - 10/19/2001 3:39:32 PM Speaking of La Belle France! 10890. jexster - 10/19/2001 3:40:17 PM Ronski...10 US school kids burned Old Glory yesterday.. 10891. judithathome - 10/19/2001 3:42:29 PM Jen: 10892. jexster - 10/19/2001 3:51:49 PM 10893. ronski - 10/19/2001 3:55:16 PM The guillotine, institituted as a more merciful means of execution than what was used before (and which it probably is, if a bit grisly), might be considered too good for them, in some people's minds right now. 10894. christipeters - 10/19/2001 4:04:46 PM In today's email from Company Headquarters about security, they included an appeal to clean up after yourself - fergodsakes, if you spill your powdered non-dairy creamer or your sweet'n'low, wipe it up! Spare your co-workers nerves! 10895. ScottLoar - 10/19/2001 4:06:29 PM Message # 10884 is one indication of what I call "the comfort factor", another of which will soon become evident: The jump in the number of pregnancies immediately following 9-11. 10896. janjon - 10/19/2001 4:07:21 PM and, carry a few extra chips in your pocket, so as to be able to scoop up any guacamole spilled on the floor. 10897. ScottLoar - 10/19/2001 4:08:17 PM Or, the "life's-too-short" factor which does not include wanton spending but just the exercise of small comforts. 10898. janjon - 10/19/2001 4:08:58 PM well, there certainly has been a spike in births nine months to the day after the various blackouts this City has had over the years. 10899. jexster - 10/19/2001 4:10:56 PM Dans le cas présent, il se pourrait que le porte-aéronefs (avions et hélicoptčres) Kitty Hawk, qui croise en mer d'Arabie et a été aménagé en PC pour commandos (Le Monde du 19 octobre), a embarqué des détachements de forces spéciales et du 160e SOAR. 10900. jexster - 10/19/2001 4:11:43 PM Somalie..somalie...somalie 10901. jexster - 10/19/2001 4:11:46 PM Somalie..somalie...somalie 10902. judithathome - 10/19/2001 4:16:05 PM but just the exercise of small comforts. 10903. ronski - 10/19/2001 4:17:41 PM Heart valves/arteries. 10904. judithathome - 10/19/2001 4:21:31 PM Cardiologists/new sports cars 10905. wonkers2 - 10/19/2001 4:28:43 PM We have our share of "mode 2 thinkers" in this country. A friend told me recently that the "word on the street" in Oakland is that the attacks were the work of the CIA and Pentagon. These are the same folks who credit the CIA with Kennedy's asassination. 10906. ronski - 10/19/2001 4:34:28 PM Raging homophobes are often mode 2's as well. 10907. dusty - 10/19/2001 4:34:40 PM jexster 10908. dusty - 10/19/2001 4:36:11 PM Why do people put up with jexter's inability to use HTML responsibly? 10909. janjon - 10/19/2001 4:44:13 PM dusty - jexster's misdeeds are mild compared to those of others around here. 10910. aytchman - 10/19/2001 5:03:56 PM ronski et al-- 10911. dusty - 10/19/2001 5:08:23 PM janjon 10912. janjon - 10/19/2001 5:09:50 PM I think, unfortunately, much of what Krauthammer says is apt. Nihilism is a very apt term. 10913. Cellar Door - 10/19/2001 5:26:34 PM Well it's already truly ugly. 10914. aytchman - 10/19/2001 5:32:36 PM cellar-- 10915. aytchman - 10/19/2001 5:33:55 PM cellar-- 10916. Cellar Door - 10/19/2001 5:35:49 PM Let's not get ahead of ourselves in predicting WWIII. I've already been down this path in 1962. 10917. Jenerator - 10/19/2001 5:36:53 PM Message # 10891 10918. aytchman - 10/19/2001 5:38:54 PM Don't misunderstand, I'm not predicting it. But, if K is right, our sworn enemies will undoubtedly try to smuggle nukes into the country. If they ever succeed... 10919. CalGal - 10/19/2001 5:46:58 PM Nukes have been my fear since the beginning. 10920. CalGal - 10/19/2001 5:49:01 PM But what Krauthammer piece are you talking about? I don't see anything in his one today about nukes, although I agree with himabout coalitions and have been saying as much since the first day. 10921. wonkers2 - 10/19/2001 6:26:09 PM Krauthammer is linked in #10885. He is dead right. 10922. concerned - 10/19/2001 6:31:43 PM Re. 10919 - 10923. concerned - 10/19/2001 6:34:01 PM Why we haven't heard from Eric Cartman since 9/11/2001 10924. CalGal - 10/19/2001 6:35:58 PM Oh, I read that. Yes, it was good. 10925. labwabbit - 10/19/2001 6:43:21 PM Assuming the Islamic nutcases ever get their grimy mitts on plutonium, that is. 10926. concerned - 10/19/2001 7:44:22 PM Re. 10829 - 10927. PincherMartin - 10/19/2001 8:50:44 PM Lady Chaos 10928. CalGal - 10/19/2001 8:57:53 PM Concerned, 10929. Absensia - 10/19/2001 9:00:03 PM Cal, I sent you something. 10930. jexster - 10/19/2001 9:01:41 PM C4 found at Philly Bus Station..... 10931. Absensia - 10/19/2001 9:01:55 PM It seems there is a lot of conflicting info...now they say don't iron your mail...anthrax is only affected my ultra violet lights. 10932. jexster - 10/19/2001 9:03:23 PM The Fiqh Council of North America, a group of prominent Islamic scholars in the United States and Canada, issued a fatwa (legal opinion) that approves of American Muslim soldiers fighting against terrorism. "The Muslim soldier must perform his duty in this fight despite the feeling of uneasiness of 'fighting without discriminating.' His intention must be to fight for enjoining the truth and defeating falsehood. It's to prevent aggression on the innocents, or to apprehend the perpetrators and bring them to justice.'" The ruling was issued in response to a request from Abdul-Rasheed Muhammad, "first Muslim chaplain in the U.S. armed forces. There are now 13 such chaplains who serve about 15,000 Muslim soldiers, according to unofficial estimates." 10933. jexster - 10/19/2001 9:06:22 PM Dusty... 10934. PincherMartin - 10/19/2001 9:10:10 PM Andoly, 10935. Absensia - 10/19/2001 9:12:27 PM Jex, 10936. robertjayb - 10/19/2001 9:17:41 PM Fighting or recon? 10937. jexster - 10/19/2001 9:17:54 PM Krautheimer should take two valium, stick some Detcort up his ass and call me in the morning 10938. jexster - 10/19/2001 9:20:09 PM If its all the same to you Texans, Robert, I'd prefer Her Majesty's Special Air Service.... 10939. Cellar Door - 10/19/2001 9:26:40 PM LOL on #10937! 10940. PincherMartin - 10/19/2001 9:30:55 PM Andoly, 10941. jexster - 10/19/2001 9:31:17 PM 10942. PincherMartin - 10/19/2001 9:42:04 PM Andoly, 10943. PincherMartin - 10/19/2001 9:51:05 PM LadyChaos, 10944. jexster - 10/19/2001 9:54:13 PM He's running for President! 10945. PincherMartin - 10/19/2001 9:57:40 PM LadyChaos -- 10946. wonkers2 - 10/19/2001 10:01:40 PM For once Pincher is correct. 10947. Andonly - 10/19/2001 10:20:48 PM I don't know why you would be less concerned about bio-weapons. In all likelihood, this rash of anthrax-laced letters is merely a dry run 10948. Andonly - 10/19/2001 10:24:59 PM just as the 1993 World Trade Center bombing was a dry run for 9-11. Right now some Middle Eastern type is closely following the tips he picks up from the media about how his attack could be more effective in the future. 10949. Andonly - 10/19/2001 10:25:16 PM I don't care about psychological attacks. I'm worried about body counts. 10950. PincherMartin - 10/19/2001 10:27:32 PM Ronski -- 10951. PincherMartin - 10/19/2001 10:27:45 PM Saudi Arabia allowed us into the country to first defend and then attack the Iraqis. (Do you think the Islamo-fascists believe Saddam is more holy than the Saudi rulers or o yu think his appeal is simply that he as against the U.S.?) Syria and Egypt fought alongside the U.S. during Desert Storm. Kuwait was liberated after the Gulf War. Somalia was starving when the U.S. went to that country's aid. Kosovo and Bosnia were being attacked by non-Muslims when the U.S. intervened. 10952. Andonly - 10/19/2001 10:38:31 PM I agree that more creative and forceful policies are needed for in the wake of 9-11, I'm just not sure that your particular policies will work. I'm willing to be convinced, however, if you can be convincing. 10953. PincherMartin - 10/19/2001 10:42:04 PM LadyChaos 10954. Andonly - 10/19/2001 10:45:58 PM "The United States can no sooner pull itself out of world affairs than it can migrate to the moon." 10955. PincherMartin - 10/19/2001 10:53:14 PM Regarding Cal and Lady's debate on the rights of illegal immigrants to the U.S. 10956. Andonly - 10/19/2001 11:03:20 PM Last night I saw Bernard Lewis being interviewed by Charlie Rose. After recapping some of what he wrote in "The Roots of Muslim Rage", he offered that the one criticism that Arabs could reasonably level at Americans is one that has quietly been voiced from time to time in the mideast: the US has always supported Arab dictators and has never backed Arab efforts to rebel against oppression. The Arabs look around, perceive that we haven't done this everywhere (e.g., we backed all kinds of rebels fighting Communism, but not in the mideast), and conclude that we consider them subhuman. As Lewis paraphrases their attitude, "What, are we animals?" 10957. PincherMartin - 10/19/2001 11:15:40 PM LadyChaos, 10958. PincherMartin - 10/19/2001 11:27:03 PM I agree completely with Andoly's characterization of LadyChao's philosophy as idiocy. 10959. jexster - 10/19/2001 11:27:13 PM The events of the last five weeks have made it critical for President Bush to develop ties with China that resemble the "strategic partnership" envisaged by President Clinton. 10960. Andonly - 10/19/2001 11:32:11 PM Loar: "The fairly uniform size of the anthrax suggests it was manufactured which means a facility, apparatus and techniques probably beyond the ability of a clandestine lab in the US or, in other words, the quantity must have been brought into the US." 10961. joezan - 10/19/2001 11:39:33 PM Message # 10932: 10962. PincherMartin - 10/19/2001 11:40:19 PM Message # 10299 10963. PincherMartin - 10/19/2001 11:42:09 PM Who is this "clydefo" and why is he so stupid? 10964. jexster - 10/19/2001 11:45:08 PM Ted Striker: It's Lieutenant Hurwitz. Severe shell-shock. Thinks he's Ethel Merman. 10965. PincherMartin - 10/19/2001 11:46:58 PM Janjon, 10966. jexster - 10/19/2001 11:47:20 PM "The United States can no sooner pull itself out of world affairs than it can migrate to the moon." 10967. jexster - 10/19/2001 11:49:03 PM Oh no, its Joe-Z-RoachKiller 10968. jexster - 10/19/2001 11:52:33 PM Damn straight PM 10969. RustlerPike - 10/19/2001 11:52:49 PM The other question is whether al-Qaeda has access to smallpox or could even handle it. 10970. jexster - 10/19/2001 11:54:47 PM What a mensch..... 10971. Andonly - 10/19/2001 11:59:46 PM Pox Arabica. Yes. 10972. jexster - 10/20/2001 12:03:22 AM Now for some serious shit... 10973. PincherMartin - 10/20/2001 12:05:41 AM Ronski -- 10974. jexster - 10/20/2001 12:06:36 AM NBC is reporting that La Legion Etrangere is sur la terre...Chez Taliban! 10975. jexster - 10/20/2001 12:07:43 AM Sorry PM...time to cut the umbilical...everybody knows it 10976. jexster - 10/20/2001 12:09:20 AM With US ships and troops and planes flying all over the Middle East for the past 20 years or so...I don't think that anyone's going to take any comfort from US kickin out a bunch of Zionist crazies from the West Bank...and I am DAMN sure the US public doesn't want to send our boys to die for 'em. 10977. jexster - 10/20/2001 12:10:28 AM PM I bet you still believe in the Domino Theory... 10978. PincherMartin - 10/20/2001 12:14:15 AM Andoly 10979. jexster - 10/20/2001 12:14:21 AM 10980. RustlerPike - 10/20/2001 12:16:03 AM Good bit of explanation from a special forces guy on the BBC. It appears the Rangers got a bum rap on Somalia. 10981. jexster - 10/20/2001 12:18:23 AM 10982. jexster - 10/20/2001 12:22:03 AM Objective Individual Combat Weapons System - Heckler-Koch 10983. PincherMartin - 10/20/2001 12:23:15 AM Sto -- 10984. joezan - 10/20/2001 12:25:08 AM Hmmmnnn... 10985. angel-five - 10/20/2001 12:26:06 AM Thought that was Chosin. 10986. joezan - 10/20/2001 12:26:54 AM ...Afghanistan, I meant. 10987. angel-five - 10/20/2001 12:27:14 AM Nevermind, Pinch, I just looked at the link. 10988. jexster - 10/20/2001 12:30:25 AM this is for you JoeZ 10989. jexster - 10/20/2001 12:31:10 AM Now let's talk dominoes and PAL state..hardee har har 10990. jexster - 10/20/2001 12:34:16 AM The weapons will cost between $10,000 and $12,000 each, plus $25 to $30 for each 20mm air-burst round 10991. jexster - 10/20/2001 12:41:51 AM What will the world look like in October 2002? Slate asked experts on terrorism, strategy, the military, the Middle East, and the economy to describe how they think events will play out in the coming year 10992. jexster - 10/20/2001 12:43:28 AM The predictions, though, come with a caveat best expressed by Christopher Bassford, a professor of strategy at the National War College: "I believe the foreseeable future just ended." 10993. PincherMartin - 10/20/2001 12:44:12 AM Andoly -- 10994. joezan - 10/20/2001 12:46:00 AM You still pay attention to Slate? 10995. angel-five - 10/20/2001 12:47:12 AM Of course I would love it if they ? Looking to make some money or something? 10996. jexster - 10/20/2001 12:48:35 AM War is hell JoeZ 10997. PincherMartin - 10/20/2001 12:50:57 AM Amax -- 10998. PincherMartin - 10/20/2001 12:52:43 AM Amax -- 10999. Andonly - 10/20/2001 12:53:32 AM Pincher: I still don't see it. Yes, I suppose it's good that we lessen our dependence on imported oil and that there any many ways we could do this, including banning SUVs(or hybrid SUVs or whatever). In this environment, I'm not discounting any tactic. 11000. angel-five - 10/20/2001 12:54:29 AM That is indeed an excellent book. I was under the impression that the military has implied that it is completely inaccurate, if for no other reason than to avoid commenting on Delta. I think however that it's fair to say that the book also highlights not just the trouble of fighting in an urban environment, but the trouble of sending soldiers into an environment that has not been accurately gauged and lacking some astonishingly rudimentary intel facts. 11001. Andonly - 10/20/2001 12:55:28 AM On the other hand, my original proposal called for threatening the Saudis with the tough diplomatic line that they should worry about us more than they worry about domestic subversives. 11002. Andonly - 10/20/2001 12:55:41 AM Note too that a boom in the development of a new industry could produce economic benefits in the developed world. 11003. joezan - 10/20/2001 12:56:33 AM Pincher: Yeah, but why should they, when we're no more dangerous to them than their own radicals are? They don't give a shit about their people. They sure the hell do, or they wouldn't be going through this contortionist's-act of an international diplomacy stance. That much seems remarkably self evident. 11005. angel-five - 10/20/2001 1:06:33 AM I think the kicker is Powell and Allah high-fiving each other at the end. 11006. Andonly - 10/20/2001 1:13:20 AM "They sure the hell do, or they wouldn't be going through this contortionist's-act of an international diplomacy stance. That much seems remarkably self evident." 11007. Andonly - 10/20/2001 1:14:13 AM "I think the kicker is Powell and Allah high-fiving each other at the end." 11008. PincherMartin - 10/20/2001 1:14:57 AM Andoly -- 11009. angel-five - 10/20/2001 1:16:32 AM The Saudis don't care for the welfare of their own people. All the house of Saud cares about is remaining in power. That is quite different from what you originally said, which was: Yeah, but why should they, when we're no more dangerous to them than their own radicals are? They don't give a shit about their people. in response to the proposal that we bully the Saudis into complying with our demands. I trust this is a universally recognizable shift. 11010. angel-five - 10/20/2001 1:21:59 AM As far as biological terrorism and the anthrax 'scare' goes: the IRA used to plant a small, ineffective bomb someplace and detonate it. And then when the local authorities and antiterrorist folks converged on the scene and resources were diverted and so on, they detonated the second one, which was always a) much bigger and b) right where everyone was standing examining the debris from the first one. Getting the US government to gear up and go flat out against anthrax in order to ease the panic... and then releasing something else, in a manner which is designed to not only take advantage of catching us flat-footed, but to take out those who serve as our best defense against bioterrorism... is not only frightening, it's frighteningly plausible. 11011. Andonly - 10/20/2001 1:24:07 AM "That is quite different from what you originally said" 11012. angel-five - 10/20/2001 1:25:24 AM Anyone ever read 'The White Plague' by Frank Herbert? 11013. PincherMartin - 10/20/2001 1:28:44 AM Andoly -- 11014. angel-five - 10/20/2001 1:32:01 AM Is that projection? Your original comment was made in the context of whether or not the Saudis should fear an insurrection of their own people. You said they don't give a shit about them. When it was pointed out that they obviously DO considering the elaborate game they play to please both the US and those Saudi Arabs that hate the US, you say you were misread. And then in the context of the welfare of the Saudi people you say the House of Saud doesn't give a shit... which is no doubt true, but quite different from saying that they don't give a shit about their people insofar as they need fear an insurrection. 11015. concerned - 10/20/2001 1:33:20 AM Message # 10928 11016. angel-five - 10/20/2001 1:35:45 AM Wasn't I the one who was somewhat blase about the ability for terrorists to successfully cause high numbers of casualties in a single attack? Well, of course that's a concern -- one that it's hard to gauge, seeing as how as we won't have a chance to determine how effective the US countermeasures against a biological attack against a population center are, until it actually happens. But I should say that the more pragmatic concerns at this moment are whether or not an act of biological terrorism could (further) severely damage some facet of America's economy or capacity to govern. That seems much more likely than whether or not they can generate a few megadeths with an illicit biological agent. 11017. concerned - 10/20/2001 1:36:33 AM Goooood Doggie! 11018. PincherMartin - 10/20/2001 1:37:22 AM Jexter, 11019. angel-five - 10/20/2001 1:42:01 AM The real question is whether America can be, at least temporarily, paralyzed by the fear which would result from a biological attack planned and carried out with that goal in mind. If a biological 'attack' (bear in mind that with some agents the actual inoculation could take place a few *months* beforehand) were to hit the centers of transportation -- say, a few dozen people working in places like airports and truck stops and so on, who one day, instead of carrying around a spray bottle of disinfectant to clean tables carry around a spray bottle which is filled with water and a pinch of some or other agent -- the resulting fear could entirely cripple transportation and provoke a deathly fear of people who have traveled recently. 11020. Andonly - 10/20/2001 1:42:13 AM "Getting the US government to gear up and go flat out against anthrax in order to ease the panic... and then releasing something else, in a manner which is designed to not only take advantage of catching us flat-footed, but to take out those who serve as our best defense against bioterrorism... is not only frightening, it's frighteningly plausible." 11021. Andonly - 10/20/2001 1:46:55 AM "You claimed that you weren't that worried about a bioweapons attack. I now am. Have we switched roles here?" 11022. Andonly - 10/20/2001 1:48:28 AM "New more complex versions of Anthrax (or other strains of disease) are sure to be on their way, with even better dispersal systems." 11023. angel-five - 10/20/2001 1:51:32 AM Unlike your IRA scenario, there's no particular reason to "lead in" with anthrax and then follow up with something more lethal. Are you quite sure? 11024. Andonly - 10/20/2001 2:01:17 AM "Your original comment was made in the context of whether or not the Saudis should fear an insurrection of their own people. You said they don't give a shit about them." 11025. Andonly - 10/20/2001 2:06:06 AM "If we know that terrorists are mucking around with bioweapons or attempting to buy a nuclear weapon, while it might be comforting to know that no terrorist has yet killed numerous civilians with them yet, I don't want to wait around for them to figure out how." 11026. Andonly - 10/20/2001 2:12:44 AM But I'm off to get some shuteye. 11027. concerned - 10/20/2001 2:15:41 AM Chemical weapons such as sarin and mustard gas are of very dubious utility as terrorist weapons, especially in unconfined spaces. 11028. concerned - 10/20/2001 3:04:10 AM 10965. PincherMartin - 10/20/01 4:46:58 AM 11029. jexster - 10/20/2001 8:41:29 AM Concerned....you have the political mind of a kindegartner 11030. jexster - 10/20/2001 8:45:11 AM An operation codenamed Commander Solo underlined the sense that the campaign had accelerated. Four slow-moving EC-130CE aircraft broadcast radio messages in local languages over Taliban-held areas, warning people that American troops could be moving through their areas. 11031. wonkers2 - 10/20/2001 8:47:03 AM As usual, Anthony Lewis has it about right As usual, Anthony Lewis has it about right
"Being an American means nothing to me. I'm not even proud of telling my cousins in Pakistan that I'm American."
I'll post links rather than re-post articles when Jesus stops using giant letters in his posts.
Fun times.
Right?
Wrong. The attacks have to do with many things, envy, grievances against the West going back at least one century if not several, U.S. support for unpopular Arab regimes, and troops on Saudi soil, but also because of American policy regarding Israel, which remains a flash point.
Six months ago it was impossible to get any sort of resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian impasse. But things have changed dramatically.
Something needs to be done regarding the West Bank and Gaza, and the Bush administration is right to have acknowledged this. Not to eliminate tensions in the area, since that is wildly unrealistic, but to reduce them.
Therefore the Palestine state must be linked to Jordan.
These homicide attackers of the WTC/Pentagon were planned while former President Clinton was trying to get the Jews to give up most of the Occupied Territories.
BTW, it was must announced that the United States is going to buy spot advertising on that commercial satellite Quatar TV station. Smart, very smart.
You could have all the Jews kicked out and Israel turned over to the Palestinians and you could have all the US troops withdraw from Saudi Arabia and have women around the world in burkas and whatever else, but they would still be on the attack. Why? Because non-existence of the US does nothing to cure the ills of the Middle Eastern nations. Far easier to blame the evil western satan for their ills than to take responsibility for them and work to better them. Read Tom Friedman in today's NY Times Op Ed.
That is the essence of what the president now calls the Bush Doctrine. Asked to define it further, a senior White House official said: "We must eliminate the scourge of international terrorism. In order to do that, we need not only to eliminate the terrorists and their networks, but also those who harbor them."
The use of the word "doctrine" is intentional. It is meant to describe a new paradigm in U.S. foreign policy, a guiding principle through which other issues will be viewed and acted upon throughout the Bush presidency and beyond -- just as the Truman, Brezhnev and Reagan doctrines dictated international relations through four decades of Cold War.
But until the details are filled in beyond the current military campaign in Afghanistan, close U.S. allies and many inside the administration itself are uncertain whether the doctrine really means what it appears to say -- that the United States will be the unilateral judge of whether a country is supporting terrorism, and will determine the appropriate methods, including the use of military force, to impose behavioral change.
Allies Balk at Warrior King's Howdy Doody Doctrine
They are nervous spectators to an ongoing debate inside the administration between those reputedly led by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, a supposed hawk on the issue of moving the military campaign beyond Afghanistan, and those who agree with Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, who advocates a more circumscribed strategy.
"It seems to me there is a great deal of internal conflict. That's no secret," said Eliot Cohen, director of strategic studies at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and a former Defense Department official. "Even some of the key decision-makers are of two minds."
Panty Waist Powell Uber Alles!
But viewing the Israeli matter as simply an excuse is naive, imo. It ingores the whole history of terrorism in the world since the creation of the Jewish state.
The point of foreign policy moves is not to eliminate tensions, but to reduce them. A Palestinian state would defuse some of that tension.
I am also on the record favoring the lessening of America's presence in the Gulf, which would also reduce tension.
They will sell us the oil, no matter who is in charge. Right now, the supply of oil is probably more tenuous than if a new fundamentalist regime took over in Saudi Arabia. Right now, the bin Laden forces would no doubt like to blow up the pipelines, if they could, as a means of bringing the Saudi Royals down. Once in power, I suspect the fundamentalists would start pumping it again. And if they had any qualms about selling it to the U.S. (we don't really need Saudi oil all that much), they would be happy to sell it to Europe and Japan. That would keep world oil prices reasonable.
Are big and bright
Deep in the heart of Texas!
Right JAH?
You poor dear.
WASHINGTON, Oct. 11 — President Bush has been dragged by events and his allies to a place he never wanted to be: at the center of an exercise in nation-building, constructing a new Afghanistan from whatever is left once his bombing campaign and commando raids are over
Meet Moron I - Nation Builder!
Also reporting a Condo Rice (didn't they name an oil tanker after her?) about face on Al Jazeera. After calling for a shutdown, Condi Girl now wants her bosoms all over AJ.
-------------------------------------
Can we all agree to not use the words ilk, spew, and disengenuous for
I've yet to see anyone complain about this the way Bush's "crusade" slip has been beaten to death, or the even more innocuous use of "infinite."
Surely our State Department was hip about this kind of stuff.
Jen, Only someone of your ilk would spew such disingenuous comments as Message # 10460!
Oh, but Janjon, who ever eventually rules Arabia will sell us oil, don't you realize that? They'll honor western joint venture agreements, too, for sure. We only buy 17% of our oil from OPEC anyway. Not to worry, that's nothing, and anyway, why would Arab extremists cut off their noses to spite their faces?
And don't you know, those anthrax "attacks" are all distantly farm-related accidents. But if they aren't, there's no reason to believe al-Qaeda did it. It was probably Iraq.
Don't you feel better now? I do.
Anyone who doesn't feel better can feel better immediately by reciting the mantras above. Chase those incantations with a bottle of wine and about ten Xanax and the world won't look so awful. That's what's important, right? Seeing the world as a hopeful place where bad things don't wreck business as usual?
just doesn't make any sense to me.
I thought this immediately, yes. And sure enough, suddenly the media is waking up to the untrustworthiness of Arab regimes. No more whining about Iraqi sanctions. Arafat is looking less heroic. Questions are being raised about Syria and Iran.
Not enough about Iran, by the way. Clearly, the Iranians are pushing to have their boys in Afghanistan, the NA, take over. We should tell Iran to go to hell, right after we extract whatever intelligence we can from them. The fact that the Taliban is pernicious doesn't mean the NA is righteous, can rule, or should be empowered.
The US is perceived to be a world bully. Maybe it's time we act like a bully worthy of the epithet.
Of course, if for whatever the reason the bin Laden and his decide that it is a good tactic to do their best to immobilize the Saudi oil production, it might not make a damn bit of difference who rules the place. Unless those crafty Saudis have a large supply of oil in reserve above the ground and hidden away.
Yeah, that's the ticket.
We should be more supple and sophisticated about such things. (Like, for instance, our food drop ploys. Quite intelligent.) Especially when we are trying, if not exactly to win the hearts and minds of the citizenry at large, to keep them from thinking that we indeed are using this/concocted this to justify our efforts to debilitate Muslims generally.
I agree.
What a life, eh.
It might help if we'd try to miss places like the Red Cross storage facility for wheat and food during the bombing runs...
No need to lecture me about the Middle East. My point was that to most people in the west, probably including Bush's speechwriters, an expression like "a crusade against terror" is not objectionable or even thought to be so.
The Muslim nations will hate us, and that is an inexorable fact. What we must do is set things in the proper order for some Arab nations, now that we have given them a stark choice.
As with Egypt, it will be up to Pakistan and its military government to kill as many of the extremists as is necessary to get it through their head that the United States butters their bread. Saudi Arabia will also have to step up decapitations, or the royal family will have to give up Parisian pussy and caviar.
If they do not, the extremists will take over, harbor terrorists, and those new extremist governments will suffer the fate of the Taliban in what will be a very long war.
Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen and the Sudan are in a different boat. They are in the Administration's "come to God" program, which appears to have wiped the slate clean on their past transgressions, while obliterating the Taliban as a warning.
Oliver Stone's Chaos Theory
Cal,
You can't behead a *few* Islamists. That's dangerous and counterproductive.
OTOH, beheading *thousands* of Islamists would be quite useful.
Nuke 'em up.
I'm sick of all these people. Kill them. I refuse to accept constant terrorist attacks just because some Muslim KKK'ers can't get over the fact they lost World War I.
If you took a poll among Americans right now and asked them whether the world would be a better place without the Islamic faith (not Arabs and its other adherents, but the belief itself), I imagine the question could be worded so that a majority would say yes.
The "infinite" thing was even iffier. I mean that could just as easily be offensive to Christians.
In any case, I didn't wish to rehash an old argument as much to point out the difference in cultural sensitivity displayed in one case versus the other. I haven't read anyone say anything comparable about the knighting of Giuliani--it's something I honestly thought of myself--and how that too could be taken as a "slur" against Islam.
Indiana. See above.
frankie. You too.
The outcome will not turn on it. But, it was stupid and does little to instill confidence in those in whom we must have confidence.
(now, on to the incredibly obtuse FBI....)
And their other mistake was that in addition to threatening the lives of Bush, Bush, and Blair, they had the audacity to threaten Clinton! If Clinton couldn't get through to these maniacs, no one can. I mean, many view his Israel/PLA negotiations as nothing short of forcing Israel to capitulate.
We have no choice but to kill them or live with anthrax. I can't see Tom Brokaw or Tom Daschle thinking anything different at the moment.
The "crusade" incident is one of those incidents where it is "obvious" after the fact that it was a poor choice of words, but not when it was first used.
It is also reported that law and order is breaking down. Relief agencies have plundered and have had cars stolen in Kandahar and Mazar al-Sharif.
Those days of being "PC sensitive" are over, Johnnies. And instead of us being worried about bio/chem/nuclear warfare, it should be their problem to deal with.
"sensitive" carried to absurd was the decision, apparently somewhere in the White House, not to let the drone plane bomb the hell out of the villa where it had tracked the Big Mullah, because of concern over "collateral damage".
See Message # 10473
What I meant was that Saudi Arabia gets its legitimacy from being a theocracy and practicing a fairly strict form of Islam (or pretending to). That's their particular bargain with the clerics.
I saw it on a crawl on CNN...
Don't worry America, help is on the way!
Worry!
This too will pass.
On with the show.
I think you give the administration too much credit.
Jordan Arizmendi, the AMI intern who became a brief focal point in the deadly Boca Raton anthrax investigation, checked into a hospital on Sunday morning and is being treated for pneumonia, several Miami TV stations reported in their noon broadcasts Tuesday.
test
the URL wraps on mine
i can delete the post and link the URL in instead
10494. amax - 10/16/01 3:49:20 PM
Crusade is arguably the usual reaction of the US to foreign policy crises like this one. We tend to take moralism much further than most other countries have in the past or do now.
link
Or, just go to Drudge.
W'S UNRELIABLE ADVISER ON ISLAM. BLIND FAITH
By Franklin Foer (Exerpts)
...thanks to the aggressive promotion of his work by two influential conservative think tanks, the Hudson Institute and the Heritage Foundation David Forte's writings on Islam have found their way onto the reading lists of Defense Undersec. Douglas Feith and NSC's Elliott Abrams (remember him?)...and when President Bush addressed Congress last month, he seemed to pluck whole phrases from Forte's writings.
In particular Bush has embraced Forte's argument that Al Qaeda are theolobical heretics. They practice, Forte contends, and esoteric strain of Islam that traces to a seventh century sect....But Forte is a less than reliable source. The problem isn't just his weak background in modern Islamic politics; it's his ulterior ideological motive. Forte doesn't just want to redeem Islam from its critics. As a Catholic conservative who serves on a Vatican task force on strengthening the family, he wants to redeem religious orthodoxy itself--or, at least, cleanse it of the extremist stain.
Forte's basic point is: Islamic militants aren't true Muslims at all....serious scholars of Islam dispute Forte's interpretation...Marius Deeb of John's Hopkins told me "This guy doesn't know what he's talking about...Harvard's Frank Vogel said "Forte produces some useful synthetic essays...His argument is a gross over-simplification."
...Forte also ingnore the influence of Wahhabism, one of modern Islam's central movements....which has sanctioned violence against infidels...etc, etc.
Well, Hersch had his ass handed to him on NPR today over that very article.
The poor guy was reduced to hemming and hawing, shucking and jiving, and backpedaling on some of the most important points he'd invented for that article. Not that he was necessarily wrong - it just seems he exagerates some of the scarier stuff.
I forget who it was debating him (though it wasn't a debate, per se), but basically the guy told him, Hey - I didn't see nearly half of the stuff you claim, and neither did anyone else I've talked to in my research who was actually there. (Apparently, Hersch has never been there - or wasn't in his research for his article).
it's funny. I always thought joezan was a Chinese province.
"I wouldn't be surprised to learn eventually that more than just a little/most/maybe even all of the anthrax missives are the work of one or another of our own home-grown hate groups. "
Absurd. What about the one from Malaysia ? If it is a "home-grown hate group", what is the motive to do it so soon after the WTC attack ? And for failing to take credit for it ?
Surely the letters are from exactly the obvious suspects -- Moslem terrorists.
(Of course the hard evidence to support my supposition is just as strong as the evidence to support yours.)
Where did you hear that ? I was just searching, to no avail.
Is it my imagination or has the media done a terrible job ever since the Sept 11 attack ? They were reporting cops and firemen being saved from the WTC rubble, which wasn't true. They reported missle attacks on Kabul long before it actually happened. And now they are reporting anthrax cases as fact that turn out to be false. What ever happened to having two independent sources before reporting a story ? 
(giggle)
Worry!
Oh shit boys n girlz its Howdy Doody Time!
[Bush] even posed as a Koranic exegete: "The English translation is not as eloquent as the original Arabic, but let me quote from the Koran itself..."
Where's my barf bag?
Ace you round?
And one hella fine NMD test system!
It is something like the olden days of wire service journalism where AP and UPI graded themselves on the number of seconds they beat the opposition in breaking a story. Then, of course, in the case of newspaper clients anyway, they were working against relatively inflexible go-to-press deadlines. And, a big and, the copy would pass through an editor at the wire service HQ and at the paper before it hit the street. As I recall, radio news was mostly rip and read but I'm biased, I guess.
Now in most electronic media it's go fast, go loud, and go on to the next story.
You would think at some point the TV networks would be embarassed by all the retractions. Have they no shame ? Doesn't credibility count for something ?
I know I've felt embarrassed numerous times recently when I've told my co-workers, "Hey did you hear that ..." based on a news report (usually TV), only to have to tell them it wasn't true a while later.
I only watched ABC for the first week after the attacks (it was all I had at the time), and I was very impressed. There were some mistakes, but very few considering the days of constant coverage.
October 16, 2001, 9:03 PM EDT
CANBERRA, Australia--AP -- Australia will begin deploying troops and military hardware to the Persian Gulf over the next two weeks to join the U.S.-led coalition against terrorism, Prime Minister John Howard said Wednesday.
Howard said the deployment was order after a telephone request by overnight from President Bush.
"This marks of course a significant further stage in the involvement of Australian military personnel and the Australian people in this war against terrorism," Howard told reporters.
"Our forces will be overseas fighting in our name within a very short period of time," he said.
Never have. Never will.
Just say "That statement is no longer operable." It worked for Nixon's people.
CNN appears to me to be the one that is the worst at reporting first and verifying later. And then the other networks sometimes pick up on what CNN reports, as if its OK to report garbage as fact as long as someone else did it first.
I could have sworn I heard it on the news last night, but I can't find anything today. Maybe I dreamed it. Hmm.
I don't think it's the media doing a bad job this time round (although I agree the reports during the immediate attack were terrible). It seems to me that the test is inconclusive in some way.
See what I mean about the media?
I heard it too, Cal, but if you didn't get it when it came out in the current media climate, you evidently have to live in ignorance. They ought to keep access to their main recent news stories, imo.
I think you are right, Cal.
The guy left a plane on a runway and the FAA didn't even investigate. 
LAT
Distant is right...so distant you need the Hubble Telescope to see it.
The boyz at Halliburton must be having a fit about now.
The House of Representatives will shut down while investigators look for anthrax.
For every dark cloud....
Differences have emerged between senior figures on either side of the Atlantic culminating in Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, ridiculing remarks by Britain's most senior serviceman.
Cowboyism Returns to Warriour King's Kabinet - Daily Telegraph
If this is the pros, it is a short distance from in the mail to in your face in places like subways, basketball games, etc. Especially if the carrier is someone who doesn't give a fuck about infecting himself/herself.
So it goes these days.
I fear we'll know more soon enough.
Is it my imagination or has the media done a terrible job ever since the Sept 11 attack ?
If those are the only two choices, it must be your imagination, because the media has done a fine job.
They were reporting cops and firemen being saved from the WTC rubble, which wasn't true.
There were people saved from the rubble. It was mistakenly reported that they had been buried during the initial collapse, and subsequently they corrected that they had been buried some time earlier in the day. An error, to be sure, but not a major one. There was a false report about an SUV incident, IIRC.
They reported missle attacks on Kabul long before it actually happened.
I'm not sure what you are referring to. Do you mean the attacks on Kabul the evening of the 11th? (Their 12th.) If so, those were attacks, just not by us. I saw it reported that we didn't know for sure who caused the attacks, it could be us, or it could be the Northern Alliance. It turned out to be the Northern Alliance.
Are you referring to something else?
And now they are reporting anthrax cases as fact that turn out to be false.
I haven't seen that. I trust you are aware that there are a series of tests they perform. Some of the tests can give false positives. I have seen those tests reported, and I believe some have turned out to be false alarms, but I don't recall any reports definitively stating it is anthrax, then retracted.
I'm sure there have been some instances of mistaken reporting. The State department car bomb comes to mind. But I think there have been remarkably few. I don't know that any of your examples qualify, except possibly to the extent that details were mistaken.
Like Arabic?
At any rate, here it is: Not a Ten, But Not Off The Mark Either
According to Juliette Kayyem of the Kennedy School, the media "'has not been a particular target of Islamic fundamentalist groups or groups we associate with Sept. 11. It has been a target of right-wing groups in America.' The one thing that Islamic radicals and American right-wing radicals have in common, she added, is a paranoid belief that American media outlets are pawns in a worldwide Jewish conspiracy. And one of the letters that has been a focus of the anthrax investigation in Florida came with a Star of David inside... At Harvard's [Kennedy School, Jessica Eve] Stern also finds some logic in suspecting the media attacks may have a domestic origin. 'Right-wing extremists,' she said, 'are obsessed with biological warfare.' She has studied a former member of a neo-Nazi group who in 1997 was arrested - though the parole-violation charges were later dismissed - for claiming, falsely, that he had 'military-grade' anthrax in his possession."
More Limbaugh Legionnaires Run Amok???
Don't worry America, help is on the way!
Thank God he's off to China!
Ace is neither. 
For a second day, the Pentagon dispatched AC-130 gunships — operated by the Air Force Special Operations Command — to attack those forces. The AC-130, which can loiter over targets for hours and lay down withering fire from heavy machine guns and cannons, are ideally suited for operations within designated attack zones, the officials said.
But with everyone running scared about white powders, I'll bet that cocaine consumption has plunged dramatically. And that must be bad news for the US economy. Think of the thousands employed in the distribution and sales networks. It'll make the Boeing layoffs pale into insignificance. Not to mention the loss of productivity by consumers, in crucial sectors of the economy.
Hey, maybe that was the real plan.
If you fund a terrorist you are a terrorist 10.17.01
President Bush, traveling to a conference in China, said the war on terrorism may take a long time.
"You mark my words: People are going to get tired of the war on terrorism. And by the way, it may take more than two years," he said in an interview with Asian news editors.
Are we tired America?
HELL NO!
"the media has done a fine job"
You are entitled to your opinion. I strongly disagree.
"It was mistakenly reported that they had been buried during the initial collapse, and subsequently they corrected that they had been buried some time earlier in the day. An error, to be sure, but not a major one. "
Say what? There is a huge difference between surviving the collapse of the WTC and getting stuck in the rubble sometime after the collapse. I am surprised that you don't see much distinction.
Furthermore, how about the report about the ten cops being trapped in the rubble after the collapse and one of them calling his wife on his cell phone ? Is that a minor mistake, too ?
"Do you mean the attacks on Kabul the evening of the 11th? (Their 12th.) "
No, it was before that. I'm rather certain it was in late September. The CNN guy in Kabul reported it first, implying that the US attack had begun. Then CBS reported that CNN had reported it. As it turned out, I don't think there was a missle at all. There was a fire and some explosions.
"And now they are reporting anthrax cases as fact that turn out to be false."
Perhaps "reporting" is the wrong word. On the text scrolling at the bottom of the screen on CNN it said that anthrax had been found aboard two airplanes and gave the flight numbers. As it turned out, it was just some white powder that, of course, wasn't anthrax. I realize you can only say so much on those little text updates, but what they said was just plain wrong.
"I'm sure there have been some instances of mistaken reporting. The State department car bomb comes to mind. "
Exactly! How do professional reporters make a mistake like that about something that happened right under their noses ?
As I'm sure you've noticed, Ace has fallen madly in love with me.
Of course I see a distinction. That's why I said the original reporting contained an error.
Furthermore, how about the report about the ten cops being trapped in the rubble after the collapse and one of them calling his wife on his cell phone ? Is that a minor mistake, too ?
Is this the incident where it was later determined that the woman made it up? If so, it sounds like an understandable mistake.
No, it was before that. I'm rather certain it was in late September. The CNN guy in Kabul reported it first, implying that the US attack had begun. Then CBS reported that CNN had reported it. As it turned out, I don't think there was a missle at all. There was a fire and some explosions.
It appears we are talking about the same event, but you are confused about the timeline. When I said the 11th or 12th, I mean September. It obviously wasn't before then. Yes, there was a fire and some explosions. But not just some fire that got out of control, a fire and explosions caused by artillery fire from the northern Alliance. I saw the reports. They wondered whether it could be US based missiles, but they were cautious about drawing conclusion early on, and very early speculation included the possibility that it was the Northern Alliance. As it turned out to be.
If they said "anthrax" instead of "possible anthrax", they jumped the gun. I didn't see it. I don't disbelieve you, but out of the literally hundreds of hours of programming on the subject, I'm sure there were some slipups. Your inference is that the media is doing a poor job in terms of getting their facts straight. I disagree.
I should add that my TV media watching consists largely of flipping between CNN, MSNBC, CNBC and FOX. Except for September 11, I almost never watch CBS or ABC. I can't vouch for the accuracy of networks I don't watch.
US infantry landed from helicopters on Wednesday near Kandahar in southwest Afghanistan, stronghold of Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar and suspected terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden, Iranian state radio said.
Source
For example?
However, neither Washington nor London would comment on any of the information, and the reports could not be independently confirmed.
CD has a good point. I've seen, for example, numerous conflicting reports about Russia, China's, Iran's and Saudia Arabia's responses and attitudes toward the situation resulting from the WTC/Pentagon mass murder.
When you said "there are ... floating through the air" I assumed you meant now. It is easily understandable that some mistakes would be made in the confusion immediately following the event. If that is all you mean, it's no big deal.
Next time, try using past tense when you mean past tense. It avoids confusion.
Cellar Door
BTW, did you hear that someone actually reported that a reception took place in a football game that turned out not to be one? Instant replay showed it was trapped.
Boy, you can't always believe what you hear on TV.
"Is this the incident where it was later determined that the woman made it up? If so, it sounds like an understandable mistake. "
Again I strongly disagree. Just because some woman makes a claim that means its OK to report it as fact ? As I stated previously, I thought it was a fundamental of news reporting that the reporter confirm the facts from two independent sources before printing/broadcasting the story. It would appear that didn't happen in this case or in many others.
And, obviously, its not just the reporters who are involved in broadcasting the story. Even if a reporter makes a mistake, editors are ultimately responsible for doublechecking what goes on the air.
"reported that a reception took place in a football game that turned out not to be one"
Play by play sports announcing is not analogous to news reporting. If the media is treating reporting as such, then that would indicate a deeply flawed approach. Sports announcers simply report what they see with no attempt at "real time" fact verification. It has been traditional in reputable news reporting to make an effort to get the facts right before printing/broadcasting them.
Again I strongly disagree. Just because some woman makes a claim that means its OK to report it as fact ? As I stated previously, I thought it was a fundamental of news reporting that the reporter confirm the facts from two independent sources before printing/broadcasting the story.
So a women comes up to you, a reporter, and tells you she got a cell phone call from her husband buried in the rubble. You ask if anyone else heard the call. "No", she says, "I was in my house when i got the call."
Your choice is to go dig up the husband to corroborate it, or decide to kill it.
It's a first person account. If first person accounts required corroboration from a second source, there would be far fewer of them.
I don't think the two source rule applies, but maybe someone with real experience can weigh in.
Most of us remember the two source rule in connection with Watergate. That also involved confidential information.
Uses, abuses of confidential sources
In addition to these restrictions on offering confidentiality, there is another rule governing the use of material from a confidential source which is used by The Cavalier Daily: the two independent source rule. If a newspaper is going to print information obtained from a confidential source, there is a risk that the information might be inaccurate. After all, if my name is to be kept secret, I could tell a reporter a false story. Therefore, newspapers have developed a long-standing practice of insisting on independent confirmation of all confidentially obtained information.
i did some checking also, and you are right. The two source rule is in regard to confidentiality. And I was just about to post the same portion of the Cavalier Daily editorial as you just did.
Yahoo search ?
So I withdraw my complaint about the media failing to get two source verification of these stories. But I stand by my position that these errors are happening way more often than they should.
James Buckee, the company's chief executive, told the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London today that "it is socially responsible for a corporation to invest in certain places that some elements of popular opinion find objectionable."
Say WHAT?
From the looks of things TD thinks UR the bee's knees too! 
I will say one thing, they've beaten the anthrax topic to death.
In short the media treat ALL news stories like freeway chases.
Thanks a bunch O.J. !
included drawings of planes and instrumentsand the numbers 757 and 767.
I strongly suspect that some people will do anything for a little attention, although our Security Intelligence Service is investigating and it's believed that information regarding this has been passed to the FBI.
United says they may go bankrupt next year. United. Not Continental, not Northwest. United.
That's scarier than anthrax.
The travel industry is bound to be badly hit. Bookings here from Japan are down by a third already, although we're usually regarded as a "safe" place to travel.
HALIFAX (CP) - Prime Minister Jean Chretien called the sailors and air crew of three Canadian ships heroes as he wished them success moments before a historic sailing to fight terrorism.
"I'm here to say on behalf of all Canadians that you are all heroes, that your nation is proud of you and that Canadians are praying for you," Chretien told family members and others in a speech at the navy dockyards in Halifax on Wednesday.
As the warships set off behind him, the prime minister said, "Canada has never been a nation to sit on the sidelines.
"We did not pick this fight, but we will finish it because on the side of justice, there can only be one outcome - victory."
Yanks can't have a proper war without the Kiwis.
I saw somewhere the French had sent a team to Florida. That'll help.
Too bad Afghanistan is landlocked. If it wasn't, the French could send their frogpersons (heh-heh-heh) into harbors to blowup ships as they did when they took on mighty Greenpeace in New Zealand.
This is one of those examples where a disagreement does serve a useful purpose. I've always heard of the two source rule, but not given it a lot of thought. When you mentioned it, I started thinking about it, and was having trouble believing it could be used on every story. So I did a search (Google, rather than yahoo), saw that article and it clicked. It makes sense that confidential sourced material would require a higher standard.
I don't want to give the impression that I think the media is doing a perfect job. Far from it. They've been a bit quick on the trigger on the anthrax issue. But I think they deserve some slack for the early reporting. I know I sat in a hotel room, switching channels to find out whoever had what information. I didn't treat any of it as gospel and I wanted to know ASAP what was going on.
Whoever reported that someone rode the building down to the ground and survived should have listened to that little voice of skepticism, and done a bit more work before reporting. But when a woman says that she received a cell call from someone in the building, it sounds quite plausible. I don't think we can ask our media to assume everyone who reports something is lying, especially during such a frantic time.
Thanks for inspiring me to track down the two source info, I learned something yesterday. It is always a good day, when one learns something.
Yes, I learned something too. And we are converging into agreement on the subject, even.
Oh, well I'm sure there are still plenty of other subjects for us to disagree about.
I really don't much like being wrong. However, I do it often enough you'd think I'd be used to it by now.
Here's an AP story from the Washington Post website about CBS story.
I'm watching/listening to a press conference now, via CBS's site. Giuliani and some health dept. people. 
Don't go to the bathroom on October 28th. CIA intelligence reports that a major plot is planned for that day. Anyone who takes a poop on the 28th will be bitten on the ass by an alligator. Reports indicate that organized groups of alligators are planning to rise up into unsuspecting American's toilet bowls and bite them when they are doing their dirty business.
I usually don't send emails like this, but I got this information from a reliable source. It came from a friend of a friend whose cousin is dating this girl whose brother knows this guy whose wife knows this lady whose husband buys hotdogs from this guy who knows a shoeshine guy who shines the shoes of a mailroom worker who has a friend who's drug dealer sells drugs to another mailroom worker who works in the CIA building. He apparently overheard two guys talking in the bathroom about alligators and came to the conclusion that we are going to be attacked. So it must be true.
I bet the people at Fox are miffed about being snubbed.
It is one thing to close down the House buildings to do an environmental "search". Appropriate.
It is another to close the House down during that period. Granted, keeping its operations up and running in all regards probably would be impossible without use of their normal facilities. But, that isn't the point. Call it window-dressing or whatever, but having at least a semblence of "life is going to go on" for something as meaningful to the U.S. as the House of Representatives was quite important.
I mean, here you have the top government officials telling all of us to be calm and to continue to live life as normal, including W almost shouting in Sacramento that "they will NEVER break our spirit, people should go on with their lives, etc." and then the House closes down for almost a week.
Pathetic.
Note that the House has a Republican majority. I couldn't be happier that they are shut down. The longer the better.
1) Streamline smallpox vaccination production -- For the past few years, we have been told that we as a country are vulnerable to smallpox and that we have done little or nothing about it. BUT since 9/11, we now know that it is a very possible threat.
Who is coordinating, directing, funding putting together smallpox vaccination production and distribution?
2) I was relieved to hear on the TOday Show this morning that basic antibiotics can be used to treat exposure to Anthrax (and was a little nervous when they described weapon-grade as anthrax that is unaffected by antibiotics). But it seems to me that resistance to stream-line production of Cipro (or whatever it is) was a problem. Glad this problem may be solved with the use of other antibiotics.
3) Federalization of airport secuirty -- I don't care it if is a hybrid of public/private or if it is an entirely new class of federal workers. But damn it, we are under attack. Make decisions, implement them. Make the airports secure. Scan luggage. The preamble to the Constitution calls for defense of the public. This is a federal problem and requires immediate federal leadership.
4) Sacrifice -- it is a mistake to think that "normal" American society will continue after 9/11. Our grandparents grew victory gardens, our parents fought in the wars that protected the world from evil. What are we called to do? Probably more than spend money or see a play. I wish there was some discussion and leadership on this, too. One of the British columnists in the Guardian (linked in International) said that the world was witnessing the awesome hardening of the American spirit. I think that is accurate. I think it is a mistake to think of this as a long-distance war. What can we do to participate, to band together? A CBS News employee has become the fifth person to test positive for anthrax infection, as federal officials on Thursday announced a $1 million reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of people involved in mailing the deadly bacteria.
The latest confirmed infection involves a woman who works in anchor Dan Rather's office. She tested positive for skin, or cutaneous, anthrax and is receiving antibiotics.
Why do the airport workers have to be federalized? there was no security breach that caused the attack. But if the desire is to put them under government control, why not put it under local control, I wonder? Why has no one mentioned cities staffing security? Then the feds could go around and test to see how they are doing and post warnings, etc. It would certainly be more useful than the warnings about Moooagoudou Nigeria that I see in Columbus.
I agree about smallpox. Did you read the TNR column about Tommy Thompson, that the HHS secretary is the Tom Ridge of the national response to risk of these various diseases, and it's not the job he signed up for?
As far as sacrifice goes, I am bothered by the fact that you can still see that decisions are being filtered through political acceptability. So we'll put in tons of meaningless security at airports so that yutzes can think "Gosh, I must be safe, this is a long line." But there hasn't been any serious mention of legal requirements for driver's licenses, tracking illegal aliens, and the like.
There is a report that anthrax has been found in Kenya, though.
Security breach did allow for the plane attacks -- they smuggled in knives and box cutters. Logan Airport security, btw, is run by the state and has been a perk for political must-hires.
It is a federal problem because it is a national problem. The system ought to be seamless, not a a collection of satrapys. We already regulate aviation. I believe that this needs federal leadership to put a better system in place. Perhaps that means coordination with locals, hiring private companies, etc. But I think the federal government should run the program and start to work on it soon.
I didn't understand what you wrote in your last paragraph, so please clarify for me. Thanks.
On Nightline, someone asked if anthrax could be passed to people on paper money...Koppel gave some very unsatisfactory answers to that question from people he'd asked and closed the show with "more for you to worry about as you try to go to sleep" or something close to that.
Knives were allowed on planes prior to 9/11, as were boxcutters. No security breach.
Logan Airport security is not run by the state, it is run by the airlines as it is everywhere else. It is Logan airport management that is used as patronage, and it is an anomaly that could be corrected.
Federalizing it would do nothign to solve the problem; worse, it would mean that oversight of it would become a political issue, with the overseers being pressured not to point out problems. If different levels of government handle it, you remove the conflict of interest. Again, I don't think it is needed at all. Restrict who gets on the plane and the problem disappears.
As for my last paragraph, we aren't thinking. We're just reacting. This country is not one whit more protected from a terrorist attack now than it was before 9/11.
At any rate, here is an article from today's Times about our plans: It Would Be Nice To Believe That Only We And The Russians Have It, No?
I don't see what would cause security to be a political problem and who or how overseers would be pressued.
It is over-reacting that can be a problem. Reacting is a normal state when there is an emergency.
I don't think anybody would argue that we are vulnerable to more terrorist attacks. The FBI last week said as much.
The issues I raised (further airport security & leadership on smallpox vaccination) are in my mind, are issues our leadership (President, Congress) should be debating, taking a stand, and then begin implementing solutions.
And, I agree with Glenda's take on the issue. Simply absurd that we haven't professionalized and standardized airport security and placed it in the Federal government's hands.
Why on earth has the FAA not been able to implement better securityh requirements over the past 20 years? Because of political problems and conflict of interest.
I don't think anybody would argue that we are vulnerable to more terrorist attacks. The FBI last week said as much.
We aren't just vulnerable, we are equally as vulnerable, after over a month and millions of dollars spent. We aren't even attacking the right problems.
What on earth makes you think it would improve? What on earth makes you think it needs to improve?
What airport security failure caused 9/11?
We started doing metal detection and carry-on luggage screening. After the famous parchute incident, airplanes doors were changed so that one couldn't parachuete out of them -- that was in the article. I don't understand the engineering around it, but the device or change is named after the bank robber who jumped out of a plane. After the Pan Am Lockerbie explosion, the rules changed on checking in luggage but not checking in at the gate. Each of these actions have resulted in the hijackers having to do something "more provacative."
Given that the art of hijacking has now racheted up to the level of using loaded planes as missiles capable of mass destruction, I think it is becoming a national defense issue. My own belief is that the Federal government should be taking a leadership issue on this.
It may very well be that under our standards in place on 9/11 that more professionalized scrutiny wouldn't have made a difference.
But, those standards have to be strengthened. And, those who administer them have to be much more professional.
Four horses got out of the barn before we closed the gate. Lets make sure the gate is strengthened and closed. And, that we have in place a lot of backup plans (what to do in the air, etc.) in case a so-called stallion nevertheless sneaks through.
Thus, the statement "But, those standards have to be strengthened" is by no means a given. Nor is the second, that they have to be professional.
The horses would have gotten out of the barn no matter what, based on airline security. Keeping them in the barn would have required a change in our immigration policy or airline hijack policy. It has nothing to do with airline security.
GJ--I've said before, maybe you missed it. We should immediately begin a purge of all illegal aliens, regardless of country. We should immediately invalidate all social security numbers and all drivers licenses that weren't obtained with a valid visa, passport, or birth certificate proving citizenship. And we should require proof of legal right to be in this country for air travel, any purchase of a non-disposable, and any purchase or rental of living quarters.
For starters.
But stronger Federal rules which airports should follow I think are overdue. Terrorism in the air has been a problem for a long time around the world. It is clearly a threat to life and to the national security, especially after Sep. 11 and the voiced threats which have followed. And philosophically I support the use of the government to protect life, liberty, and property. I wish it would focus on doing that and not on the much easier things, such as redistributing wealth.
It should be noted that most large airports are not run by private enterprises. The Port Authortiy of New York/New Jersey is a government creation. We have had debates in the Mote and the Fray as to whether they should be further deregulated and privatized. A movement in that direction I would favor.
Private companies following security rules set by the Feds.
"The United States is important enough to be hated. As a global power, it can expect no gratitude from those it alternately helps and humiliates, whether by its policies, its wealth or its very existence as a strong independent actor in settings of chaos and impotency. America must act for its own reasons, not chase the constantly changing emotions of an onlooking mob."
While I don't disagree in principle, I would still like to know what would have prevented 9/11.
This is a different, more important task than the narrowly focused exercises in "message development" performed by Pentagon and White House aides, or the patronizing "public diplomacy" campaign that U.S. officials have belatedly undertaken by giving interviews to Arab journalists and changing politically incorrect Pentagon code words.
It is fine to try such stratagems. But they should not be mistaken for strategy -- or for truth. They will not be sufficient to win the hearts and minds of those in the Arab "street" and elsewhere who mistake the United States as the proximate cause of their economic poverty, political oppression or cultural stagnation. Nor will superficial wordplay remove the "shame factor" from the equation.
The problem in an information-rich society is by the time the government has information on this month's threat - anthrax - Halloweeen candy, amusement parks, or trucking, or smallpox, or reservoirs, or malls, will be next.
There is not a lot of information to give, other than be on the lookout for powderdy mail.
I don't know that anything could have prevented 9/11.
Better immigration policy and sensible airline hijack policy would have gone a long way. A hell of a lot longer than airport security.
But no, airlines said "Just do whatever they want" because lord knows, before 9/11, they'd have preferred an entire plane to die due to hijackers than lose just one passenger to a pilot's successful attempt to resist.
Had they really thought about hijacking, rather than just told their staff (and passengers) to comply, they might have been able to provide strategy to anticipate something like this. For one thing, a hijacker had already tried to fly a plane into the WTC. So "don't ever let the terrorists fly the plane, no matter how many people they kill" could have been a decent policy to at least consider. But not thinking and lawsuit avoidance was more important.
Immigration failure I trust is obvious.
Actually, his achievements have been far greater, but he would still probably get a D in grammar and a C+ in history.
And what is most important is not that Bush act mahvelous.
Apparently, he must look mahvelous.
I think the Administration could be doing more to prevent panic, assuming they do have things under control.
Mind you, I think that all of this is going to be worked out sooner or later. 9/11 and what's followed is causing the U.S. to do what should have been done earlier.
I think the people who have sent out the anthrax, keeping the terror of 9/11 alive in Americans' minds, have almost done the U.S. a favor by speeding up a mobalization to combat terror at home. I do pity the guy who died, of course, as well as the other 5000 and their families.
There are some overlaps in those categories, but those problems cover 12 of the suspects.
From a Jake Tapper article in Salon.
Regardless, this is a war, and given the unconventional methods of the enemy, there is only so much you can do.
Other than get them before they get you.
I truly don't care about his form on all of this.
I do care about his substance. He needs to demonstrate that he can indeed keep many fingers in many pots.
Yes, and the two on the watch list were also here illegally because they gave an address they had no intention of going to.
And in response, the INS is doing what? Cracking down hard and really being sure that the person filing for a visa isn't on a terrorist watch list. Anything else? Well, that'd be a big no.
Unless you want to count creating big monster lines at the borders to no good purpose.
Like I said--we're spending tons of money and we aren't any safer than we were pre-9/11. Because we're not tracking on the right problems.
We could do plenty more than we're doing. Right now, it seems government's main objective is to look as if they are doing something.
By contrast, Washington has and continues to be largely silent on what it's doing, on what we should be doing, and there has been a dearth of specifics...those very specifics that can quell peoples fears and concerns. Instead we got generalizations: we are strong, we will win, we have everything under control. But even with the few specifics given, there has been backtracking....Airforce One was a target, but no it wasn't....call it a crusade and infinite justice, but no we can't....anthrax death is just a criminal act, even though we haven't had a single case in this country in over 20 years and it was mailed to the person affected. Contrast the last point with Giuliani's immediate press conference after the NBC event where he gave specifics about what to do if you come across suspicious mail, who you call, what you do, how there's no need to panic or be fearful and don't go rushing out to get antibiotics, etc.
The real question has to be how did two people, already suspected of involvement in a terrorist act involving a bombing manage not only to get into this country but to then stay here as long as they did?
That's what makes my skin crawl. Because if they can find there way into this country without any risk of discovery they WILL find a way to hurt us again...regardless of how many M-16 toting Flight Attendents you have.
Tommy Thompson has given no specifics on what the administration is doing to get the word out about anthrax and other potential bio-agents, training medical people what to look for, sources of vaccines and who needs to get them, antibiotics and who needs to get them, etc.
Tom Ridge is supposed to be heading up homeland defense, but we haven't heard anything in terms of what agencies are being rallied under his aegis and how he is coordinating their efforts and what priorities he sees and with what timeframe will he be executing them across the nation. Wouldn't it be reassuring to the nation to know he was on the ball and making progress?
But their method could only have worked once. From now on, there is no way that any terrorist is likely to be able to hold off even a handful of people with psychology and a knife. Passenger's perceptions are going to be that any hijacking that they are a part of in the future will be another suicide attack, and thus are going to be willing to take casualties in order to take back the plane. Despite what hollywood tells you, one trained guy w/a knife can't hold off even 5 untrained but determined guys -- even in a restricted space like an airplane corridor. This is one of the reasons why I am not so sure that it's wise to fortify cockpit doors as everyone is saying we should. Guile might gain future terrorists the possession of the cockpit -- and the passengers would be hard pressed to do anything about it if they do.
IMO, airport security was vindicated by this attack. That they are now being made the scapegoat is just sad. The real blame lies on us -- we the commuters. I know that I would probably have gone along, prior to 9/11, because it appeared the safest thing to do. Obviously, I would act differently during a hijacking now. The gods of the copybook headings have explained things to me once more.
Ergo - no more vaccinations as a matter of course for, I think, about 25 years.
It ended in 1972
Decent info on smallpox.
We have the best advice for passengers coming from a pilot (who pointed out that the FAA has given pilots and airlines no instructions as to what they should do differently) who told passengers not to be afraid to gang up on anyone threatening the flight safety which was thankfully circulated by e-mail. That alone resulted in safe landing of several aircraft since.
Your concerns seem picayune. Giuliani was impressive, but his role was largely reactive to a specific, localized threat. If hearing Tommy Thompson and Condi Rice and Joe Allbaugh tell you to keep an eye on your mail 24/7 makes you more comfortable, I understand your objections. But given the limited nature of the threat to date, and the fact that most folks are smarter than monkeys, I don't think the full-court press is necessary or warranted.
More importantly, it is more likely to induce the panic you claim to fear.
And squelching security leaks in terms of future military actions is probably time better spent than informing the citizenry that the mail is safe. . . the mail is safe.
I probably would not have, and would have been the first passenger ever to have been killed by other passengers, who would have been furious at what they perceived at my having put them in danger.
The only thing I could offer in my defense would be to ask them this: "Why would they need to fly the plane? The terrorists knew they wouldn't need anything larger than boxcutters to get pilot cooperation to fly almost anywhere. So where wouldn't pilots fly?"
I agree with your post.
VW,
As time goes on, I am getting more and more annoyed and angry about this. At first, I hoped it was just that they were looking at options and coming up with a plan. But now it is clear they aren't even dwelling in that area. What the hell is going on?
Especially since, as I've said a few times now, any terrorist with sense is pretending to be a Mexican.
As much as I despise much of what Giuliani has done, his approach to this - quick, detailed info. on what has happened, what to do if it happens again, etc. - has been very reassuring.
Surely the Federal Govt. can do more than one major task, such as squelching military leaks, at one time. Especially since there does indeed seem to be incipient panic out in the boonies.
Comfort me! we demand.
Do more, now!
Thoughtful suggests more press conferences.
I think the psychological needs of particular individuals are poor guideposts for policy.
What information do you suspect is in the possession of Washington that you do not have, and you want to have, by way of more press conferences?
No. I find the critiques of both you and thoughtful to be small nits.
You could persuade me otherwise if you answer the question in 10684.
Otherwise, it appears to be mere tone and presentation and grammar and elucidation that cause such grave concerns.
Nonsense. Are you actually paying attention to the posts, or just making up positions to rebut?
It isn't that we are ill-equipped. It is that we need to do more. It is that what we are doing is fucking pointless and is demonstrably failing at any of its supposed objectives, all the while we're ignoring solutions that might succeed.
So if you're going to be flip, be accurate. I'm fed up with that sort of shit. Take the time to actually respond to posts, or stop saying "everybody". You haven't responded to anyone but thoughtful, so if that's who you mean, stop there.
This should be "It isn't that we need to do more.
Playing defense with a kabillion square miles and a bazillion targets. And we are not particularly effective in forestalling the terrorist strikes of the Postal Service, much less a commited, global network.
No, it is not tone, presentation, grammar or elucidation. Far from it.
He's got to do more than just tell us, repeatedly, that we've got to live our lives normally and that the evil-doers will not beat us down. He and all of his have got to explain in greater detail just why it is we should go ahead and live our lives normally in light, say, of the anthrax breakouts. It is reassurance indeed that is needed in large measure. (Plus, of course, some coherent and disciplined plans.)
And Francis, I realize it's fun to invent proposals to then mock, but it's dishonest. You haven't made a meaningful response to anything but thoughtful and janjon's admittedly ludicrous bitching about tone, and act as if this means everything the government is doing is peachy.
Time spent informing the public that the mail is safe? The last thing we need is lies from the administration. The mail isn't safe. We know that. That's enough to cause panic...why do you think Cipro is flying off the shelves already?
Instead we need a strong guiding hand to counter our ignornace and fear about biochemical weapons: to know what to look for, how to open our mail safely and what to do if we find something suspicious. And we also need a valid assessment and publication of the very low risks faced by the average person, how treatable the disease is, etc. That will quell fears.
"He and all of his have got to explain in greater detail just why it is we should go ahead and live our lives normally in light, say, of the anthrax breakouts. It is reassurance indeed that is needed in large measure. (Plus, of course, some coherent and disciplined plans.)"
There is no explanation, but even if one existed, I can't imagine that it would be the factor between opening mail or not, shopping or not. I am surprised by your rather basic needs. You are an adult. This is a war. What will a comnforting speech from the president do for you, other than disappoint when it turns out that greater threats lie ahead?
If the president tells you that there are threats, and be careful, and it is not completely business as usual, what will that do for you (other than belabor the obvious)?
At no point was I talking to you, and to the extent you were misled into thinking I was, you have my apology.
thoughtful
You have concluded that he fails in "leadership."
The mail is safe. Not all mail is safe. If you think it a component of leadership to inform the nation that our mail is unsafe - all of it - given the limited threat to date, then I am glad that the president has lacked in the "leadership" category.
You ppear to need strong guidance. I'd be wary of attributing your needs to a nation that may need a great deal less than you in that department.
Yes, this is new territory. And no, we have not had this kind of attack before. It took Lincoln a couple of years to hone his leadership skills as a war president These folk are bound to make mistakes.
But the messages we're getting from our government is hazy and indistinct. We're on a terror alert. Nothing you can do but spend money to help the economy.
At the very least, there is a major public health concern here beyond the panic of powder, particularly with small pox. The reports on what we know and how little supplies or preparation we have are getting old. It's time to address the issues and communicate with the public about solving the problem.
Perhaps it is a myth, but FDR managed to talk the nation down while conducting government under unsual circumstances. The President, his administration and the Congress are coming across as ignoring the people. And in a war, the people need to be encouraged and brought together.
One other airport issue. I think they should scan all airport luggage before it is loaded on the plane. There, I said it.
talk about someone not reading, or if reading not comprehending, posts.
I was just irked because Francis seemed to be painting "everybody" with the same brush.
GJ--I agree about Thompson, did you read the TNR column I mentioned? I should link it in.
btw - your usual flipness and condescension don't really hack it on all this stuff.
I think we've set forth our disagreements fairly for the evaluation of others.
Adios.
First, when did I suggest more press conferences? Having W telling us 100 times that we are strong and will win is as useful (useless) as having him tell us once.
Second, I am not carping about tone and presentation. I am carping about content: where's the substance? the specifics? the actionable items ...if not by me an individual then by my state and local agencies and the federal agencies.
Third, my fear is that there is little information in Washington about any of this stuff. Or that what information there is isn't getting through to the top because no one has the guts to take a stand on anything. To wit, there are, no aren't, no are, no aren't, well maybe more terrorist attacks of some sort some where in the US or overseas. To wit, more questions being raised publicly by people who are on the front lines (medical personnel, air traffic controllers, flight crews) than are answers coming from the administration. To wit, more leadership and confidence shown by a city mayor than by the president whose own administration seems to prefer to keep him on the road and out of their hair. Let's not forget that when 9/11 happened Bush was reading to school children ... that's what his mother used to do when she was first lady.
The Anthrax may not be connected to Bin Ladin at all.
I am not happy about the fact that we are playing defense, but there isn't much we can do about it. Being reactive, and most importantly not panicking is about the only real thing that can be done while you are playing defense. The efforts that are being taken do have a point -- they are trying to reduce domestic panic. Whether or not they are effective is a different matter. I would suppose that largely depends on the individual's psychological makeup.
vw,
One other point re federalizing security procedures: I notice that anthrax isn't being sent via private mail (like ups, or fedex, or whatever). The reason is predictable. All of the private carriers track their packages from sender through reciever. Thus the federal system is the least secure from the t's point of view. This does not reassure me regarding turning over control of security to the feds.
Second, it is not ME personally that needs guidance (I'm big enough let you enjoy your little ego trip) but it is the nation that needs guidance. There is little I can do to affect the outcome of any of these events. But there is a lot that can be done by medical personnel if they are given proper instruction around bioterrorist diseases to watch out for and what effective cures are, e.g., cipro isn't the only effective antibiotic against anthrax. There is a lot that can be done by Congress in terms of fiscal stimulus with the proper guidance from the administration as to what the short run and long run impacts of various policies measures are. I could go on, but I hope you are getting an inkling of what I'm talking about...not style, but real, concrete actionable choices here that will make an important differences to the nation and to peoples' lives.
Mmmm. From what I read of history, people were very panicky for over a year after the pearl attacks. I recall once reading the history of the Coastal Artillery Defense -- not sure about that last word. Anyway, there was a hysterical demand from all of the states that had a shoreline for massive amounts of artillery in order to protect against Japanese and German invasion forces. That artillery was desperately needed at the front, especially early in the war. The administration was only partially sucessful in convincing the populace that it was pretty much impossible for the Japanese or Germans to invade, and something like 2500 batteries of artillery were deployed to protect places like Tulsa, Florida. This doesn't even include all of the antiaircraft crew and guns that were demanded virtually everywhere.
Not true. I was stopped at DFW security sometime in the late early '90s for a small pocket knife I forgot I had on me. Another time for a cigarette lighter made to look like a Saturday night special. (I mean, it was a cigarette lighter, and they actually confiscated the thing.) On another occasion, my husband was not allowed to take a kitchen knife on the plane in carry-on baggage, had to pack it in checked luggage or mail it (I forget what we wound up doing--it was an Xmas gift).
Israeli airline security is much tighter than ours. My cousin's son used to work security for El Al, following 4 yrs as a special ops officer in the IDF. He told me airport security there is set up as a series of concentric perimeters, with Uzi-toting armed forces at every point in the check-in process. Additionally, there are armed guards on every flight, and armed plainclothes security on flights, and throughout the airport as well.
His job was to drive around the airport, armed of course, and detain anyone he thought looked suspicious for any reason. Typically, he would detain people for up to half an hour.
Not only were Arabs more likely than, say, Scandies or most Murcans to be searched, so were women travelling alone. Apparently, the Israelis had profiles of potential terrorists based on (presumably, Mossad) reports of recent or planned activity. One Arab operative, considered very dangerous, was known to be a dashing ladies' man, and was thought to be recruiting western women to the glorious cause.
My cousin's son also said that there are security measures in place that are not discussed, the reason being, obviously, that disclosing preventive measures gives terrorists something to work around.
There is no reason for us to play defense. If we got rid of everyone who was here illegally that's offense.
If it had less than a 4" blade, it was allowed. I'm not sure when that law went into effect, but they got tired of the Swiss army knife problem.
We can't afford to be arrogant now, so arrogant that we fail to protect ourselves with reasonable precautions within our own borders.
We don't need a guy with an UZI at every airport security checkpoint, but I would gladly pay, say, $10/one way ticket to ensure that my pilot's cockpit cannot be violated and an air marshal will at least be on board to help maintain the peace.
no problem.
Here's a story from the Guardian where the Taliban threaten that they will drag American soldiers through the streets if they're caught ... like it was done in Somalia.
I gather we're about to send in special forces any day now. I think the Taliban are misreading what such scenes would do back in the States. The reaction would be totally different from what happened in Somalia.
This is all doable. Totally foolproof? What in hell is. But, surely we can reach the stage where the possibility of two, let alone four, planes being taken on the same day is virtually non-existent.
"Wait! I just wanted to go to Cuba!" he screams before being ripped apart by plastic forks. 
And just recently, passengers en route to Chicago sat on a mentally ill guy who thought the pilot was going to crash the plane into the Sears Tower, and broke into the cockpit (just weeks after the terrorists attack)!
Pelle, the Guardian (I think) did a story recently on Bin Laden's growing up days and talked about his family going to England and Sweden.
And the annoying thing about the Chicago flight is that for all the vaunted government attention, it was the passengers who did the deed.
I think Amax's point is right on--the fact that the terrorists used boxcutters and small knives is actually a validation of airport security, not a condemnation.
Razors may have been allowed in the past, and just about anything can be turned into a weapon, but why make it easy for people?
And if you think of it, that makes sense. No terrorist is going to risk bring contraband on the plane, since there is still an excellent chance they'll get caught, even in the worst security system. You can't make plans with that.
It doesn't matter that our security measures aren't uniform and aren't enforced--although in fact they are both. For example, airport personnel was, until recently (post 9/11) allowed access to the plane without going through security. That's not a security failure, that's a design failure.
Since I travel fairly often to different airports, I can say that security procedures are not followed uniformly.
Again, that's design. It certainly wasn't underpaid airport security, who would have nothing to do with it. The flight attendant shrugged it off. Had she told someone, it probably would have been airline management at LA, who might have contacted the FBI, who would have shrugged it off. I mean, hell, these people didn't know what the fuck to do with an illegal Arab guy paying cash for lessons on how to fly a plane midair, so I'm thinking they wouldn't give a damn about four arabs sitting bolt upright for four hours.
Again, that's not airport security. It has the limited purpose of doing its best to ensure that no one brings anything dangerous onto a plane. It will not be improved substantially by federalizing it.
I really think those who want to make airport workers government employees should consider it at the municipal level. Then the government could review their success rate and publicly post it at each airport. If Burbank gets a 50% higher rating than LAX, for example, Burbank will take some of LA's business. This gives each municipality a damn good reason for doing a good job on security.
But suppose you federalize it and Burbank still has a higher rating than LA. Well, LA is suffering due to the incompetence of federal employees--and there isn't a damn thing they can do about it. Besides which, if the federal government is then responsible for seeing how well they are implementing security, they will have a natural incentive to be gentle on the grading.
It makes no sense at all to turn it over to the federal government--not on a need basis, as far as I'm concerned, and certainly not because it will be more effective.
OK, I can cede the point about federal vs. local employees. I still think these ought to be somewhat secure, attractive jobs. Not patronage jobs, but jobs for people who are smarter than burger-flippers.
Now this, I completely agree with. And I don't think that the onus should be entirely on the airline. After all, the city benefits from having an airport (usually).
I think the advantage of having well-paid people do this job is because of the intangibles--make it a job with prospects, and people start to become experts at it. They start to notice who is suspicious, and who isn't. Just like Customs officers did for years.
Also, thinking about security, I'm not defining it as simply the security checkpoints, I'm defining it as the entire airline travel process. From the time a person attempts to purchase a ticket to the time he leaves the airport upon reaching his destination.
Because they ask for exclusivity when they print letters I won't reproduce it here, but basically I just said I agreed with their position that Syria has no busniess being on the Security Council, and that the best that could be hoped for is that Assad could be pressured to change his ways in order to avoid getting kicked off of it.
Not that I believe that will happen.
Incidentally, it's official now: not only is Israel pissed that the US was making overtures to the Pals, India is way pissed that we've lifted the arms embargo against Pakistan and have done fuck all to address their security issues. Like the Israelis, they have no qualms about retaliating against terror, nor will they "stand down" to accommodate George Bush, so long as an average of seven of their citizens keep getting killed each day.
There are none for purchasing a ticket. As I've said, I don't think a non-citizen should be able to buy a ticket without authorization.
Pretty far-fetched, perhaps, but we're living pretty far-fetched times.
What I got stopped for was under 4", which is all that's legal to carry in most states anyway, let alone on airplanes; i.e., smaller than a Swiss army knife. I'm pretty sure this was in the early nineties, but possibly the late eighties. Perhaps it was a case of tightened security following a hijacking somewhere, I can't recall.
Heather and Dayna were rumored to be starving to death and Heather was suffering from severe malnutrition.The attorney had to bring in supplements for them. I hope that because the Taliban forces have been severely damaged, the aid workers have been given better accommodations.
My fear is that they will be continued to be used as pawns and then deliberately placed in a dangerous location so that they will be killed by US troops.
This is correct.
The Constitution says that we have the right to assemble and the right to move about the country without having our movements restricted.
Russert: The military has a vaccine which is given to troops who go into high-risk areas which would prevent them from anthrax. Should that vaccine be made available to all US citizens?
Attorney General John Ashcroft: Well, I don't know that we can make a judgment about that yet.
And actually, I think only citizens have the right to move about unrestricted. Not aliens, legal or otherwise.
But I must say I wish we were at least discussing this at the national level, rather than debating curbside checkin.
It would making getting on and off a plane much easier. An aside -- has anybody else ever thought that they should come up with an easier way to unload an airplane?
I am of two minds about why this is happening.
The optimisitc side of my nature says that so much attention is being paid to this issue because Americans lack stoicism. There is a strong urge to not endure events like this but to 'fix' them. Something Must Be Done, even if that something is counterproductive and ill-thought out. The more cynical side of me says that we expending a great deal of energy on this fix because we don't want to have to be responsible when things go wrong. 'If I'm not taken care of by the bureacracy, why, *gasp* I might actually have to take action and make decisions if someone tries to take over the flight that I'm on.'
The Gods of the Copybook Headings
I think there is something to be said for "lacking stoicism." We are an arrogant people, to some degree, and there are elements of that arrogance I'd just as soon not lose.
The UN might not like trying to make sense out of Afghanistan, but perhaps their presence there would permit some sort of civilized, decentralized governing, and decentralization I suspect is the only thing that will work with so many ethnic groups.
"Attention Taliban! You are condemned. Did you know that? The instant the terrorists you support took over our planes, you sentenced yourselves to death. The Armed Forces of the United States are here to seek justice for our dead. Highly trained soldiers are coming to shut down once and for all Osama bin Laden's ring of terrorism, and the Taliban that supports them and their actions.
"Our forces are armed with state of the art military equipment. What are you using, obsolete and ineffective weaponry? Our helicopters will rain fire down upon your camps before you detect them on your radar. Our bombs are so accurate we can drop them right through your windows. Our infantry is trained for any climate and terrain on earth. United States soldiers fire with superior marksmanship and are armed with superior weapons.
"You have only one choice ... Surrender now and we will give you a second chance. We will let you live. If you surrender no harm will come to you. When you decide to surrender, approach United States forces with your hands in the air. Sling your weapon across your back muzzle towards the ground. Remove your magazine and expel any rounds. Doing this is your only chance of survival."
He-heee - "Our bombs are so accurate we can drop them right through your windows..."
...sounds like a verse from a rap song.
I posted this in Politics, but I suppose it belongs here as well given the discussion.
Don't worry America NMD is on the way!
A flurry of diplomatic activity surrounding U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell's visit to South Asia has produced the first recognizable contours of an interim post-Taliban government for Afghanistan. Powell and Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf agreed Tuesday that moderate officials from the radical Taliban regime should be allowed to serve in the future government.
Powell, who is on a three-nation Asia tour, said Taliban officials who signal a willingness to serve in a broad-based successor government should not be automatically excluded.
"You can't ethnically cleanse Afghanistan after this is over, but you can certainly get rid of this particular regime that has driven this country into such devastation," Powell said. Some of the more moderate elements in the Taliban may be willing "to participate in a different kind of government where the rights of all are respected," he said.
Ridiculous ! When its time for a govenment to be formed, there should be no members of the Taliban left alive. Certainly they should not be allowed to be part of the government, I don't give a fuck how "moderate" they are. If they remained members of the Taliban while the repression and fostering of terrorism was going on, then they deserve to be killed.
I realize that we need Pakistan's help right now, and a certain amount of stroking is needed. But this statement by Colin Powell, who appears to be a Neville Chamberlain wannabe, is simply beyond the pale.
Mmmm. I dunno about that.
Couple of points:
Our primary objective is bin-Ladin's organization, which is not synonomous with the taliban. Apparently, the taliban have thought up 'till now that they could not give up bL and co. for various reasons. We have been working on convincing the taliban that it would be more to their advantage to do so. Personally, if they give up BL and his org, I could care less about who rules afghanistan and how.
A gun is a tool to change the enemy's mind. If the taliban gives up bin ladin and his org to us, or convinces us that they are doing their best to cooperate with us, we will have achieved our political objective and the military operation will have been a success. It is always wise to give the enemy as much room as possible to see things your way. I don't see any reason why we should paint the Taliban into a position where they have no reason to negoitate. They may be odious and fanatical, but they do have their points. I suspect that the main reason why they do rule Afghanistan now is that they are the only ones so far who have shown they can enforce the peace -- and I suspect that counts for a lot to the average citizen of the country. Certainly most of what I hear about the alternatives spell civil war. As for a UN sponsored government, I'd look pretty hard at the Somalia model before I put too much trust into that.
But this statement by Colin Powell, who appears to be a Neville Chamberlain wannabe, is simply beyond the pale.
You got that right - I pray he's just blowing sunshine up the asses of the many Paki Taliban sympathizers - perhaps for Musharraf's benefit?
If what he suggests is truly in the works - on the table - then it is obvious he aspires to no higher office and will be happy to trot off with a Nobel for the resumé.
I don't think GWB will go for anything of the sort though.
"They may be odious and fanatical, but they do have their points."
Which part do you like best: the subhuman treatment of women, the persecution of non-Pashtuns, or the harboring of terrorists ?
The part that I like least, and support spending US blood and treasure to change, is harboring terrorists. If they give that up, we can live with their continued existence. Heck, take out the last part, and most of our Arab allies could be accused of the same vices.
In addition most of the successor govts that I can see forming will probably be all of the above plus fun bloody murderous civil war + power vacuum.
If what Powell seeks is appeasement, then I think some representation from non Taliban elements of those tribes would work.
The Taliban have to go - I know we can't kill them all, but hopefully, when we're done with them there will be none left who will even want to claim to have been former Taliban members.
Osama Bin Laden phoned President George W. Bush.
"I had a dream about the United States," he said. "I could see the whole country, and over every building and home was a banner," said Bin Laden.
"What was on the banner?" asked Mr. Bush.
"LONG LIVE OSAMA!" answered the terrorist.
"I am so glad that you called," said President Bush, "because I too had a dream, too. In my dream, I saw Afghanistan and it was more beautiful than ever; totally rebuilt with many tall, gleaming office buildings, large residential subdivisions with swimming pools full of men and women; and over every building and home was a big, beautiful banner.
"What did the banner say?" asked Osama.
"I don't know," answered President Bush. "I can't read Hebrew."
The death of the veteran al-Qaida fighter, known as Abu Baseer al-Masri, was reported by the London-based Islamic Observation Center. The report said that a U.S. strike near Jalalabad on Sunday killed al-Masri and injured two of his colleagues.
Afghan sources in Islamabad, Pakistan, said al-Masri had been in Afghanistan for about 10 years and was close to bin Laden's chief lieutenant, Ayman al-Zawahri.
Still, both bin Laden and Mullah Omar were alive, said the Taliban ambassador to neighboring Pakistan, Abdul Salam Zaeef. He said he had met recently with bin Laden and ``he is fine.''
Rejecting reports of Taliban defections, Zaeef told reporters in the Pakistani border town Chaman that Taliban morale was high. ``Until there is one Talib alive in Afghanistan, America cannot defeat us,'' he said. ``Our morale are high and we will never bow to unjust demands of any power.''
``They say their morale is high but it isn't. Fighters are running away to Pakistan or Iran, or joining the (northern alliance),'' said 30-year-old Abdul Ghafur, who defected four days ago and who held a machine gun in his hands as he spoke.
In Islamabad, Pakistan, aid groups, meanwhile, complained that looting by the Taliban and other armed bands was hampering desperately needed relief operations for Afghan civilians.
Medecins sans Frontieres shut down medical operations in Kandahar and Mazar-e-Sharif on Thursday after its offices there were sacked.
The programs together had helped treat the ill and feed children in six Afghan provinces, according to a spokesman for the group, Morten Rostrup.
In Kabul, Taliban officials returned one of two U.N. World Food Program grain warehouses that had been commandeered earlier in the week at gunpoint — but there was no word on the warehouse still in Taliban hands.
Andonly, the first time I read "Al-Qaida fighter" I thought it meant "someone who fought Al Qaida" and was going wow, what a fuckup.
Amax, you are ignoring the considerable spectrum between Taliban treatment of women and that found anywhere else in the mid-east or Islamic countries.
My read of the taliban is that they are not all that interested in the outside world anyway. I would suspect that they provide bL a base in exchange for his financial & military support against their internal enemies. I would think that the best way to demonstrate that this is a bad strategy is to show the taliban that keeping him is more painful than turning him over.
Colin: he's not just pale, he's beyond the pale.
Only comment is who believes that BushShit that Warbucks is being hidden for "security reasons"
"Attention. People of Afghanistan, United States forces will be moving through your area. Please, for your own safety, stay off bridges and roadways, and do not interfere with our troops or military operations,"
"Try to find ways to ignore the Taliban and Osama bin Laden's requests for help and do not give them food or shelter."
Carry on.
jexster
excellent speech?
Yes.
(I couldn't scan your "comment". I can't even tell whether it is a question or a statement.) 
Thanks for your update on your friends. Sounds realtively positive.
(and judith gives good advice.)
I never pictured you as that kind of guy, but now that you admit it, I see it all fitting together. 
Some of us are more Anglo-Catholic than the rest of us, too.
Sorry, I can't do it justice. He made some jokes about being happy to be invited; he hasn't been out much lately.
The bulk of his speech was a recapitulation of out plans in the war against terror, reiterating that it isn't a war against Afghanistan, the Aghan people, or Islam.
But what made it excellent, in my opinion, wasn't the content per se, but the delivery - the calm clear resolve. I can't reproduce that in a mere post.
On NPR this morning, they were interviewing some "pharmacists" in Tijuana and it sounded as though they were going to be jacking the prices up...after all, they have actual customers who get the disease the old fashioned way.
It sure is expensive to get cutaneous anthrax these days!
"How do we deal with such a world?
First, we need to eliminate the Osama bin Ladens, who are dedicated to using any sharp instrument to super-empower themselves to do us harm. We will not get the backing of our Arab allies by winning an argument with them about the necessity of this war. We will win their backing and respect if we win the war and uproot bin Laden and the Taliban.
Second, we need to toughen up. Shame on Speaker Dennis Hastert for closing the House of Representatives because of the anthrax scare. We have U.S. troops in the field all around Afghanistan. It can't be easy duty. But the House is running scared. Just what the terrorists wanted. The House members should be meeting on the Capitol steps, popping Cipro if they have to, telling America's troops and America's enemies that nothing — N-O-T-H-I-N-G — will derail our democracy.
Third, we need to start changing hearts and minds abroad. I'm not talking about the people who are angry at us for what we do. People are entitled to oppose us for what we do. I am talking about the growing number of people who are being taught to hate us for who we are — "infidels" who don't share their faith."
Some more will follow.
"How do we deal with such a world?
First, we need to eliminate the Osama bin Ladens, who are dedicated to using any sharp instrument to super-empower themselves to do us harm. We will not get the backing of our Arab allies by winning an argument with them about the necessity of this war. We will win their backing and respect if we win the war and uproot bin Laden and the Taliban.
Second, we need to toughen up. Shame on Speaker Dennis Hastert for closing the House of Representatives because of the anthrax scare. We have U.S. troops in the field all around Afghanistan. It can't be easy duty. But the House is running scared. Just what the terrorists wanted. The House members should be meeting on the Capitol steps, popping Cipro if they have to, telling America's troops and America's enemies that nothing — N-O-T-H-I-N-G — will derail our democracy.
Third, we need to start changing hearts and minds abroad. I'm not talking about the people who are angry at us for what we do. People are entitled to oppose us for what we do. I am talking about the growing number of people who are being taught to hate us for who we are — "infidels" who don't share their faith."
Some more will follow.
Erin...you are suffering from the "At-least-he-ain't-a-Moron" syndrome [ALHAMS]
take 2 cipro and call me in the morning
"This requires a multi-pronged approach. On one track we need to understand that so many of these angry people are living in failed states, with rotten, repressive regimes tacitly supported by the U.S. America needs to triple its development assistance and begin taking seriously the task of improving governance in these failing states, where too many young people are being raised in Taliban-like schools, being taught an angry version of Islam and no life skills.
But we cannot succeed without Muslim allies. We need political leaders ready to provide an ideological alternative to the politics of resentment that is peddled by bin Laden — leaders ready to look their own regimes in the mirror, not just use the mirror to deflect their people's wrath at them onto America. We also need Muslim spiritual leaders who will vigorously challenge those who insist that Islam is about jihad and martyrdom — not a religion with a long history of enriching, and being enriched by, different faiths, cultures and ideas.
If we don't do our part, and if our allies don't do theirs, this will become a war of civilizations — and that's a war we cannot win: Too many angry people. Too many tweezers."
Here's the New York Times editorial today on the topic:
Just the Unvarnished Facts and Without Easy Placebos, Please
Its heart:
"The frustrating element of the briefing was its failure to clarify whether the anthrax sent to Senator Daschle was a highly sophisticated preparation, even weapons-grade material. If so, this new finding might suggest the involvement of foreign military programs or a highly skilled domestic group capable of inflicting mass casualties.
What alarmed the Senate and sent the House scurrying for cover were indications that biological warfare analysts were deeply concerned after analyzing the Daschle material. Yet at yesterday's briefing an assistant secretary of defense described it as "run of the mill" anthrax. He said the suggestion that it had been processed in some way was not yet confirmed, nor could he comment on whether it had an aerosol-like quality or was weapons-grade anthrax. The day before, a general in charge of the analyses described the Daschle anthrax as a common variety but said the sample consisted of "pure spores," the finding that apparently raised great concern.
These terse characterizations, made with no explanation of their potential significance, are unsatisfactory. In a climate of escalating fear, the American public needs to know just what elements in the Daschle sample suggest a sophisticated maker and what elements do not. Mr. Ridge needs to find the right people to provide an answer."
The Psywar Society - Falling Leaf
It certainly is...a 60 day supply is $500+.
Clear, Calm, Coordinated, Authoritative Comments From On High - even if the comment is that we don't know yet - Is What Is Needed And They Really Should Have This Particular Act Together By Now
(Its called Leadership.)
I don't see how massive U.S. aid is going to change anything in the middle east. We already send tons of money to Egypt, and they send us terrorists back in return.
Who is going to distribute the increased aid that is being recommended? The same regimes in place now that so many of the people hate. Will the protesting Pakistanis start loving the government if they distribute more food? Unlikely. Will these people change their minds if the the Pakistani government starts opening secular schools to compete with the fundamentalist ones? I think not a chance. Iran turned fundamentalist because it was being force fed secularism, among other reasons.
I still think the best thing to do is, after we have removed bin Laden, to reduce our presence in the middle east, not to increase it. Let these states live under fundamentalist rule for a while. Let the people see for themselves how empty are the promises of the fundamentalist forces.
What kind of cocktail are we talking about? Forgive me for not knowing previously, but are you sick?
"If people out there really want to do a world community service project, I'd suggest starting with a place that needs it more than Afghanistan, like say Iraq."
In addition to capturing or killing bin Laden and his cohorts, it seems to me an objective of this exercise is (or should be) to send a message to other nations that if they harbor terrorists they will face the consequences.
If the consequences are that leaders from the old, terrorist aiding regime are allowed to be in the new government, then the message is not all that effective.
On the other hand, if we kill all the leaders from the old government, or allow our surrogates to do so (in this case the northern alliance), then the right message would be sent.
Why isn't it enough to simply have Pashtuns in the new government in order to appease Pakistan. Why do there have to be Taliban members ?
I just don't know if we can stand the learning curve it would take to get all the other countries to get to Iran's point.
I agree that aid is irrelevant. They hate us because we are powerful. If we don't have the will to take over their countries and brainwash their children, I guess the other possibility is ignore them, so long as they understand that we'll make their lives hell if they don't give us oil.
Your posts here always make so much sense; thank you.
I also am inclined to think that he is right about diminishing our presence there, at least in many ways. I would, however, continue and in some cases increase food aid programs (making sure that the U.S. gets high visibility in doing so) and anything we can do to elevate education (including studies abroad including, um, here) and health.
NO COFFEE IN THE LIBRARY YOU ASSWIPES!
Turned out to be guacamole.
But I would like to see us start lessening our military presence. I also want us to maintain as friendly -- or should I say "correct" -- relations as possible with the states in the area, however legitimate they are, if only to keep our sources of intelligence intact (woefully inadequate as they have been).
Selected train lines and L & subway stations have been shut down for hours due to baby powder, however.
A good question about the Pashtuns. If PE comes by, perhaps he has an opinion. It may simply be, according to this line of thinking, that the Pashtuns or others in Pakistan have invested so much faith in the Taliban over the years that they will revolt if they are now ignored. I don't know.
One wonders if any small media outlets have been targeted as well. Or if other places, such as hospitals, churches, synagogues, etc., will be on the list.
Not to suggest that this is some sort of catastrophic attack. It isn't. Except for the one guy who died, arguably.
The plot thickens.
Cheney summary
The fairly uniform size of the anthrax suggests it was manufactured which means a facility, apparatus and techniques probably beyond the ability of a clandestine lab in the US or, in other words, the quantity must have been brought into the US.
NYT
I've excerpted some, in case you haven't signed up:
Mr. Cheney reported that the war "is proceeding on course." But he warned Americans to prepare themselves for further attacks, and he said that the increased security that is beginning to alter life in the United States will be a lasting change.
"Americans reasonably wonder `How long will it last?' " he said last night at the 56th annual Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner at the Waldorf-Astoria hotel. "The answer is that many of these changes we have made are permanent, at least in the lifetime of most of us."
...
Mr. Cheney was gently ribbed for the low, if not top-secret, profile he has kept since the attack World Trade Center.
"Many of you may not remember what the vice president looks like," said Alfred E. Smith IV, the great- grandson of the late governor of New York in whose memory the dinner is held. "Over the last five weeks, Elvis Presley has been seen more often."
Mr. Cheney gamely joined in the joke, telling the audience, "It's nice, for a change, to be at a disclosed location." And he told Mr. Smith that he and his wife, Lynne, were grateful for the invitation. "We haven't been out much lately, and the Waldorf is a lot nicer than our cave," he said.
But most of the vice president's speech was serious.
"I doubt there is a man or woman in this room tonight who did not experience personal loss," he said as he scanned the ballroom. "And I know that there is not a man or woman who does not wait on the day when justice is delivered, as it will be. And it will be delivered methodically, unsparingly and in full."
The room of more than 1,000 people broke into a prolonged standing ovation.
Why did Hastert close the house? Anthrax is not contagious, nor is it life-threatening in most cases.
The rationale is that they wanted to send in a team of people to test all of the offices, especially all the mail, and they thought it would be much easier logistically if members and their staff were not trying to work in the offices. the rumor is that this was coordinated with the Senate, and the senate was also supposed to shut down for a few days. However, Hastert made the announcement about the House, and the Senate failed to make a similar announcement. Hastert may be fuming, because he doesn't want to play politics and talk about the agreement, because it would just add to tensions, but he feels like he got snookered.
I don't know whether the rumor is true, and it isn't worth pursuing, because we have bigger fish to fry.
I wish the solution were that simple, but that's exactly what we did in Afghanistan after the Commies were driven out and look what it accomplished... and I don't think we can realistically leave the middle east. Isolationism isn't the answer.
Planned Parenthood here in Richmond received an envelope with some sort of powder in it. Whatever asswipe did that should be found and nailed to the wall or be forced to open Congress's mail.
One of the high-rise state office buildings here has been evacuated for the 3rd day in a row. The first time was probably a scare, the second two times I suspect was some malingerer on the state workforce who wanted to go home. Find them and nail em to the wall.
People have been running the police and fire departments ragged with over spilled sweet n low.
I'm going to D.C. next week for training sessions at a federal office building and now Mike is getting worried about D.C. being a target.
I REFUSE to curl up in the fetal position for fear of the unlikely happenstance that something MIGHT happen to me. People in other countries have lived with terrorist threats for years, but still manage to go about their business. Suddenly we're all supposed to be paralysed because a handful of people have been exposed to anthax??
Grow a spine, people, and get on with your life.
I doubt that things would be any different in Afghanistan had we not interfered to help the rebels in the first place. The Soviets would either have won or lost. Had they lost, it'd be the same as it is now. Had they won, chances are that once the Soviet Union collapsed Afghanistan would have collapsed too, and it's unlikely things would be much different.
Americans tend to overstate their influence.
anyone else intrigued at the wide range of reactions and affects on your family/friends? Perhaps it is exacerbated by the fact that here in the City we feel, for obvious and good reasons, that we continue to be what is possibly a multi-headed target.
At any rate, most of our friends, and all of our family, fall into the be-alert-but-don't-panic categories. One friend, however, has found reason to return to her summer home for a sustained basis, even though it isn't winterized.
I will acknowledge that I hate hearing sirens these days. Not out of alarm, but just because they conjure up memories.
Mode 2 thinking: In this mode of thinking, a sentiment is chosen first from competing sentiments, then hypotheses are formed to "rationalize" the sentiment. The individual seeks facts and ideas which justify the sentiment......sentiment justifies reason. The individual "rationalizes" emotions. Mode2 thinking facilitates the formation of the cult mentality. The cult mentality is totally impervious to any form of rational persuasion...it is the extreme of mode2 thinking. It is a mentality dominated by emotion and sentiment.
For the mode 2 thinker, the universe is not a matter of logic and fact, it is a matter of emotion, and when presented with logic or facts that contradict a strongly held emotion, they respond not with a logical/factual refutation of that contradiction, but with an emotional refutation. The mode 2 thinker refutes emotionally, not logically. This is why one cannot debate or discuss logic and facts with mode 2 thinkers. Any reasoned discussion or debate is met with emotional discussion or debate. It is like trying to debate with a child...they simply don't hear you.
How can one counter emotional arguments? Answer: It is not possible. Mode 2 thinkers cannot be persuaded rationally...i.e. with facts and logic that contradict their worldview. Only rational individuals can be persuaded with contradictory facts and logic.
Maybe if you point out that there were more tractor deaths in Mississippi alone last year than anthrax deaths. Even if everyone currently with anthrax took a turn for the worse, and died, it would still be true.
Hell, there's been more women killed by tractors in Mississippi in the last decade than by anthrax in the whole country.
Mississippi tractor deaths
I think a lot of New Yorkers are taking every opportunity they can to flee--to the beach, to the mountains as long as they are far from Manhattan. Fall foliage excursions aside, bed and breakfasts in the hudson valley and beyond are abnormally full, and a trip to Montauk last weekend showed a lot of No Vacancy signs hung up outside the condos and resorts along the beach.
Say that At-Least-He-Ain't-a-Moron Syndrome (ALHAMS) is contagious!!!
Anyone find a transcript of Krusty's excellent speech yet?
Oh well, he is a 15-year-old.
He's right.
Mugir ces féroces soldats?
FRANCE
-- French special forces could take part in a U.S.-led ground operation in Afghanistan, and the government also may field anti-aircraft missiles to protect sensitive sites at home, France's defense minister said yesterday.
Alain Richard, speaking on LCI Television, said France is now in the "planning phase" with U.S. military officials about a possible joint ground operation. He said there is no limit to what France's role might be --although he said a decision on action had not been made yet.
"Because this series of limited ground operations is surely going to last for some time, in effect it is possible that French special forces may be associated with lending a hand," Richard said. 
A La Guillotine!
In my paper today was an interview with the pastor of that church in Waco your friends belong to...he said Heather and Dayna have been charged with showing a 2 hour video to an Afghan family on August 3. The video was about the life of Jesus. Evidently they were very aware that it was illegal to do this in Afghanistan.
Dotées d'un commandement propre –l'US Central command (Ussocom)– qui est situé sur la base aérienne de MacDill ŕ Tampa, en Floride, les forces spéciales (SOF) américaines alignent 45 700 hommes, dont le tiers provient d'une réserve mobilisable par le Pentagone. Les trois armées fournissent les effectifs: 26 000 de l'armée de terre; 9 300 de l'armée de l'air, et 5 400 de la marine. Le reste comprend les experts d'état-major et le soutien général de la force
De son côté, le corps des Marines dispose de forces spéciales.
Le rôle des forces spéciales américaines est de planifier et d'exécuter des interventions en milieu hostile, de précéder et de préparer une éventuelle expédition terrestre.
• LE MONDE | 19.10.01 | 13h08
(I like my company. &:oD)
But, the mood then was more conducive.
Les hélicoptčres embarqués n'ont pas le rayon d'action suffisant pour atteindre directement l'Afghanistan: ils doivent donc ętre ravitaillés en vol ou compter sur un point d'appui au sol.
Les actions spéciales sont toujours trčs risquées. En témoigne un précédent en Somalie. En octobre 1993, durant une mission comparable ŕ celle des forces spéciales en Afghanistan, un commando américain, monté pour capturer un responsable terroriste, le général Mohamed Farah Aidid, avait échoué. Dix-huit rangers avaient trouvé la mort, et quatre-vingt-quatre blessés.
For some, this means overeating...which will lead to having to buy more clothes and the giving of the old ones that don't fit to charities. Win/win.
Lose/lose.
Win/win
Anyone find a transcript of Krusty's excellent speech yet?
Who would that be?
I believe, incidentally, he equates Krusty with Cheney, and that he is referring to Cheney's comments/speech at the tony, WHITE tie Al Smith dinner at the Waldorf last night.
I just read the Krauthammer piece. It's powerful stuff. I don't always see eye-to-eye with K but he's raising a serious and plausible issue that I don't think has been addressed by America's Big Thinkers.
If K is right, this is going to get truly ugly...
dusty - jexster's misdeeds are mild compared to those of others around here.
I can't think of anyone off-hand who is more egregious, but that hardly excuses it. POJ goes a bit overboard with large fonts on occasion, and should get slapped side the head for it, but jexter is just so damn lazy.
Krauthammer (who I never see eye to eye with) is quite correct about the nihilism of it all. I'm glad he pointed to the destruction of those ancient statues.
The main thing to do is not topple over into hysteria and needless fear (Standard Fear is perfectly acceptable.) There is no "negotation" with people who want us, and everyone else, dead. That's why so many have hopped on board our side in this -- even though theymay disagree with our positions on a whole host of things, including the air strikes.
We quibble. Ugly is 5000 dead at the WTC. Truly ugly is 100k from a couple of nukes with a world war looming.
And I agree that there is no negotiation with such beliefs.
It was the Jesus Film in Pashto or Dari. Jimmy Seebert (the pastor) is a great guy. If Dayna and Heather are released, what an incredible story they'll have to tell.
Be afraid, CalGal. Be very afraid.
Assuming the Islamic nutcases ever get their grimy mitts on plutonium, that is. 
[see Iraq]
CalGal misses the fact that an drug developed especially for a particular disease causing bacteria is almost always to be preferred to a wide spectrum antibiotic, even if they are equally efficacious, which is unlikely, because the overuse of the latter greatly encourages the development of drug resistant strains of a wide variety of bacteria.
Message # 10117
You haven't addressed the central issue, which is how NMD would really make us any safer. Do you really think that, if we had such a system in place, that we would have the luxury of relying on it? Do you think that if someone like Hussein had a nuclear ICBM, that we would say, "Go ahead and fire away?"
I agree the central issue behind NMD is whether it makes us safer. I also understand, much better than I did before, that the chances for a successful nuclear terrorist strike changes the equation over not just how a terrorist organization, but also how a state might act against the U.S.
But these states (which have committed both destructive and self-destructive acts in the past) are still attempting to build long-range missiles, and to put nukes on top of them. Given that a state with nuclear missiles will probably be something the U.S. will have to face in the future, I want all the bases covered.
No, I don't think so. In the end, we would have to rely on all the other things that prevent states from launching nuclear attacks, national survival being the primary motivating factor. Saddam may be crazy, but he's not stupid.
He may be both. He also may back himself into a corner he can't excape from. He also may have poor command and control of his nukes and a commander with less sense than he has. He also may have an accidental launch. All of these things are possibilities and many people, including myself, want to be prepared for them.
No, I don't "miss" the fact. Official word now is that any antibiotic works fine, or so I've heard several news announcers and a number of public officials say (including the head of CDC). So even if you know more than they do, something I very much doubt, I am wondering at the disconnect.
Bush kowtows in China
News at 11
Allah hu akbar!
Krusty the Kardiac Klown...author of The Great Energy Crisis That Never Was...Regent for Boi-King Moron I of Texas...
One of the people you argued with was me. My views, needless to say, have not changed on that subject (except that I'm actually less concerned about biologicals than I was two weeks ago).
I don't know why you would be less concerned about bio-weapons. In all likelihood, this rash of anthrax-laced letters is merely a dry run, just as the 1993 World Trade Center bombing was a dry run for 9-11. Right now some Middle Eastern type is closely following the tips he picks up from the media about how his attack could be more effective in the future.
The obvious argument against this position being that the fact that a fertilizer weapon is useful does not make a radiological or biological weapon less useful. The latter also arguably have a more profound psychological impact.
I don't care about psychological attacks. I'm worried about body counts. The terrorists of 9-11 showed they could take out thousands of civilians in a matter of minutes. This is unprecedented. It's a quantum leap in their ability to cause harm. By contrast, the previous terrorist biological attacks never even reached death tolls in the double figures.
Thanks for the link about American Muslims told they must fight for their country...America.
Also, I hadn't read anything by K before. That article is simple but frightening.
Saturday October 20, 2001
(Guardian)--US forces were fighting on the ground in southern Afghanistan early this morning, opening up a new phase in the war on terrorism.
A US defence official confirmed that 250 special forces troops were involved, but refused to comment further on the size or nature of the operation.
Earlier in the day, officials confirmed that special forces commandos were in northern and southern Afghanistan, searching for Taliban targets to strike and searching for Osama bin Laden and members of the al-Qaida network.
You NEVER hear about them until its over!
{unless the Rummy SecDef opens his fat yap!}
Message # 10153
I agree that more creative and forceful policies are needed for in the wake of 9-11, I'm just not sure that your particular policies will work.
I'm willing to be convinced, however, if you can be convincing.
By the way, I've decided I don't know shit about the economics of the petroleum business and I've begun to try and remedy this ignorance. I've already finished one book on the subject and another one is already in the wings waiting to be read. 
Pincher: Like it or not, the developed world is dependent on Third World oil.
Andoly: I find this too fatalistic a view.
After reading The Color of Oil this week, I must say that I understated the case. It's amazing to read how dependent the developed economies of the world are on Third World oil (I include Russia in this category) and how technology plays such a small part in making the oil industry more productive. The only exception to this is offshore oil, where huge potential bonanzas await.
Message # 10168
I agree that Russia has been great since the crisis, in some ways better than traditional alles such as Germany and France. But I'm not sure this can last since there are still numerous points of contention between the two countries.
Giuliani to do drag in 'Queer As Folk'
SUMMARY: New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani has agreed to appear in drag in an episode of "Queer As Folk" to help raise funds for surviving partners of gay and lesbian victims of the Sept. 11 attacks.
You make a bad Patrick Buchanan.
My long-term solution to this problem would be to move toward a non-interventionist foreign policy. We can't do that now without looking like we're appeasing the terrorists, but eventually we should consider it. We have become a bully nation around the globe, and since the Gulf War we have been a bit too enamored of our ability to project our power into remote areas of the world. We are giving too many people reasons to hate us, and we should heed the advice of George Washington and remain non-interventionist whenever at all possible.
The United States can no sooner pull itself out of world affairs than it can migrate to the moon. It's funny, you say we couldn't possibly do the far less extreme policy of removing a few thousand Arab and Paki nationals out of the country to protect our country, and instead you suggest the enormously complicated policy of removing ourselves from world affairs.
Please put on your thinking cap before you post.
I don't think so.
Anthrax is proving singularly non-lethal. Last I heard (as of this afternoon), all identified forms found so far are the same strain, probably obtained from US research labs, susceptible to all antibiotics (i.e., not bio-engineered) and non-weaponized (i.e., particles not fine enough to be aerosolized). If they planned to hit us later with a better, improved brand of anthrax, they wouldn't have alerted the mails to their methodology first. And if they meant to hit us with smallpox (my greater fear), they needn't have gone to this much trouble. All they'd have had to do was innoculate a few operatives, even unknowingly, and send them out into the world. Instant epidemic, nothing could stop it. They still could, of course.
The 1993 bombing was not a "dry run", it was a failure. But if what you're getting at is that these guys will try something again, and we won't necesarily know what that something is until it has happened, I agree with you. The only issue is, how bad will it be?
Smallpox is a major worry, depending on what strain it is--with treatment, there's actually a fairly high survival rate after infection with some smallpox strains (others are frankly much worse, hemmorhagic actually). But the question is whether local infrastructures are equipped to deliver such treatment in an epidemic, which I understand they are not. The other question is whether al-Qaeda has access to smallpox or could even handle it.
Dead from anthrax infection: two. Expected to recover: all those others who've been exposed thus far. Hell, that's good news. I had feared clouds of death in the subways, unstoppable crop dusters packed with antibiotic resistant anthrax, etc.
The terrorists of 9-11 showed they could take out thousands of civilians in a matter of minutes. This is unprecedented. It's a quantum leap in their ability to cause harm. By contrast, the previous terrorist biological attacks never even reached death tolls in the double figures.
Yes, so unless they've got something better up their sleeve, they'll stick with "conventional" terrorism that involves lots of fire and explosions. That's certainly a worry, but so far, the Arab terrorists at war with the US have shown they're not all that adept at biological warfare.
They also may not have as many suicidal warriors on hand as we originally thought. (About half the 9-11 hijackers apparently didn't know they were on a death mission.) It seems to me there is something to be gained, from their standpoint, in looking bigger and more powerful than they really are.
And while it is clear that cultural attitudes among Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere contribute greatly to their hatred of us, I believe it is very largely our interventionist foreign policy, specifically support of Israel and of local governments these people detest, and keeping troops and military advisors in Saudi Arabia (as well as about a hundred other countries), that has caused us to become a target today.
You are wrong on almost every point.
The U.S. has relatively few troops permanently stationed in the Middle East when compared with the amount of troops it has stationed in Europe and East Asia. And yet disgruntled South Koreans, Japanese, Germans, and Italians don't seek our destruction. What's more, the U.S. has intervened far more agressively in other areas around the World (Latin America and Southeast Asia) than it has in the Middle East. And yet, outraged Filipinos and Guatemaleans don't crash planes into our buildings or indeed consistently practice any other kind of terrorist activity against the U.S. (except for those Filipino Muslims in the south who seem to enjoy kidnapping and beheading Americans -- pray tell, Ronski, what it the motiviation that exists in the south and not in the north?)
And how many times does it have to be pointed out that the U.S. recent engagement in the world has been to many Islamic countries' benefit. Even the Islamic wingnuts must realize this at some point deep in their twisted minds.
continued ...
Our interventionist foreign policy has nothing to do with our being hated by these groups (Palestinians excepted). Iranian Shias and terrorist groups throughout the Gulf hate us for a simple reason: we are infidels and we are powerful. That's it, Ronski. It gets no more complicated than that.
Afraid I can't, because I'm not convinced my particular policies would work either. But in general, I don't see how the US can retain its political and ideological independence, and hence its security, if it can't say no to energy despots around the globe. There's only one way to do that: make oil an optional resource.
By the way, I've decided I don't know shit about the economics of the petroleum business and I've begun to try and remedy this ignorance. I've already finished one book on the subject and another one is already in the wings waiting to be read.
Hahaha! You and me both! But, time being short, I'm looking only at the Reader's Digest versions thus far. Let me know what you turn up with, will you?
Someone posted some decent links to info about oil politics/economics in World Crossing. Will link here if you or others are interested.
Message # 10250
Do you really think that Palestinians would be celebrating bin Laden's name if we had remained neutral on Israel, or that middle class families in Cairo would have thrown a thousand little soirees to celebrate WTC if we were not propping up the Mubarak regime? An interventionist foreign policy reaps unforeseen problems. George Washington seemed to understand the potential for what the spooks call "blowback."
Oh for fuck's sakes, Lady, please don't drag the father of the country into this argument about blowback. Washington simply wanted to maintain American neutrality because the U.S. --small and ill-equipped to participate in the wars between the larger European powers -- needed space to develop on its own.
Besides the intellectually disreputable part of the entire blowback argument is that it doesn't seem to take into account that a country might suffer from blowback if it disengages from the world.
Basically, any idiot can take an event and tie it in to anything else. Did the Gulf War create Osama Bin laden or did the lack of tougher diplomacy with the Saudis when we could have nabbed him in the first place? If the U.S. didn't go to war in 1991 against Saddam or support Israel, would the U.S. have not paid a price or would it have emboldened Middle East tyrants to push the boundaries of their borders even further out? Again, the notion of blowback is intellectually weak, more for blowhards like Chalmers Johnson than for someone serious about understanding what effect U.S. foreign policy actually has.
Damn straight. I may make this into a bumper sticker.
The thing that Lady doesn't understand about the Constitution is that it is extremely flexible in times of danger or crisis: there is no constitutional provision that says the U.S. must suffer attacks because of an irrational adherence to some clause. A president could impose martial law or he could impose partial martial law until he thinks the U.S. is out of danger
I fully expect that if another major attack takes place in the United States soon, the U.S. will simply begin rounding up certain alien groups and either deport them or hold them until it decides they aren't a threat.
I do consider it ethically inconsistent that we should deal with characters like Hafiz Assad and the House of Saud and Hosni Mubarak, while insisting on upholding democracy and free markets from the USSR to Latin America. But I have yet to be convinced that we've ever had any choice in the matter.
And I'm beginning to think far too many intelligent people believe that superpowers have godlike powers of control over pullulating events.
Message # 10271
Steve Dasbach's reasoning is just stupid.
The U.S. is not clairvoyant. The U.S. war on terrorism began on 9-11, not before. Bin Laden was considered a deadly pest, but he was not yet a reason to make a radical change in U.S. policy towards the Middle East.
Predictably, Dasbach doesn't like that the U.S. government gives money and arms to foreign powers. He then tries to show how this bounces back against the U.S.
But the U.S. has given shitloads of money and arms to all kinds of foreign groups, the vast majority of whom never turn them against us. Many of those weapons have come in handy when the U.S. must intervene somewhere because the U.S. military then has some compatibility between U.S. arms and the group's arms that it is supporting.
Finally, Dasbach doesn't seem to realize that no stinger missile or sniper rifle crashed into the World Trade Center nor did the pilots fly their crazed mission because of our support of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan.
Again, Dasbach draws out tenuous strands of connections to support his dumbass philosophy that government intervention fails.
We must trust freedom!
We can never give someone any rationalization for attacking us, let alone a valid rationalization!
We must learn to let go of the world!
This is the kind of crap that even a reasonable intelligent adolescent can smell as shit. I had assumed that someone who has been trained as a lawyer would have a powerful analytical mind that couldn't be taken in by these kinds of bromides. Instead, LadyChaos seems to have been educated beyond her intelligence
How Now Kow Tow!
Don't cry TD.....
Manufactured, yes. Necessarily foreign, no.
I'm told Anthrax could easily have been purchased from domestic research supply sources a few years ago, before sale regulations were tightened up. But if was obtained more recently, it could simply have been stolen from a US lab working with the pathogen. (Probably not difficult. Lots of grad students and summer interns.)
And anthrax could well have been produced by a clandestine lab, here or abroad. If that's the case, one would assume the stuff was imported into the country, but only because operation of or association with a clandestine lab within the US might have carried too great a risk of detection.
The Fiqh Council of North America, a group of prominent Islamic scholars in the United States and Canada, issued a fatwa (legal opinion) that approves of American Muslim soldiers fighting against terrorism.
Haha.
Well Fiqh this, you fiqhing fiqhs!
Since when do our soldiers need permission from a bunch of priests to go off and fight?
Fuck that. The officer who asked for that group's blessing should be summarily shot.
Here's what should've been done:
Since there were apparently so many Muslim soldiers asking whether they could, under Islamic law, fight against the animals that attacked their country, they should have been offered a choice. To wit:
You like Islamic law so much? Fine - you can go live under Islamic law in Afghanistan. We'll drop you off on the way over.
No?
Ok - here's option B: You can go stand guard on the observation deck of the John Hancock Building, or the Sears Tower, or the Empire State Building. Or ride shotgun on commercial jetliners...
What a fucking joke.
Did our WWII vets ask for a dispensation from the Pope to go off and fight Christians in Europe?
Andoly,
I still don't see it. Yes, I suppose it's good that we lessen our dependence on imported oil and that there any many ways we could do this, including banning SUVs(or hybrid SUVs or whatever). In this environment, I'm not discounting any tactic.
But it must be a tactic that will work. The fact is the U.S. will still need foreign oil in the future, lots of it. Even if we were to greatly lessen our dependence on foreigner oil producers from between 50 and 60% of our petroleum needs to about 25%, that is still a significant portion that must come from overseas. And frankly, I don't see how we can get it down that far.
On the other hand, my original proposal called for threatening the Saudis with the tough diplomatic line that they should worry about us more than they worry about domestic subversives. I can see the U.S. successfully carrying out this policy far, far easier than I can the U.S. cutting its oil dependency in half.
And, once again, it is not just the U.S. that U.S. foreign policy is responsible for. You still haven't addressed what we do about Europe and Japan, two countries the U.S. is intertwined with that need Middle East oil more than we do.
Message # 10307
Ethel Merman: [singing] You'll be swell, you'll be great! Gonna have the whole world on a plate! Startin' here, startin' now! Honey, everything's comin' up roses...
Ted Striker: War is hell.
Message # 10338
Yes, one of the sad commentaries about our own crazies on the right is that had Gore been in office and doing exactly what W's handlers are doing, the cry for his impeachment from said crazies would be more than just loud.
I never agreed with you, Janjon, about any subject I've ever seen you post on. But I completely agree with you here. If a Democrat had been in the White House, whether Clinton or Gore, the U.S. military reaction to 9-11 would have, out of necessity, been much greater than what we have seen from Bush.
Damn straight. I may make this into a bumper sticker.....
Crossfire was a mess today for that very reason...poor Tucker Carlson...B-2 Bob Dornan was agreeing with some towel head prof from Georgetown on this very point....
B-2 Bob was even dropping names....
As Mother Theresa told me...
Severe shell-shock. Thinks he's Ethel Merman.
Hey give me a minute - gotta tell you something:
Don't mess with Bill
Don't mess with Bill
(Don't mess with Bill) Say it one more time!
(Don't mess with Bill)
Now I know he's a guy who put tears in my eyes
A thousand times or more
Oh but every time he would apologize
I loved him more than before
Hear what I say, girls keep away, ah ah ah
Don't mess with Bill
(No no no no, Don't mess with Bill) Leave my Billy alone
(Don't mess with Bill) Get a guy of your own
(Don't mess with Bill)
Now there's Johnny, there's Joe and there's Frank and Jim
Just to name a few
Now, Bill's got me and I've got him
I'm sure there's one for you
Hear what I say, girls keep away, ah ah ah
Don't mess with Bill
(No no no no, Don't mess with Bill) Cause he's mine all mine
(Don't mess with Bill) I say it one more time
(Don't mess with Bill)
Though I tell myself he wants no one else
But keeps coming back to me
Now I'm in no decision to want competition
I want to be sure as can be
Hear what I say, girls keep away, ah ah ah
Don't mess with Bill
(No no no no, Don't mess with Bill) Leave my Billy alone
(Don't mess with Bill) Get a guy of your own
(Don't mess with Bill) Cause he's mine all mine
(Don't mess with Bill) I say it one more time
(Don't mess with Bill) Hey yeah yeah yeah
(Don't mess with Bill) Hey yeah yeah yeah
(Don't mess with Bill) Leave my man alone
(Don't mess with Bill) Get a guy of your own
According to my sources, they have access to extralargepox and some mediumpox, but no weapon grade pox.
And the rumor is they're gonna use it in the next Red Pox game.
On the up side, they say they're only interested in replacing the Pax Americana with the Pox Arabica.
ASHINGTON, Oct. 19 — United States ground forces mounted a helicopter assault into southern Afghanistan tonight in a risky nighttime raid that opened a new phase in America's war on terrorism, military officials said.
More than a hundred special forces, including Army Rangers, swooped down by helicopter on at least one main target in the area of Kandahar, a stronghold of the Taliban government that has supported Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda terrorist network.
Officials suggested that the raid by Special Operations forces was not the only mission under way, and that covert operations against undisclosed targets were also taking place.
Military officials said there were reports of American casualties, but they did not say how many
NyT
Message # 10455
But viewing the Israeli matter as simply an excuse is naive, imo. It ignores the whole history of terrorism in the world since the creation of the Jewish state.
Tha naivete is completely yours. Let's see, what do the Islamic terrorist attacks in the Russia and in Kashmir within the last few years have to do with Israel? When Saddam fired missiles at Israel during the Gulf War, what did that have to do with his take over of Kuwait?
The point of foreign policy moves is not to eliminate tensions, but to reduce them. A Palestinian state would defuse some of that tension.
Bullshit. The foundation of a Palestinian state would further push the ambitions of those who think the U.S. will bends to threats of terrorism. In effect, you encourage the terrorists with your compliance.
The last ten years have seen an unprecedented move in the direction of a Palestinian state, and yet those same ten years have seen terroists make numerous attacks all over the globe, and for all manner of reasons. It is your stupidity alone that believes a Palestinian state will somehow alleviate this.
Sheesh...read another book
Message # 10468
I thought this immediately, yes. And sure enough, suddenly the media is waking up to the untrustworthiness of Arab regimes. No more whining about Iraqi sanctions. Arafat is looking less heroic. Questions are being raised about Syria and Iran.
It will pass.
A couple of weeks ago, LadyChaos all for strangling every motherfucking last Arab herself. Now she doesn't want to even cause some alien residents inconvenience. 
Danke Gott for the Krauts!
Message # 10511
it's funny. I always thought joezan was a Chinese province.
Hahaha! Actually JoeZan is a reservior near Inchon, Korea.
The Chinese did fight there, however.
Somehow, I've always envisioned Ahghanistan as a much larger country than that.
Bigger mountains, too.
I used to work with a guy who fought there. All he'd ever say about it was that it was "fucking cold". 
More
Message # 10746
Congratulations on your acceptance of a letter to the editor.
Incidentally, it's official now: not only is Israel pissed that the US was making overtures to the Pals, India is way pissed that we've lifted the arms embargo against Pakistan and have done fuck all to address their security issues. Like the Israelis, they have no qualms about retaliating against terror, nor will they "stand down" to accommodate George Bush, so long as an average of seven of their citizens keep getting killed each day.
Yes, they're pissed, but what can they do. Of course I would love it if they went to war. They certainly have the same right to defend themselves that we do. But I'm afraid it won't happen.
No wonder you're so loopy.
went to war.
'bout a month ago I read a book called Black Hawk Down: A study of modern war. -- a history of the Somalia intervention and the firefight that eventually led to the US pulling out. I highly recommend it.
So do I. But it's not a great book because it describes the diplomacy surrounding that conflict; It's a great book because it describes well the difficulties of fighting in urban environments.
Your Message # 10796 is fucking hilarious!
But it must be a tactic that will work. The fact is the U.S. will still need foreign oil in the future, lots of it. Even if we were to greatly lessen our dependence on foreigner oil producers from between 50 and 60% of our petroleum needs to about 25%, that is still a significant portion that must come from overseas.
I wasn't thinking a 50% reduction in the near term! Less. But hell, if we reduced foreign dependency by 25% we could in theory refuse to buy Saudi oil altogether, since our OPEC imports amount to only 17%. (I think it's OPEC=17% and Saudi=13% or less, not certain of those figures.) That could prove a potent non-military control mechanism. From what I've read, the Saudis at this point can't even tolerate a significant price drop, let alone an embargo, without facing potentially catastrophic domestic unrest. Were we not dependent on the Saudis to keep oil flowing and maintain joint operating agreements, we would have more leeway in exacting the sort of demands you propose.
And frankly, I don't see how we can get it down that far.
That's the problem, sure. Which is why I say, increase drastically the number of hybrids on the road. Penalize gas guzzlers. Sign agreements with Europe and Japan to jointly research alternative fuels and vehicle development. Massively subsidize the freight rail companies at the expense of the longe-range trucking industry. Etc.
Yeah, but why should they, when we're no more dangerous to them than their own radicals are? They don't give a shit about their people.
I can see the U.S. successfully carrying out this policy far, far easier than I can the U.S. cutting its oil dependency in half.
I can't, until we have the leverage of being able to wreck any single oil-dependent Arab economy at will. US public opinion will not permit military adventures in countries that don't pick a pretty direct, military fight. Plus, bear in mind, we don't have to reduce our entire 50% dependence on foreign oil. Just enough of it that we could afford to boycott any major producer. Meanwhile, our objective should be systematically over time to devalue oil everywhere.
Note that this should have the effect of forcing oil-rich states to develop their economies around something other than petroleum; diverse economies are a little less easily monopolised by kleptocrats, and more stable. We'd be doing good, and mimimizing the power of subversive discontent at the same time.
The down side: 1) increased reliance on non-petroleum fuels means more nuclear reactors. A big PR problem, possibly a security problem as well. 2) We'd have to fuck the environment a bit in the short term (next 20-30 years); oh well, that's what we expect developing countries to have to do to survive. And to be sure, we'd need an incentive to keep pushing for alternative fuels and better efficiencies. 3) We'd still be dependent on foreign oil for many years to come. However, we'd have more choice as to which foreign oil we were dependent on. Colombian, Russian, Saudi? 4) It would be tough organizing a boycott against any particular state given that our allies are indeed more dependent on oil than we are. 5) Developed world governments would have to write laws severely restricting oil companies' ability to process crude obtained from pariah states; it's currently almost impossible to track illicit oil shipments because you can't tag the stuff. The CIA and other countries' spooks would have to police the multinationals.
I must've emailed that swf from Amax's link to at least 100 people today. I only wish marj were around to enjoy it.
You misunderstand, misread, or you're thinking of Iran and not Saudi Arabia.
The Saudis don't care for the welfare of their own people. All the house of Saud cares about is remaining in power. Right now, they need us to protect them, they need the people who despise us not to topple them. They've been double dealing us for a decade, they still are, they have no choice. If we push them, they fall. If they fall, we're probably screwed.
Gotta agree.
Anthrax is proving singularly non-lethal. Last I heard (as of this afternoon), all identified forms found so far are the same strain, probably obtained from US research labs, susceptible to all antibiotics (i.e., not bio-engineered) and non-weaponized (i.e., particles not fine enough to be aerosolized). If they planned to hit us later with a better, improved brand of anthrax, they wouldn't have alerted the mails to their methodology first. And if they meant to hit us with smallpox (my greater fear), they needn't have gone to this much trouble. All they'd have had to do was innoculate a few operatives, even unknowingly, and send them out into the world. Instant epidemic, nothing could stop it. They still could, of course.
Yes, just as the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center was comparatively nonlethal when matched up against the 2001 attack, so I belive that this Anthrax attack will be to a similar bioweapons attack in the not so distant future.
Any group of terrorists have to be looking at the U.S. postal system as far more vulnerable than the airways of the U.S. ever were.
New more complex versions of Anthrax (or other strains of disease) are sure to be on their way, with even better dispersal systems. That was what I meant by a dry run.
You are insane.
Pincher: I don't care about psychological attacks. I'm worried about body counts.
Andoly: Dead from anthrax infection: two. Expected to recover: all those others who've been exposed thus far. Hell, that's good news. I had feared clouds of death in the subways, unstoppable crop dusters packed with antibiotic resistant anthrax, etc.
We were comparing different modes of terrorist attacks: fertilizer vs bioweapons. You claimed that you weren't that worried about a bioweapons attack. I now am. Have we switched roles here? Wasn't I the one who was somewhat blase about the ability for terrorists to successfully cause high numbers of casualties in a single attack?
By this logic of yours, the U.S. shouldn't have been worried about the attempts to take over jetliners for suicide attacks or the 1993 bombing of the WTC because of their failure to produce mass casualties.
I think that in the wake of these attacks, we can't wait around anymore for a successful bioweapons or nuclear terrorist attack to happen before we take these threats seriously; we now have react to any threat that has the potential to produce mass casualties, even if it might seem somewhat remote.
If we know that terrorists are mucking around with bioweapons or attempting to buy a nuclear weapon, while it might be comforting to know that no terrorist has yet killed numerous civilians with them yet, I don't want to wait around for them to figure out how.
No, I don't "miss" the fact.
Yes you did. Or else, you consciously ignored what I posted about the much greater tendency of broad spectrum antibiotics to create resistant forms of bacteria.
I hope you don't become egregiously tedious about this (feigned?) ignorance regarding the point I made in my original post, but I'm afraid I'm given to overoptimism in cases such as this. 
Anytime you feel up to discussing the politics of the Middle East with me, dipshit, you may begin.
And yet the US is not "gearing up" only to fight anthrax. It is preparing to fight smallpox as well. Not fast enough--but I fear nothing can be done about that.
Nevertheless, the gubmint is in fact talking to at least two major drug co.'s about producing smallpox vaccine. A previous order for something like 40 million doses already has been upped to 54 million.
Unlike your IRA scenario, there's no particular reason to "lead in" with anthrax and then follow up with something more lethal. The calamity that would have followed a single, smartly targeted smallpox attack would have been sufficient to keep us busy and terrified for six months to a year.
I suspect even if they've gotten hold of smallpox, it would be hard to get even a good martyr to spread it around. He'd have to be willing not only to die, but to die slowly of a nasty disease.
Not that Iraq couldn't get involved separately at this point with whatever biologicals it has on hand. Not that al-Qaeda is beyond Sarin attacks on commuter trains. Not that it couldn't sell al-Qaeda operatives weapons grade anthrax. But I think whatever happens next will be ad hoc.
Yes. Well, not quite; there are subtleties. Phase One (pre 9-11): Andonly is worried, Pincher is not worried. Phase Two (immediately post 9-11): Andonly is very worried, Pincher is very worried. Phase Three (post anthrax outbreaks): Andonly is less worried, Pincher is still very worried.
I don't know why you make this assumption. I don't disagree that it's a possibility, but I don't believe it's a surety at all.
Imbecile, I've clarified my statement for your soupy cerebrum already: THE SAUDIS DON'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT THEIR PEOPLE'S WELFARE. Why is this so hard to digest? Don't you grasp the fact that not all "people" in Saudi Arabia are insurrectionsists?
Nothing I said--nothing I have ever said about the Saudis--could possibly lead you to believe that I hold they are not fucking terrified of their own insurgents. You are a moron if you think anyone in this discussion believes otherwise.
Is everything perfectly clear now, or is your foil helmet still blocking my transmission?
No argument here. I've only said I'm less worried about bioweapons (for the moment, anyway). Chemical and radiation weapons still have me pretty jumpy.
Janjon,
Message # 10338
Yes, one of the sad commentaries about our own crazies on the right is that had Gore been in office and doing exactly what W's handlers are doing, the cry for his impeachment from said crazies would be more than just loud.
I never agreed with you, Janjon, about any subject I've ever seen you post on. But I completely agree with you here. If a Democrat had been in the White House, whether Clinton or Gore, the U.S. military reaction to 9-11 would have, out of necessity, been much greater than what we have seen from Bush.
You're both off base. First of all, janjon's comments about 'our own crazies' 'more than loudly' calling for his impeachment indicates a sad misreading on janjon's part of the American psyche.
Secondly, given the short length of time that has elapsed since September 11, not much more of purpose could have been accomplished to date, short of possibly using nukes, than has been by the Bush administration. Plus there's the reality that no domestic political exigency, in and of itself, would have necessitated a 'much greater' military response from the Bore camp in any case.
That is not to say that a Bore administration would not eventually have gotten the US embroiled in a much larger and more dangerous conflict than the Bush administration appears to be committing us to.
The other likely differences with the Bore response would have been:
1) Much more open partisanship.
2) Much more internal confusion among and braggadocio by Democrat politicians.
3) Less well thought out military response.
4) Much less of an attempt by a Bore administration in forging an international coalition to fight terrorism.
"Attention, Taliban," one message said. "You are condemned. Did you know that? The instant the terrorists you support took over our planes, you sentenced yourselves to death."
Another said: "When you decide to surrender, approach United States forces with your hands in the air. Sling your weapon across your back, muzzle towards the ground. Remove your magazine and expel any rounds.
"Doing this is your only chance of survival. Stay away from military installations, government buildings, terrorist camps, roads, factories or bridges. Seek a safe place and stay well away from anything that might be a target. We do not wish to harm you."
The broadcasts mocked the Taliban for using "obsolete and ineffective weaponry" against US firepower. They said: "Our bombs are so accurate we can drop them right through your windows." 
SAS Training in Oman
11034. wonkers2 - 10/20/2001 9:01:15 AM
Anthony Lewis: Winning the military struggle against Osama bin Laden and his Taliban protectors, if and when we do, wil not end the threat of terrorism against the U.S. That will require, in the long run, something more difficult than military action: a profound effort by America and the West to ease the poverty and misery of the developing world.
Bin Laden and his colleagues are not motivated by poverty; they have an apocalyptic vision. But no one can doubt that the desparate conditions of life in Afghanistan provided nurturing ground for terrorism. Desparation is a fact of life in many poor, over-crowded countries.
Attacking the indecency of life in much of the Sourthern Hemisphere is no longer a matter of grace, of charity, of patronizing kindness. It is a matter of intense self-interest. for our own sake, we need to reduce the well of resentment.
After the immediate crisis, Western countries will have to become serious in addressing the needs of the most desparate nations.
All that will require a fundamental change of attitudes in the legislative branch of the richest country, the U.S. Congress. Foreign aid has for years been a target for Congressional scorn and budget cuts. The U.S. spends only one-tenth of one percent of its gross national product on aid, a smaller percentage than less wealthy countries.
NYT op-ed 10/20/01
11035. jexster - 10/20/2001 9:09:10 AM
GlobalSecurity.org
Worthy of yellow box link if yellow box ever returns!
11036. jexster - 10/20/2001 9:19:28 AM
PsyOps in Afghanistan - The New Scientist
11037. jexster - 10/20/2001 9:24:51 AM
Warning of everything from the evils of their current regime to the dangers of being hit by a food drop, U.S. forces are broadcasting appeals to Afghanistan's beleaguered citizenry to help America rid their country of Osama bin Laden's terrorist network and the Taliban government that shields it.
"Noble people of Afghanistan," begins one broadcast, beamed down from military aircraft that have been flying over the country since last week. "The Taliban has tarnished the name of your proud nation by making it a haven for criminals and terrorists. ... Their actions are bringing war to your homes. Is this what you want? Is this the kind of future you want for your children? Speak out! Stand up and let your voice be heard! Resist, and encourage your friends and neighbors to resist!"
More
IWS PsyOps
11038. Francis Urquhart - 10/20/2001 9:27:07 AM
Linking our own future security to more future foreign aid is basically a veiled communication of American self-loathing (i.e., somehow, we brought this upon ourselves), an improper use of tragedy (linking the elimination of terrorism at home to paltry foreign aid and international poverty is every bit as gaseous as linking it to gays and the ACLU), and senseless in the extreme (many nations have poor people who could use more American aid, yet they manage to avoid wiping out our embassies, servicemen abroad, and skyscrapers).
The nurturing ground for bin Laden is anti-Western, archaic Islamic fundamentalism, in the guise of very bad, very committed enemies. The fault is not in the stars or in ourselves. It is a simple, committed evil that must be eliminated with a ruthless purpose.
If it makes Anthony Lewis feel better to kill enemies in the hope that our future policy will be to feed them into liking us, hey, whatever gets you through the night.
But Lewis' vision is infantile.
11039. jexster - 10/20/2001 10:31:50 AM
Krusty the Klown Leaves Bunker to Tell America that the War Against Terror Will Last Forever
As Eric von Ludendorf smiles in his grave!
11040. jexster - 10/20/2001 10:32:22 AM
Dusty...was THAT the excellent speech you mentioned?
11041. jexster - 10/20/2001 10:35:36 AM
11042. Cellar Door - 10/20/2001 10:58:34 AM
I can't agree, Francis. You seem to be moving towards an Us or Them position -- which is precisely what Bin Laden wants. The attack was designed to provoke an Ultimate War between Islam and Everyone Else. To win it we're going to have to go out of our way to avoid stating it in those terms.
Remember Bin Laden and his ilk represent a small faction trying to appeal to a larger group of widely different stripes. To hear it from the news you'd swear that everyone in Afganistan, Pakistan, etc. hates the U.S. and stokes that hated 24/7. Most of these people barely KNOW anything about the U.S. In fact, most of them barely know anything about their own "leaders." These are peasants living in conditions of extreme poverty. Extending them aide isn't "childish." It's a key tool for breaking the ideological hold the Bin Laden's of this world are trying to wield.
11043. jexster - 10/20/2001 10:58:59 AM
Winning the military struggle against Osama bin Laden and his Taliban protectors, if and when we do, will not end the threat of terrorism against the United States. That will require, in the long run, something more difficult than military action: a profound effort by America and the West to ease the poverty and misery of the developing world
Almost word-for-word, none other than B-2 Bob Dornan made the same point yesterday on Crossfire in fact, even more forcefully.
When Anthony Lewis and B-2 Bob agree, that is noteworthy, noteworthy because it demonstrates that Democratic internationalists and GOP Realists have become allies, leaving the GOP neo-isolationists playing with their dicks - at least for now.
11044. ScottLoar - 10/20/2001 11:13:58 AM
Message # 11038 and well said Francis. It is not the desperate conditions of life in Afghanistan providing a nurturing ground for terrorism but the remoteness of the place, the lack of any effective governmental structure, and the collusion of a ruling cadre sympathetic to the stated aim of the terrorists there and their peculiar interpretation and execution of Islam, and personally indebted in some measure to Osama bin Laden. The very topography of Afghanistan is more conducive to terrorism than the sentiments of the Afghan under the Taliban.
11045. jexster - 10/20/2001 11:15:08 AM
Where internationalists, human rights advocates and realists meet - WTC 9/11/01
And the reason is that it reveals the "North-South" problem has now become the essential problem for world peace.
To the realist, it revealed that the US cannot hide from the globe and have any real confidence that it will be able to continue to feast on the bounty of a "global" economy....
Simple FU
11046. CalGal - 10/20/2001 11:27:10 AM
The only reason it would be worth our while to give "aid" to these countries would be if we also wiped out their entire way of life, told them it was unacceptable, forced them into education and Western living, and then used them as cheap labor on infrastructure projects.
Did anyone see that little kid on Nightline last night, and the school he went to? And that was Pakistan.
11047. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 10/20/2001 11:39:16 AM
11048. CalGal - 10/20/2001 11:40:37 AM
Saudis Seek U.S. Muslims for Their Sect
Sometimes I wonder if the Times actually reads what it writes.
First:
Despite all their efforts, the Saudis' approach to Islam appears not to have found widespread acceptance in the United States and in fact seems to have faded in popularity here in recent years, perhaps because it is too rigid for a multiethnic
society like America's. Experts estimate that of the two million American Muslims who attend mosques regularly, no more than 25 percent, and perhaps many fewer, adhere to the strictures of Wahhabism.
Then:
About 30 percent of Muslims in this country are African-Americans, 33 percent are of East Asian origin, and 25 percent are of Arab descent.
So are they trying to avoid mentioning the possibility that MOST of the Arab Muslims in this country adhere to Wahhabism?
11049. CalGal - 10/20/2001 11:45:22 AM
Well, Hastert's bacon just got saved. They found anthrax spores in a House office.
11050. joezan - 10/20/2001 12:09:42 PM
Cal:
Somewhere back I linked an article which stated the vast majority of US Mosques are indeed headed by Wahhabi imams.
11051. ScottLoar - 10/20/2001 12:20:55 PM
Anthony Lewis and those who argree with him cannot understand you can temporarily buy off an enemy's depredations (it's called "tribute") but not enmity.
11052. CalGal - 10/20/2001 12:27:45 PM
I don't know if you're addressing that to me, but I don't agree with Lewis. I don't think we have the will anymore to do what needs to be done, but it involves refusing to allow them their "way of life", and educating their children by our standards, eliminating sex segregation, etc.
The "schools" I've seen on TV, kids reciting the Koran over and over, just made me very sad. It wasn't like that when I was in Saudi Arabia in the 70s, I know that for a fact. I visited both boys and girls schools and they were recognizably schools--they had math and science and writing.
Joe,
I don't know if it is that bad, but the article skates the issue nicely--and dishonestly. Certainly the Saudis were trying to co-opt Muslim Americans to get Wahhabism established over here.
11053. Cellar Door - 10/20/2001 12:37:07 PM
"I don't think we have the will anymore to do what needs to be done, but it involves refusing to allow them their "way of life", and educating their children by our standards"
Thank you Ann Coulter.
11054. CalGal - 10/20/2001 12:39:08 PM
No, Ann Coulter wants to convert them to Christianity. Besides, you're becoming tedious. Can't you come up with less hackneyed comparisons? You've bludgeoned the Coulter one badly--besides, even the National Review canned her. Can't you manage someone more relevant?
11055. joezan - 10/20/2001 12:41:47 PM
Ah...here it is:
9929. joezan - 10/13/01 10:11:57 AM
From PM's TNR link:
Within the United States, according to Hisham al-Kabbani, head of the Washington-based Supreme Islamic Council, almost 80% of mosques are presided over by Wahhabi Imams.
Anyone else find this a bit disturbing?
(Actually, I was responding to an article Pincher Martin had linked to in Message # 9926)
11056. CalGal - 10/20/2001 12:45:26 PM
Joe, if you read the Times piece above, it says that only 25% practice it--although it's hard to tell because many of them don't call it that.So one of them has wrong numbers. Was the TNR piece written before or after 9/11?
11057. jexster - 10/20/2001 12:46:27 PM
I not only find it disturbing JoeZ...I linked similar information two weeks ago!
First in war, first in peace...
11058. jexster - 10/20/2001 12:47:53 PM
And I am quite sure JoeZ will find this equally disturbing...
CNN reports that US Army bivouacs now include the Army Portable Chapel - can convert to Protestant, Catholic, Jewish and MOSLEM tents of worship for 100!
11059. joezan - 10/20/2001 12:48:54 PM
I'm sure everyone would be very impressed with your prescience, jex, if only it weren't interspersed with such frequent and rank idiocy.
11060. jexster - 10/20/2001 12:48:55 PM
SHANGHAI - China said yesterday that it stood with the United States in the fight against international terrorism, as both sides played up the importance of cooperation in vastly improved bilateral relations.
How Now Kow Tow? Straits Times
11061. jexster - 10/20/2001 12:51:06 PM
Mighta fahn chow fun there!
11062. jexster - 10/20/2001 12:52:47 PM
Mebbee y'alls mosey on down to mah ranch fer some drayh rub and chimichangas!
11063. ScottLoar - 10/20/2001 12:53:40 PM
CalGal, my post was not directed to you but, as I said, to Anthony Lewis' article and any who agree with him.
11064. jexster - 10/20/2001 12:55:29 PM
Hey Wiz...I thought I saw her on Polk St. last nite!
11065. Cellar Door - 10/20/2001 12:55:48 PM
11066. jexster - 10/20/2001 12:58:57 PM
11067. joezan - 10/20/2001 12:59:05 PM
Cal:
Yes - I read that.
Did you notice this paragraph?
The training of Americans, especially African-Americans, as imams in Saudi Arabia has also had a clear ideological purpose, said Faheem Shuaibe, imam at a large, predominantly black mosque in Oakland, Calif. More than 200 African-American imams have been trained in Saudi Arabia, he said.
If there are, as the Times article claims, only 1,200 mosques in the US, and 200 African American Wahhabi imams - and you were operating, as I was, under the assumption that only Arab mosques would be Wahhabi-led, then this kind of skews the Wahhabi numbers way up there, doesn't it?
11068. CalGal - 10/20/2001 1:12:40 PM
Joe,
First off, the article is really, really bad. And I'm generally the most non-critical of news pieces--I ask only that it give me some new piece of info I didn't have.
So I can't tell for sure what it is saying. It seems to be suggesting that the African American imams are now turning away from Wahhabi, but why not just say so directly? Unless it's because that means all of the Arab mosques are Wahhabi--which I suspect is the case.
Remember that 200 imams have been trained in it, but that doesn't correlate to the 1200. Not all of them might be working as imams, and I think you can have more than one "priest" per mosque.
I don't think African Americans would buy off on that brand of Islam for any long period of time, and I think any American Islamic acceptance of it is what had the drop off in the 90s. But that still leaves the unpleasant suggestion that all the Arab mosques are Wahhabi.
I have been reading more about Saudi history and it appears that my impression that schools were different in the early 70s may in fact be accurate. Apparently Saudi Arabia, in response to Nasser's democratization efforts in Egypt, gave political asylum to the Muslim Brotherhood, the first Islamic political organization (started in 1928) in the late 60s and 70s. These were the people who eventually took over the schools, particularly after Faisal was assassinated and Khalid and Fahd came in.
I'll see if I can find a link that covers all the explanation.
11069. CalGal - 10/20/2001 1:16:34 PM
Ah, here's a Times piece that mentions it.
Anti-Western and Extremist Views Pervade Saudi Schools
There was a time when the mosque was the only place to learn to read and write. More secular topics were introduced, though, as Saudis educated abroad came back to run the schools. By the 1960's, a Saudi high school graduate would have been exposed to topics like Roman history and the Protestant Reformation.
In those years, however, President Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt preached Arab unity, fought the Muslim Brotherhood and sought to undermine King Faisal. In response, the king offered political asylum to thousands of Muslim Brotherhood members. Most ended up as teachers and junked the Saudi curriculum.
"They said this is infidel knowledge and gradually their teaching crowded out all useful information," a former government official said.
I've always known I lived in Saudi Arabia in a fairly moderate time in its history. Didn't know how lucky I was.
11070. ronski - 10/20/2001 1:19:11 PM
Pincher,
Re: Message # 10973.
You're wrong. I have said repeatedly that there are many factors involved in the current Islamic terrorist attacks against Western and other targets. What I object to is the idiotic notion that Israel has nothing to do with the current state of affairs.
Israel has much to do with it. Arafat and other Palestinians practically created modern terrorism, which has since been taken up by Moslems with other grievances, as well as by European leftists. This is not to suggest that no terrorism existed before; it has long existed, for example in Ireland, and among anarchists a century ago. But the PLO and other, more violent Palestian groups breathed much new life into it after Israel. And they have networked with terrorist groups all over the world for years.
As for Sadam, if Kuwait was his only concern, then why did he even bother attacking Israel. Israel remains a major embarrassment for Arabs and other Muslims. It remains a major rallying point for their claims against the West.
I have also said repeatedly that the PLO state will not happen immediately so as not to reward the terrorists. But it will happen.
As for the violence continuing while there have been negotiations toward a state, remember that these have only been negotiations, ones that have never succeeded. The terrorism will continue as long as there is no state.
11071. Cellar Door - 10/20/2001 1:20:04 PM
11072. jexster - 10/20/2001 1:24:56 PM
The creation of a PAL state isn't a vital Western interest because it will deprive towel head wackos one more excuse for hating the West...its vital because it will bring a measure of stability to the region. A stable Palestine is vital because but only to the extent that it empowers stable "secular" Arab regimes from Egypt to Lebanon to Jordan...
11073. ronski - 10/20/2001 1:27:04 PM
Will there be violence after a state as well?
Of course there will be. But as I have also said, how worse can it be for Israel dealing with an internationally recognized state that it can hold responsible for harboring terrorists than what they have now, occupying a hostile region?
I say, let's call the Arabs' bluff on Israel. If they continue to war against Israel and the West after getting a state, the thing they have said would bring peace, well, if it doesn't bring peace, and they were lying, then it will be real war and we (or the Israelis) will settle it once and for all.
Israel cannot continue to occupy the West Bank and Gaza indefinitely. It could not absorb those lands without removing the Arabs from them, because its Jewish population would be overwhelmed by the Arab birth rate on the WB and Gaza. The pipe dream of the Israelis driving them out of the West Bank and Gaza in the near future is just that. A state will happen, and the U.S. will support its creation.
11074. ronski - 10/20/2001 1:29:59 PM
And as I have also said, terrorism will continue elsewhere for other reasons. Fundamentalists will continue their wars in the Phillipines, will attack U.S. interests as long as we are in bed with the Saudis, will badger the Russians over Chechniya, will fight the Chinese over Sinkiang, and so on. Which is why we need to continue to take terrorism seriously and do what we are now doing, as well as review our support for unpopular regimes in the region and our insistence on keeping troups in the Gulf.
11075. jexster - 10/20/2001 1:32:13 PM
How Now Kow Tow? China's Designated Terrorists
11076. jexster - 10/20/2001 1:32:48 PM
Clash of Civilizations?
You betcha!
11077. jexster - 10/20/2001 1:38:58 PM
Hey Ronski, Cllr, FU, RD etc....do you have this bookmarked?
You should consider it...
Why We Should
Support This War
From the first moments of the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, gays have been integral — as heroes, as soldiers, as citizens — to an American war effort as never before. Gay life, like American life, will never be the same.
By Andrew Sullivan - 09-24-01
Targeted:
The Modern World
Capitalism, globalization, Hollywood, Coca-Cola — Islamic extremists have declared war on them all. But those aspects of the West's modernism that they particularly despise relate to the development of gender equality, sexual freedom, and gay rights — all of which fall into the catchall category of "Western decadence."
By Stephen H. Miller - 10-01-01 
11078. concerned - 10/20/2001 1:42:27 PM
Message # 11029
Where does that put you, jexster? In a crib?
Away with your bogus posturings.
11079. jexster - 10/20/2001 1:42:43 PM
IF JERRY FALWELL is right about the way God works, then our newly declared war on terrorism isn't looking too good for the home team. After all, there is no nation on earth less hospitable to and less accepting of gays, feminists and civil libertarians than Afghanistan.
"The Lord has protected us so wonderfully these 225 years. And since 1812, this is the first time that we've been attacked on our soil and by far the worst results." — Rev. Jerry Falwell, on the "700 Club," Sept. 13
Truth, Justice & The Taliban Way
11080. jexster - 10/20/2001 1:43:01 PM
toys
11081. ronski - 10/20/2001 1:46:09 PM
jexster,
A Palestinian state will, or more accurately may, bring a measure of stability to the region because it will provide less reason for continued violence and instability.
I have never implied it is simply a matter of providing one less excuse to Moslem separatists for taking Christian hostages in the Phillipines and one less reason to hate the West (or any other example of Islamist violence around the world one could mention).
11082. concerned - 10/20/2001 1:47:12 PM
Jexster - toys, damnit!
11083. ronski - 10/20/2001 1:48:08 PM
jexster,
If you would read this thread occasionally, instead of just posting in it, you would have found the Sullivan article here days ago.
11084. jexster - 10/20/2001 1:52:38 PM
well...damn me Ronski!
War is hell...and I only read posts from Concerned!
11085. jexster - 10/20/2001 1:53:40 PM
and JoeZ
11086. Cellar Door - 10/20/2001 1:59:46 PM
Jex, I already linked David Talbot's "Salon" blast at Sully in "American Politics."
It looks like Talbot may have finally come to his senses about this freak. (We've been popping the champagne corks over this in "Datalounge")
11087. concerned - 10/20/2001 2:00:11 PM
Regarding 'suitcase' nuclear devices, from the Federation of American Scientists:
There is no doubt that if a group like al Qaeda were to obtain sufficient fissile material - no more than 12 kg of plutonium, or 50 kg of highly enriched uranium, and quite possibly less, a highly destructive bomb could be constructed. It is very doubtful that a simple nuclear device developed by a small group could qualify as a "suitcase bomb", but most any ordinary vehicle would suffice for transportation.
11088. concerned - 10/20/2001 2:01:33 PM
Have they retired the Salon deathwatch thread before Salon then?
11089. RustlerPike - 10/20/2001 4:06:37 PM
Suitcase nuke carrier spotted in Afghanistan, apparently en route to Europe: 
11090. RustlerPike - 10/20/2001 4:09:55 PM
I myself heard and saw George W. Bush saying the following sentence, fast, and not reading it from anywhere:
'These two soldiers will not have died in vain'.
Man, he's getting good.
11091. Francis Urquhart - 10/20/2001 4:39:35 PM
Pincher is correct in that the Palestinian question is not terribly relevant to the issue of extremist fundamentalist Muslims perpetrating terrorism against the West. But the future of Israel and the Palestinians has a certain symmetry to the situation the West now faces.
For years, the West determined that support for Israel was necessary, but that long-term stability required a Palestinian state. But with the fact settled that Arafat is either incapable or unwilling to control extremists within his coalition, commensurate with a Western led war against terrorists and those who harbor them post 9/11, Arafat has three choices. Exterminate the extremists in his fold and thereafter, negotiate a Palestinian state based upon his own bond with Israel in ridding his coalition of terrorists; die at the hands of the extremists (whom he presumably cannot control); or, die at the hands of Israel (which presumably is losing patience with the ineffective and feckless Arafat and who is now helmed by a man who will not flinch at taking advantage of the Western coalition's war on terrorism).
This was exactly the choice for Pakistan. They have chosen us. Saudi Arabia will be next to choose. Yemen, the Sudan, Iran, Lybia and Syria are also weighing Bush II's Come to Jesus doctrine (i.e., everything pre-9/11 forgiven; everything post 9/11 means a fate similar to the Taliban).
Once these cards shuffle out, we should train our full military resources on Iraq, the one state to whom Come to Jesus has not been offered, and the one state we know has a governmentally-supported and administered biological and chemical weapons program.
11092. CalGal - 10/20/2001 5:35:05 PM
ie at the hands of Israel (which presumably is
losing patience with the ineffective and feckless Arafat and who is now helmed by a man who will not flinch at taking advantage of the Western coalition's war on terrorism).
You assume that Israel would be able to take on Palestine without the rest of the middle east turning on Israel. I don't think this is a safe assumption. The Muslim "streets" are already furious at their leaders for supporting the US, are you so convinced that they will placidly accept inaction in a cause they support?
The Arab leaders have already demonstrated how much their public actions are limited by fear of their extremists' response; I can't see how they would just shrug and turn their back on the hottest issue of all.
11093. Cellar Door - 10/20/2001 6:55:27 PM
11094. AuNaturel - 10/20/2001 8:13:34 PM
RE: suitacse bombs.
Both the US and Russia have these. A lot fewer now than in the 70s when this sort of thing peaked but they still exist. Nuclear weapons have been built that can be fired from eight inch artillery.
Other small nuclear weapons were developed by the US, such as the one to be deployed by SEALS behind enemy lines and the Davy Crocket, fired by three men on a jeep using an overgrown bazooka. The Air Force once had a mini-nuke on the Sparrow air to air missile and the Air National Guard carried it. These mininukes typically had an adjustable yield in the sub-kiloton range.
A mini-nuke might easily slip out of Russia care of a corrupt military or scientific official. I have no idea of what the Russians nukes' safety features are. The US features are as close to unbreakable as possible, but then we aren't likely to lose ours.
There is no minimum yield on a nuke. I could hold 51% of the critical mass of plutonium in a half sphere in each hand and slap them together. The tiny nuclear explosion would deliver to me a lethal level of radiation and force the two halves apart before producing much more blast than a firecracker. (Something similar happened in a US lab once. Took the poor guy weeks to die.) The yield can be increased by holding the critical mass together longer.
There are technologies that can actually reduce the amount needed for criticality, precisely timing the detonation and holding it all together for the microsecond required for complete fission. These are beyond the technology of known terrorists and many countries.
Given enough fissile material, any idiot can build an atomic bomb of the "gun" type (as opposed to the much more efficient implosion type). The yield wouldn't be much but it would be more than adequate to take out a few blocks of any major city. You could put it in a blimp and take out the Rose Bowl at half time.
And it would fit in my suitcase.
11095. amax - 10/20/2001 8:45:44 PM
re: Black Hawk Down
So do I. But it's not a great book because it describes the diplomacy surrounding that conflict; It's a great book because it describes well the difficulties of fighting in urban environments.
I generally am not a fan of small unit action accounts, which is why I avoided this one. Once I started reading it, though, I found it fascinating. What really distinguished this book from its genre is that the author, Mark Bowden, really did some serious research and tried very hard to tell the story of everyone involved. The result reads more like a Tom Wolfe novel than the journalistic piece it started out as being.
One of the outstanding features of the account is that he never once resorts to trying to find a definitive scapegoat for the whole operation. Most writers on this sort of thing usually try to have a moral of the story -- either 'the generals' or 'the politicians' (depending on the political alignment of the writer) are too stupid to capitalize on the unit's valor. Bowden doesn't do that. He does pass on the opinions of some of the guys he interviews --some of his reporting of clash of cultures between delta and rangers was really interesting, but it doesn't descend into typical journalistic finger pointing.
Also, I disagree on the point someone raised about having inadequate intelligence. In military situations you are just not going to ever have perfect intelligence, but you have to accomplish the mission anyway. The enemy is always going to find some way to frustrate your plans and cause you pain -- that is why he's called 'the enemy'.
11096. amax - 10/20/2001 8:46:13 PM
My view of the ultimate causes of the failure of the Mog intervention is that it essentially sprung of two failures. One was a typical american belief that the world is divided into guys in white hats and guys in black hats, and if we take out the guys in black hats in any given situation then peace and justice will prevail. We essentially painted the strongest clan as the guys in black hats, and focused all of our military effort on trying to remove that clan. Two, once we committed to this strategy, we were essentially unwilling to take casualties. Once we did, we pulled out. It's not surprising from this and other incidents that guys like bL think that inflicting casualties on us is the easiest way to make us change our policy.
Incidentally, someone notified me that Black Hawk Down has been made into a movie: Here is a location for the trailer
Didn't think this action would have been made into a movie, myself. For starters, almost all of the ranger and delta units were white, fighting african troops and civilians. The visual impact of that in a movie would be disturbing to US audiences.
11097. jexster - 10/20/2001 9:17:57 PM
Is Islam a Religion of Peace? Imam Moron Sez "Yes"....
But our Warrior King says lots of things that don't make a helluva lot of sense!
11098. AuNaturel - 10/20/2001 9:26:24 PM
It will be an interesting movie if done correctly.
The final battle should look something akin to Custer's Last Stand except the Rangers didn't have a narcisistic egomaniac as a commander and the Somalis weren't nearly as good a combatants as Sitting Bull's troops were.
11099. amax - 10/20/