More News And Links On Yesterday's Terrorist Attack 1529
Ian Peon writes: "SF Gate has a short article on how the Internet "proved its mettle as a communications facilitator in a time of crisis." Kudos to all those who kept things running!"
An anonymous reader writes: "The who, what, and how are detailed in this Boston Herald story. The weapons were smuggled in the razor cases. And in order to get to the cockpit, they terrorized the stewardesses, killing a few in order to lure the pilot out. Once the pilot was out, they took control of the plane. They have identified a car driven by 5 arabs had flying instruction in arabic. The men have been traced back to different arab countries."
This WorldTribune.com story claims that Israeli intelligence reports favor the idea that the attacks may have had the backing of Saddam Hussein's Bagdhad government. According to a submission from UberOogie ,Osama bin Ladin denies involvement in the attacks. The claims, speculation and disclaimers will no doubt continue.
Connord D writes: "View the Survivor's Register Please, PLEASE go to the survivor registers, register that your looking for your family, tell your friends, pass the word around and identify those that have survived and those that are missing. Help worried families either confirm the fates of their loved ones so that they can mourn, or help them find those people that are missing." And Brian Mears, LAN Systems Operations Manager for Computer Sciences Corporation, writes: "I have created a forum on my website to allow families and friends of survivors to post messages and communicate with each other concerning this most tragic period." Here's the link: http://www.ntadmin.net/forum/.
It would be a godsend if the various survivor registries would pool their data, or if someone sets up a google-like search engine to reach all of them at once.
oo7 writes: "CNN has a stream of the first plane crash. If you'd like to download it you can from the videos section of this site; it has news updated as fast as I can and streams as fast as I can capture. Please forward any unknown news and links that you may have."
pKa writes: "The last image from WTCs 77th floor webcam is available on a few sites around the net. The original WCTA.org cam-site is dead, but available in Googles cache, where you can see the dark screen (camera already dead, most likely) at 09:52:52, 09/11/01 - just before the buildings crashed. Article (in norwegian) with screenshots available here" The stream of concern that yesterday's events will lead to an illiberal attitude toward privacy is growing into a torrent: vena writes: "CNN reported on television broadcast earlier today that the NSA was now going through volumes of recorded cellular calls for calls made by passengers on the planes. Clear admission."
GothChip writes: "Ananova are reporting that just hours after the terrorist attack on New York, the FBI started approaching ISPs asking for help in installing Carnivore."
mkelley writes: "This is only the beginning folks...looks like the internet is going to be blamed for this...Wired has a story that is sure to cause panic. This is going to be the goverment's way to push wiretapping into your email and web surfing. In this time of crisis, people in high places are going to use this to get their agenda through. "Blame the Internet" is going to be the rallying cry for everything ..." If you're interested in the details of the planes the terrorists chose, a Semi-Anonymous Coward writes: "American Airlines flight 77 confirmed down, crashed into the Pentagon, Washington DC. Flight 77 (Dulles to Los Angeles) is scheduled as a Boeing 757-200:
Boeing 757-200 data and history:
American Airlines Boeing 757-200 photos:
- American Airlines flight 11 confirmed down, crashed into World Trade Center New York. Flight 11 (Boston to Los Angeles) is scheduled as a Boeing 767-200:
- Boeing 767-200 data and history
- American Airlines Boeing 767-200 photos
- United Airlines Boeing 757-200 photos: United Airlines Boeing 757-200 photos"
Our Rights (Score:4, Insightful)
I am writing you to express my thanks for your sincere and thoughtful remarks on today's national tragedy. Like you, I offer my condolences to the families and friends of the victims of this horrific attack. I also write you on behalf of potential victims of a growing and unreasoned response to this travesty.
Interspersed with the reports on today's national tragedy, I have been hearing other news that is as disconcerting as the senseless loss of life. Namely, that Federal Law Enforcement Agency spokespersons are talking of limiting not only civil liberties of free passage, but veiled references to endorsing the curtailing of privacy-enabling technologies, all of which are cryptography-based.
It seems that those who truly care about freedom and all that it entails are being afforded no time to mourn this day's losses. I believe it no product of wild speculation to suggest that many policiticians and media pundits will once again renew their calls for limitations on public access to strong cryptography. These movements will be built on the graves of the dead in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. The claim will ultimately be made that if cryptography had not been so readily available, our intelligence agencies would have been able to detect and summarily thwart today's attack on the contintental United States.
Suffice it to say that I can no sooner embrace such notions than I can embrace the terrorists who brought this tragedy to our nation's shores. And anyone suggesting such a course of action should be met with resistance equal to that which you call on us to muster against the forces of terrorism.
The day we sacrifice our liberties in the name of "security" is the day that the terrorists' goals will have been achieved. To reiterate the wisdom of Benjamin Franklin, if we surrender our liberty in the name of security, we shall have neither.
It is unfortunate that it seemed necessary to compose this note less than twelve hours after this day's attack, but it is every citizen's duty to take every possible action to avert national disaster; especially one in the making.
Thank you for your valuable time. It is my hope that the perpetrators of this crime against the United States will be swiftly brought to justice. God bless America.
Re:My Speculation (Score:3, Insightful)
Chris
Should the missile shield be built? (Score:4, Insightful)
Although the attack was quite well organized, it probably didn't cost too much, and the shield wouldn't be useful against this kind of attacks.
Given the current situation of the middle east, this kind of things are much more probable than a missile attack from some distant country.
ESR is totally wacko (Score:3, Insightful)
The good side (Score:2, Insightful)
The discussions on Slashdot were atypically mature (at least at moderation level 3
We live in a period of extreme political cynicism/complacency, but yesterday reaffirmed my faith in the American people and our elected representatives. Probably everyone will revert to their non-noble selves once the shock has worn off, but I just wanted to say that it's cool, for a moment, to have old-skool solidarity with your neighbors in the face of a common enemy.
Peace,
Gonz
A different Perceptive -- Harry Browne (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/browne2.html
When Will We Learn?
by Harry Browne
September 12, 2001
The terrorist attacks against America comprise a horrible tragedy. But
they shouldn't be a surprise.
It is well known that in war, the first casualty is truth - that
during any war truth is forsaken for propaganda. But sanity was a
prior casualty: it was the loss of sanity that led to war in the first
place.
Our foreign policy has been insane for decades. It was only a matter
of time until Americans would have to suffer personally for it. It is
a terrible tragedy of life that the innocent so often have to suffer
for the sins of the guilty.
When will we learn that we can't allow our politicians to bully the
world without someone bullying back eventually?
President Bush has authorized continued bombing of innocent people in
Iraq. President Clinton bombed innocent people in the Sudan,
Afghanistan, Iraq, and Serbia. President Bush Senior invaded Iraq and
Panama. President Reagan bombed innocent people in Libya and invaded
Grenada. And on and on it goes.
Did we think the people who lost their families and friends and
property in all that destruction would love America for what happened?
When will we learn that violence always begets violence?
Teaching Lessons
Supposedly, Reagan bombed Libya to teach Muammar al-Qaddafi a lesson
about terrorism. But shortly thereafter a TWA plane was destroyed over
Scotland, and our government is convinced it was Libyans who did it.
When will we learn that "teaching someone a lesson" never teaches
anything but resentment - that it only inspires the recipient to
greater acts of defiance.
How many times on Tuesday did we hear someone describe the terrorist
attacks as "cowardly acts"? But as misguided and despicable as they
were, they were anything but cowardly. The people who committed them
knowingly gave their lives for whatever stupid beliefs they held.
But what about the American presidents who order bombings of innocent
people - while the presidents remain completely insulated from any
danger? What would you call their acts?
When will we learn that forsaking truth and reason in the heat of
battle almost always assures that we will lose the battle?
Losing our Last Freedoms
And now, as sure as night follows day, we will be told we must give up
more of our freedoms to avenge what never should have happened in the
first place.
When will we learn that it makes no sense to give up our freedoms in
the name of freedom?
What to Do
What should be done?
First of all, stop the hysteria. Stand back and ask how this could
have happened. Ask how a prosperous country isolated by two oceans
could have so embroiled itself in other people's business that someone
would want to do us harm. Even sitting in the middle of Europe,
Switzerland isn't beset by terrorist attacks, because the Swiss mind
their own business.
Second, resolve that we won't let our leaders use this occasion to
commit their own terrorist acts upon more innocent people, foreign and
domestic, that will inspire more terrorist attacks in the future.
Third, find a way, with enforceable constitutional limits, to prevent
our leaders from ever again provoking this kind of anger against
America.
Patriotism?
There are those who will say this article is unpatriotic and
un-American - that this is not a time to question our country or our
leaders.
When will we learn that without freedom and sanity, there is no reason
to be patriotic?
Harry Browne was the 2000 Libertarian presidential candidate. You can
read more of his articles at www.HarryBrowne.org, and his books are
available at www.HBBooks.com.
Re:speculation (Score:2, Insightful)
From what I understand, skyscrapers in general have become less and less desirable. If I recall correctly , the report I read a while back said it is a rare case that it makes sense for a building over 10 stories to be built nowadays.
But even if we say, "America needs to rebuild the towers as a show of strength" and if the insurance companies and government throw a whole ton of money at the project to rebuild, I still can't imagine it being a wise investment. After repeated terrorist attacks, what company would want to move in? Who would want to work in a building that people routinely try to level? It just doesn't seem to me that rebuilding will work, as much as it annoys me that we've lost these buildings to the terrorists.
Perfect Blue Sky (Score:5, Insightful)
Except for over New York City. The sky over Manhattan was obscured by thick, black smoke and dust from the remains of the World Trade Center. They did not share our sky, and we did not share theirs.
The rest of us Americans shared something else, too: television. We spent hours glued to our televisions, placing panicked phones calls every few minutes to friends and family, not to share mutually-known news, but to share the thick silence of horror. Every station broadcast the latest news, without interruption. They all used a common title: "Attack on America," sparing us the usual battle over which network's tragedy-moniker will stick.
By afternoon, many of those that had remained home to watch the news realized that they needed some face time, and headed to the streets for some human contact. Those that had spent the day at work had gotten very little done, finding themselves a part of impromptu television communities in neighboring offices. It was, of course, all that anybody talked about. Strangers gathered on street corners, nodding acquaintances traded news tips, people sobbed and prayed on the sidewalk.
All beneath that perfect blue sky. With every last airplane in the United States resting safely on the tarmac, not a single contrail scarred our endless collective ceiling.
The blood drives started by mid-afternoon, setting up cots in office parks, buses, and abandoned shopping malls. The turnout was so tremendous that crowds of people were turned away, asked to return the next day to give of their blood.
Then there were the American flags. Where happy orange pumpkins and brown ice cream cones had flapped in front of homes and businesses, now crisp new star-spangled banners hung. On Charlottesville's Downtown Mall, four girls bearing carnations walked down the street, offering bright yellow flowers to babies and businessmen, homeless women and waitresses. Nearly everybody in sight bore boutonnieres in their buttonholes, and it was impossible not to cry.
Late afternoon brought perhaps the most surreal event of the day. Congress assembled on the Capital steps and sang a verse of "God Bless America." Republicans, Democrats and Independents sang together, slightly off-key, unaccompanied by music. Under our great blue sky.
Re:Our Rights (Score:5, Insightful)
By John Keekan:
'KILL one, frighten a thousand" is the terrorist watchword. Yesterday, a terrorist organisation, or group of organisations, killed hundreds, perhaps thousands of people.
The atrocity will frighten not merely individuals, but whole populations and the states that rule them. It was a dark event in the history of human liberty. The most likely outcome is the imposition of measures to restrict freedom of movement and residence. Such measures will be ineffective in preventing a repetition of the disasters, but will be made all the same.
The introduction of identity cards, compulsorily to be carried at all times, is a probable response, even in countries where "police papers" are regarded as repugnant. Registration of residence is another, and notification of change of dwelling. Officially or spontaneously, surveillance networks will emerge, in order to enforce residence controls at the local level. There will be a huge increase in the amount of personal information entered into government computer databases, and a consonant increase in the numbers of personnel employed in internal population control.
Such measures will, in a comparatively short space of time, transform the atmosphere of social life in all countries with reason to fear this new style of terrorist attack. There will be a return to the mood of the Second World War, remembered popularly as a time of neighbourly closeness. It was also a time of snooping, informing, poison-pen letter writing and, of course, intense xenophobia.
It should not be forgotten that, in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, the immigrant Japanese population of the American West Coast, several hundred thousand in number, were deported from their homes and locked up in remote detention camps. The United States will not start locking up Muslims tomorrow - it has yet to be established that the perpetrators were Muslim - but, if an Islamic organisation is identified as responsible, life for Muslims inside the country will become socially difficult quite quickly and may be legally circumscribed soon after.
The advancing tide of human rights litigation will be thrown into reverse. Aliens protesting at refusal of admission or at detention once admitted or at expulsion will find that new laws, hastily enacted, have abolished the rights on which they and their lawyers expected to take their stand. The withdrawal of human rights provisions will be widely welcomed by the established population, which regards such laws as unfairly favouring incomers, social misfits and the undeserving.
The reaction may be sharpest among the young, who, traditionally more open in their dealings with strangers and foreigners than the middle-aged, also come into contact with them more closely and freely. Friendly campus life for Middle Easterners may soon be a thing of the past. An event of this dimension can arouse latent nationalist passions and hatreds very easily and, if it suddenly becomes fashionable to display a violent patriotism, as it may, the next generation or two may be entirely different from the casual, obsessively tolerant teenagers of the 1990s.
Meanwhile, whatever external military action the United States government decides to take will be warmly endorsed by old and young alike. The difficulty in the immediate aftermath is to identify a target and the possibility is that Washington will strike at almost any suspect - Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, perhaps all three - simply for the satisfaction inherent in retaliation. Another difficulty is that there are, after the internal and foreign wars of Iraq and Afghanistan, not many targets of value left in those countries, which made poor objectives for punishment in any case.
If Israel were, unprompted or nudged by Washington, now to decide to terminate the existence of the Palestinian Authority, destroy its structures and re-occupy the West Bank completely, those measures would be widely supported in America, just after a moment when it seemed that opinion in the United States was tiring of its traditional support for Israel and becoming ready to accept a further withdrawal and an abandonment of the most exposed settlements. One undoubted effect of the World Trade Centre disaster is to heighten the likelihood of war in the Middle East, which may indeed, in a perverse way, have been its planners' immediate desire.
There will, as an afterthought, be an even more immediate result of yesterday. Do not expect to be allowed to take hand baggage of any sort on flights to or within the United States. Expect delays of hours at check-in, invasive body searches, rejection of luggage and the presence in the seat next to you of an armed sky marshal, ready to shoot it out at 30,000 ft with anyone reckless enough of life to attempt a hijacking again.
Re:Cowards (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, that is the spirit, those dirty savages that cannot do anything but hate/kill/terrorize and are only worth maybe what half of an american, or less?
You sick bastard, hang your head in dehumanizing shame !!
Re:Get it right, W (Score:2, Insightful)
Afghanistan has been openly harbouring a known terrorist though, and while people worry about a US over-reaction, really the US has been INCREDIBLY restrained in the past couple of years: The USS Cole, the two US embassies, and the attempt to blow up some or all of the Las Angelas airport during the millenium celebrations. We have no idea what, if any, attacks have been thwarted by intelligence (which is the problem with them: The more successful they are the less they are appreciated).
Re:Cowards (Score:5, Insightful)
Rather, I suspect you're misinterpreting what is being said: be coldly rational and thorough. Identify the guilty and destroy them and, if at all possible, them alone.
This advice is given based on past hysteria:
- The panic after Pearl Harbour resulted in tens of thousands of innocent American and Canadian citizens being imprisoned in internment camps, and the loss of all their possessions. These weren't Japs that were mistreated: they were second- and third-generation Americans.
- The panic after the JFK assasination resulted in immediate finger-pointing against Cuba and Russia. It was a truly nasty time to have Cuban skin in the US.
- The panic after the Oklahoma bombing resulted in many American citizens being mistreated: there was plenty of bullying, name-calling, and threats. All because these citizens had Arab looks and skin.
The public's reaction to the WTC terrorist attack can -- and probably will -- turn just as ugly as before: there are people clamouring to kick out American citizens based on their religion ("Muslims out") and people calling for the complete destruction of the mid-East, even though the mid-East isn't a homogenous society and even though most of the citizens over there aren't guilty.
It's time for Sheriff Uncle Sam to get some fucking serious about destroying the terrorist groups and those who support them
*AND*
to get serious about figuring out why the USA is so thoroughly hated and then figuring out how to gain, if not friendly terms, neutral terms with other nations/cultures/peoples.
*Both* steps are needed to fix the problems. Neither one alone will work.
Re:Cowards (Score:3, Insightful)
Dissenting opinions equal cowardice? (Score:5, Insightful)
I live in Brooklyn NY, and I witnessed the second WTC tower fall yesterday from the sidewalk in front of my house. There is a Palestinian refrigeration supply store next door to my apartment. They were as upset about the attacks as you are. However, they also feared for their safety and elected to close there stores and go home for the day (as did all the stores in my neighborhood owned by Arabs).
My point is that if we are to do something, it should be a calculated helpful thing to people, not just the obligatory military response. I'm not saying that a military response is not justified I just thing that calmness (i.e. not calling people cowards that disagree with you) should be the order of the day.
Rudy Giuliani's speech urging restraint and togetherness was the right message.
Re:Over the top editorials (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree.
I was terribly saddened yesterday to hear the comments of former Secretary of State Eagleberger. He said that the only language terrorists like this understand is violence and so we must respond in kind. Further, he said that we may not know who has done this, but we do have a list of terrorist groups active in the world, and we should wage war on all of them, kill them, strike fear into their hearts.
And then came the really bad part. If we get some people who really aren't deserving, that's okay, it's that important.
If we sink that low, we'll be just as bad as those who attacked us.
Re:My Speculation (Score:2, Insightful)
Curtailing the liberties of the many for the transgressions of the few is more evil than flying airplanes into buildings.
If the NSA and the FBI need to read all email to catch criminals now, then how come they never needed to read all US mail before?
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin
Re:Over the top editorials (Score:2, Insightful)
Thank you, Slashdot... (Score:5, Insightful)
Taco's notions of journalism can sometimes be almost as shaky as his spelling, but I think he and Hemos both have an excellent sense of what to do with the tremendous platform they have and they showed it yesterday.
Three other random thoughts:
First, when I went to donate blood yesterday, I was very touched by the number of people who rushed to help, and in particular by all the foreign students there. (Japanese, especially.) We may all have our differences, but it's good to see that almost all of us are basically on the same side.
Second, and this is kind of out of nowhere, hopefully this incident will take some of the steam out of "anarchist" rioting. If you have honest objections to the IMF, World Bank, Starbucks or whatever, by all means protest, demonstrate, get arrested, but please start leaving it at that. The "black bloc" folks may think they're the ultimate badasses with their slingshots and gas masks, but yesterday should have made it clear that there's two kinds of people in the world and they're over here with us.
Finally, and I'm aiming this mostly at myself but encouraging others to join in -- yesterday brought home just how insane it is to get enraged over whether one should say Linux or GNU/Linux or what Craig Mundie said about Linux. The world needs free software, it needs fair use of information but it doesn't need more hate. Certainly not over software.
Re:Cowards (Score:5, Insightful)
No. They want terror. They want disruption. They want us to be so twisted by rage and fear that we can no longer function as a nation.
These are people who believe that America is an evil and terrible nation. I believe they are wrong. But if we go charging into the Middle East without a proper investigation, without being sure that we're going after the right man or group, we WILL be PROVING ourselves to be as bad as they claim.
I'm not saying we shouldn't react to this terrible offense. I'm saying we shouldn't lash out blindly at the first target to present itself.
Re:My Speculation (Score:1, Insightful)
Really, even monitoring every single communication on the world would not help. You can use steganography and communicate e.g. via eBay-bids. Every moderately experienced programmer could setup a system, to e.g. use a newsforum or even just TCP-timing-traffic to communicate undetactably.
You cannot prevent these attacks by military or intelligence force. It's an understandable wish but it simply doesn't work.
Re:Cowards (Score:3, Insightful)
Most people would consider the plight of the Afghani people to be terribly sad. I do not think bombing a bunch of civilians would improve matters much (for them).
Are you trolling with this extremely hawkish angle or are you being genuine? Just asking I will continue to respond if you assure me that this isn't a joke.
Re:speculation (Score:2, Insightful)
/. Pulls Through (Score:3, Insightful)
When ABC, CNN, and FoxNews were down Slashdot was there to disseminate mirrors, other official and unnoficial news sites (BBC, etc..), and countless valuable info. I know the servers were a little stressed, but overall I think this is a testament to the planning of the Slashdot site (network, servers, admins, VA Linux, etc..) and shows how the major news sites can learn a thing or two from us nerds
JOhn
Re:Iraq theory creditable (Score:2, Insightful)
True, but Bin Laden is a known terrorist. He has been guilty of several past crimes as well as being the major suspect in this one. Elimination of him is necessary. I also think they really should do, is throw out the Constitution for just an hour. Take the guys who are supposed to go on trial this week (it's this week right) for the '93 bombing of the WTC and hang them right in front of the WTC remains. Send a message out to all terroists that we ain't fscking around. That all crimes of terror will not go unpunished. Then explain to any country harboring potential terroists they will be considered enemies of the state. Also in case you didn't notice, a lot of countries and people already do hate us no matter our reaction / or counteraction will be.
Most of these countries have been trained to hate us through mass propaganda. Palestinians passing out candy in the streets? Afganis' shooting their guns in celebrations? Confetti being thrown? What's going to happen now is there is going to be an accordance, we will find out what countries are with us, and everyone else is basically against us, and if they get in the way of our slashing blade of swift justice, so be it.
One pissed of American.
By the way Israel, this is your chance to wipe out the Palestinians, no one here (probably anywhere) will care.
Re:Iraq theory creditable (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Cowards (Score:2, Insightful)
The freedom, prosperity and security that Americans have come to believe they are entitled to is built on the backs of the rest of the world. We are seen as bullies who care nothing for the plight of those who suffer at the hands of our government, our corporations and the tyrant regimes that we prop up to further our selfish interests.
Yes, the few criminals that perpetrated this crime need to be found and prosecuted. However, until we face up to our role in this world as a spectacle of self-absorbtion and arroganance in the face of poverty and suffering, we will always have enemies that are angry enough and desperate enough to lash out this way.
This talk about this being a strike against freedom and democracy is the real hogwash. This was a strike against the militarism, capitalism and globalism that have been allowed to supercede the ideals that this country was founded on.
We need to reach out to oppressed people and re-establish ourselves as defenders of freedom instead of defenders of capital. Ending the desperation from which these threats are born is the only way to prevent this from happening again.
Re:Cowards (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately it's that attitude on both sides that caused this mess. The American government regularly "kicks ass" all over the world and creates a lot of resentment among the poor people who suffer because of it.
Now some of those bitter angry people have found a way to strike back. They probably feel exactly the way you do - eager to "kick some ass".
I'm neither American nor Arabic, so I suppose I can't really understand the anger that these groups feel for each other, but I am sad at what looks like an escalation of needless killing. So now you want to bomb some more Arabs. More angry people will join terrorist organizations, and more Americans will be killed. So when does it end? Does one side have to be totally anihilated? That's crazy.
If the U.S. wants justice the answer is to support international organizations like the international court. Give them the mandate and the resources to pursue international criminals. Unfortunately the current administration is following the opposite policy: witholding money from the U.N., and refusing to support the international court. Sad, but that's what happens when you let cowboys into the Whitehouse.
Mass Sentator Kerry says: "Rebuild the Towers" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cowards (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think many people would argue with killing those responsible, just make sure you can identify who they are first.
However, if you think the bombing of civilians is going to fix anything, I don't know whether I am more impressed by your hypocracy or your stupidity.
As for saying it is foolish to try and "understand" the terrorists, have you ever heard the phrase "know your enemy" ?
While we're on the subject of "Cowards" every news story calls the terrorists' attacks "Cowardly". Does anyone else find this absurd ? They may be crazed fanatics, but facing certain death in order to further your cause is not how I understand the term. Advocating the use of long-range missiles on civilian center's on the other side of the world seems a little closer to my understanding of the word.
Since when was ignorance a point of view ?
Re:Cowards (Score:5, Insightful)
Civilians are civilians, and it does not matter where they live.
If you advocate or permit attacks against non-military targets, then there is very little difference between you and the terrorists.
Re:Suspects (Score:2, Insightful)
Given the degree of organization evident in the act, it seems very unlinkely to me that the terrorists would simply leave something like that in plain view. It seems quite possible to me (I am very cautious about using the word "likely") that whoever was responsible for this is doing their best to point us towards Bin Laden as the culprit here...
What really scares me about this is the fact that there could be a large well organized group out there that we've never heard of, and who are our enemies...
If there is an effort to implicate a Middle Eastern group in this, who did it? It seems that the objective of terrorism is to scare people into giving in... But by implicating another group what is the aim of whoever is behind this?
It seems like things may be a good deal more complicated than they have seemed earlier. If a Middle Eastern terrorist group isn't behind this, then WHO wants us to believe that one is? Is it as simple as the group wanting to avoid reprisals, or is it something more sinister... Some reason why they would want the U.S. to strike out at the Middle East again...
"This was an attack against freedom". (Score:1, Insightful)
Sure they are. Firefighters fight fire, what do you think freedomfighters fight?
Re:Get it right, W (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:My Speculation (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:US Imperialism and anti-US sentiments worldwide (Score:2, Insightful)
Perhaps the rest of the world perceives the US to only act internationally for its own interests. This would explain the "can't win" situation. In other words, if the US only intervenes internationally when it will protect US economic or other interests, then the "they don't care, damn imperialists!" attitude may be justified.
Think Afganistan, Kuwait, Sudan, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Central America and all the other self-serving and sometimes less-than-successful US actions internationally.
I, personally, am not anti-US, but I think many of you Americans are quite blind to the justice of your actions around the world, at times. Kudos to the many posters who argue reasonably and encourage us all to see the many sides to this issue.
Christopher
Re:Iraq theory creditable (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cowards (Score:2, Insightful)
Related to this, a coworker of mine was telling us about the talk he had with his young daughter last night. She felt that she was being persecuted already just because of her beliefs.
People on
I can't condone what has happened, but it was very effective in doing what it was intended to do - create terror.
Re:Cowards (Score:2, Insightful)
After the First World War the US, pulled back into it's shell and let France and the UK pummel a devistated Germany with reperations that lead to the Second World War, and during the Second World War we gave Free France, the UK, Soviets all the tools they needed to fight and survive. Like the 13.5 million pairs of boots the Soviets used to march into Germany on.
And after the war we rebuilt Europe and Asia. We gave money, training and arms to Afganistan so they could beat off the Soviets.
Instead of letting Europe fall into a hole of it's own making in 1945 the United States made it so they could rebuild...and what do we get in return? Insults and utter disrespect for our system of Government and the punishments that the American people wish to hand out to killers. While Germans, French and British killed millions of people in two World Wars, it's the Americans whom are barbarians for still executing murders. It's Americans that are called on to pull Europe out of the messes it makes (Bosnia, Kosovo). And for alot of people, when the United States rains fire or Special Forces troopers on the monsters that attacked America on 9/11/01...WE will be the bad guys again.
My Grandfather's Generation helped free Europe and Europe doesn't seem to care that America threw billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of men into freeing Europe. And now the Taliban forgets whom helped pull thier fat out of the Soviet fire.
Many in the UK remeber and stand by the US, as do many Israelis, Koreans and even the Vietnamese and Japanese respect America. But for some reason many, many other people's have either forgotten what American did for them...or are too prideful to admit it.
People that don't understand why America becomes isolationist...look at how you act after we save you. It's your fault that Americans would rather leave you alone than help you, because for the most part you'd bite the hand that helps you.
Re:Cowards (Score:3, Insightful)
What is going on in Israel is horrible, no doubt. Our support of Israel isn't synonymous with persecution of Palestinians, though it is convenient and tempting for some to make that connection. Those weapons may be used against Palestinians, but they were not supplied for that purpose -- they were supplied for the purpose of protecting Israel from other Middle Eastern countries.
We're idealistic fools to believe that we can actually introduce peace in an area of the world that is so fundamentally unstable. But that doesn't mean we deserve to have our country attacked by terrorists. America as a country for the last fifty or sixty years has been the equivalent of a man in his teens and twenties, bright-eyed, idealistic and convinced that he can make a difference. Smart, strong and eager to help, but sometimes wrong-headed and certainly inexperienced. I believe the events yesterday are going to be our coming of age and disillusionment. I hope that we will find the organization(s) responsible, destroy them utterly and then learn not to get involved in others' battles.
Honestly, I believe we should simply write the entire Middle East off as unsalvageable and withdraw any support or relations with countries in that area altogether. If they want to kill one another and extract revenge until there are no survivors, fine. It's a cultural, not religious, thing that no amount of intervention will solve. If it weren't for the fact that we're so damn dependant on oil from that region I suspect we would have washed our hands of it long ago.
I've gotten so sick of seeing so-called news about Israelis killing Palestinians or vice-versa. It's not news, it's the status quo. They don't want peace, they don't want to settle their differences. It's age-old hatred and humanity at its worst. It's sickening from both sides, neither side is righteous. I suspect that if there is a God in Heaven he will be harsh indeed on leaders of both factions for the atrocities that they have carried out in His name.
Helping the victims (Score:2, Insightful)
Please send this letter or something similar to your representatives in Congress. Email is largely ignored, so I recommend printing and mailing.
Encourage your family, friends, coworkers and neighbors to do the same. Billions of dollars will be needed to rebuild the damage. Donating money is a good deed, but the United States must use these billions that we now need, not send it to those who celebrated carnage and destruction.
does out-symbolizing terrorists make sense? (Score:3, Insightful)
The terrorists attacked WTC for two reasons, the first of which is that it was symbolic. The second reason is that it would cause massive loss of life.
Now, back some decades it apparently seemed important, for some reason, to build the tallest towers, etc. In fact, a similar argument was used to go to the moon. That's all well and good, but haven't we moved past that?
Malaysia is the latest nation to believe that having the tallest building somehow enhances its national prestige. Is the U.S. really so insecure that it feels it has to compete with nations like Malaysia on this basis? Or is it a case of needing to impress the primitive folk, both within and without our country?
Wouldn't it be better to focus our energies on protecting our borders, skies and buildings in a way that doesn't diminish the freedoms of the residents of the U.S.?
I'm not saying symbolism isn't important to the human psyche, but perhaps if we got past the "mine is bigger than yours" phase, it might change the nature of the battle for the better.
Re:My Speculation (Score:3, Insightful)
You make me sick.
You clearly have no understanding of the principals this country was founded on.
There are countries where the government watches over everyone, where nothing is private. I'd sugest you move to one of those places; maybe Iraq? Or Afghanistan?
If a terrorist act can get the American govt to take away it's citizens freedom, even "lesser freedoms", then the terrorists have been successfull.
Re:Iraq theory creditable (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Does it really matter if Bin Laden did it? (Score:2, Insightful)
Please don't get me wrong. I agree we should bomb the shit out of those responsible. If it's Bin Laden, draw and quarter the prick.
The problem is that there is resistance to the Taliban in Afghanistan. If we go and bomb everything, we will be most likely bombing innocent people in the process. Yes, I am aware everyone who died yesterday was innocent. And yes, my heart is in my throat as I write this. But we have to be selective and not start killing for the sake of killing.
If it is Bin Laden, then we should give Afghanastan an ultimatum: give him up or else. If they don't, then go in blazing. Not the other way around. But this time, follow through!
After this is over, we definitely need to review our foriegn policy vis a vis Israel. This is one of the biggest reasons innocent Americans are being targeted.
There are innocent Afghans who probably would like to see the Taliban gone as much as we would. My fear is that we end up killing those people as well.
-Fred
Re:Destination of PA plane? (Score:3, Insightful)
Stupid Question (Score:2, Insightful)
Terrible.
Re:Cowards (Score:2, Insightful)
You're missing the point!!! They're all terrorists! If we bomb the hell out of Osama Bin Laden's camps and he isn't responsible, is that wrong?
NO!!
Why? Because he already has ordered the deaths of Americans in other circumstance (e.g. the embassies in Africa and possibly the U.S.S. Cole, to name two examples) and he is probably training men as we speak to do it again. This man is a murderer. Why does ANYONE see anything wrong with making him pay for the things he's done?
Such quick round-up of information worries me (Score:3, Insightful)
Having people brought in so soon (either for questioning or as suspects) worries me a lot. These attacks show a very high degree of sophistication, and not just in their timing (as many news orginizations have bleeted out of late).
First, you have the fly-by-wire system, installed on all big commerical jets, which just plain won't let you fly the plane into a building. This system has to be disabled without completely destroying your ability to manuver. I have been told that there are very few people around who know how to do this. This person would either have to know which planes would be used for the job in advance and then disable those planes while they are sitting on the ground (while also getting around security on the ground and getting into the hanger, and also not doing so much damage that it would be picked up on preflight checks). Alternativly, the person to disable the system could be on the plane during flight, in which case he/she probably knew they were on a suicide mission. The list of people who can carry out such a job AND are willing to commit suicide must be very, very small.
Secondly, there is a matter of how to hit the WTC. Those buildings were designed to take an aircraft smashing into them, so just flying them into a random position isn't enough. What really made the towers collapse (so say the structural engineers) was the fires breaking out and weaking the steel supports at the top, thus forcing the bottom to take on more weight. To do this, you want a plane with lots of gas in it to cause a bigger fire. Indeed, the planes involved were going to the other end of the country, and would thus have lots of gas on board.
There are probably lots of other details I'm missing, but this is enough to show that these attacks are far more sophisticated then a lot of people know.
Now you want to tell me that these highly planned attacks became so sloppy in implementation that people are being rounded up the day after? Given, humans make mistakes (or maybe the FBI got lucky), but this still seems unlikely. This is what worries me. I think the FBI is starting a witch hunt and will arrest anyone, and the American public will back the entire thing.
How hard is this really? (Score:3, Insightful)
1) Terrorists with the ability to fly an airplane, a skill that can be readily obtained at any number of places given money to pay for it (and certainly Bin Laden has cash).
2) Knives. Knives are VERY easy to get onto a plane. I have more than once wondered why nobody questioned my bringing of a pocket knife, etc, on board. When I heard about what happened my first assumption was that it had been done with knives (not good for taking on counter-terrorists, but if you don't plan to ever land the plane they are very effective).
Now, given that, the actual hard part is setting up the terrorist cells to pull this off and plan the operation. It was probably executed by four seperate cells opeating independently but with a coordinated schedule. It's likely that each cell had NO IDEA that other planes were involved. Somebody centrally plans where to strike, which planes to take, and then just issues orders to the cells.
Don't get me wrong, Iraq is definitely on the top of a short list of suspects, but I don't think Bin Laden can be reasonably rules out given his history. At the same time, I agree that we shouldn't leap to conclusions.
Re:Suspects (Score:1, Insightful)
Source was http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&threadm=3B9
--------
People are shocked and they are reacting in each one's individual way.
What seems to be common with all is, that they find the cause and the
guilty one, in this case the 'terrorists'. If they find out who it
was, they will punish them or they will just use any of the various
suspicious groups which have shown before to be against the
'democratic system'.
An attack gives the right to use revenge. Right? The whole tradition
supports it, Christian or not. Every thing serves as a reason to
react, to strengthen one's own position. And the side effect is, that
every body involved (who is not involved in such a dramatic
happening?) will react and so feel one's own existence, making this
feeling stronger by putting out energy towards an 'enemy'. United with
others who are suffering, being justified by the obvious facts.
Reacting with violence to violence will produce a chain reaction,
which might even cause an uncontrolled world wide war. There is so
much accumulated aggression every where, waiting under the surface to
explode... Who wants to be a victim of a world wide explosion? Is this
real action because it allows to have real reactions? What has
happened is the same we can see every day in all these action movies,
we were consuming since quite some time and which were lately more and
more boring in spite of the more and more spectacular actions. In
horror movies there are always the bad ones, so every thing is clear.
Nobody needs to engage themselves and so it becomes boring after a
while. Are we engaged now in the real happening seeing it in TV? It is
so easy to give the fault to someone: To the terrorists, to the
government or whatever. But who asks for the cause?
It is said that the attack goes against the system. That's obvious and
it doesn't really matter from where the attack comes. Doesn't it make
sense to ask 'why' this happens? Isn't the fact that there exists an
established system (which maybe is not open for growing beyond the
established limitations), that this produces and causes resistance
from inside the system? And when this resistance is suppressed and the
system reacts also to the outside and other different systems in a
defensive way, that this inflexibility causes violent reactions?
Wasn't there 2000 years ago a kind of hippy, a guy who tried to tell
people that the old way of reacting with violence to violence wouldn't
be the right way? (He was even talking about 'love', what seems to be
far out of daily reality...) This obviously was against the
established system, which then reacted in a defensive way by
eliminating this attack. Isn't it still the same today? Who is
reflecting about what is happening?
Can we do something about it, which is not violent but would make a
difference? Or is it all, feeling as a victim, suffering and finding
the cause outside?
Probably it is too much to ask that each of us should look inside. To
discover that the outside happening is just an accumulated reaction of
the same what happens (daily!) within each of us. We are holding on to
what we believe we are: To our belief system, our property, to all
what we have established in the long years of our individual life.
What we defend by reacting to all influences coming from outside. Each
of us in one's own way and also if necessary (?) with violence.
Who wants to reflect about it? Who wants to talk about it? Who wants
to use this forum in a creative way with the risk to show oneself
admitting that we are all vulnerable...? etc. etc.
InkyPinkie
---------
Re:ESR is totally wacko (Score:3, Insightful)
Rather than things like this, and conspiring about personal agendas, could you give a legitimate argument against his piece? It's not very unreasonable at all.
Here's my take on his view in short:
Government restricts personal liberties of citizens for our "protection". Good citizens abide. Bad citizens bypass/ignore restrictions, leaving good citizens defenseless. Something is very wrong here, and ESR suggests that perhaps the restrictions shouldn't exist. Yesterday's incident is evidence of this scenario.
This is NOT saying "everyone should carry a gun".
Why didn't the passengers resist (Score:3, Insightful)
I really hope that Americans tried to do something...
Re:Iraq theory creditable (Score:4, Insightful)
I somewhat agree. Training to fly the plane is a lot easier if you don't care about safety regulations and don't care about learning to land or take off. But it's not that easy.
Big planes have *lots* of momentum. Any change in altitude or direction has to be planned long in advance. Turns also have to be smooth. The roll-rate of a jumbo-jet isn't all that great.
The one part of this that really indicates training to me is the navigation. The planes that hit the World Trade Center took off from Boston headed for California. Sometime in the flight they successfully found the right bearing to NYC, then found the world trade centre buildings in NYC. Even though they're a prominent landmark in Manhattan, finding Manhattan itself would require some real navigation skills.
Understand the feeling, but no... (Score:2, Insightful)
Your rage is clouding your judgement (Score:3, Insightful)
Rather than go into a blind rage of fury, we need to look long and hard at how the rest of the world views our policies and talk about whether the risk those policies create offsets the benefits. We may very well find that the lives lost in NYC yesterday are the price we pay for cheap gas. After all, oil is the only reason we give a damn about the middle east. I know I'm being overly simplistic, but the reality is that our actions have consequences. We need to be willing to talk openly and honestly about these things. Letting the rage of the moment cloud our judgement in this time of crisis is the worst thing we can do.
What would ground support be good for? (Score:3, Insightful)
People have sited the close timing of the attacks, but that would only take an afternoon with a set of flight schedules. Getting groups of people on a set of planes at the same time is the sort of thing that anyone planning, say, a family reunion can pull off, and get on one of the planes themselves.
The weapons seem to have been small blades attached to plastic handles. These are neither hard to come by, nor hard to get in sufficient quantity, nor hard to get by security (someone clean-shaven who doesn't want to check luggage?), nor hard to assemble.
The hard part really would be getting a group of people who could fight effectively with knives and could frighten people into obeying with some people who could fly airliners, who were willing to die intentionally, without tipping off any intelligence agencies; but if the group has formed, there's no need for more people left behind (aside, perhaps, from a spiritual leader; but the leader doesn't need to have any idea what's going on).
Probably the hardest thing would be thinking of the attack in the first place-- noticing that it would be easy to take control of an airplane, and that an airplane would make a very effective weapon. But again, there's no reason that the person who realized this couldn't have been one of the people who went along.
We will probably find out that the terrorists had families and friends, and that some of these had some idea about the plans, because even determined terrorists can't always keep a secret. But, for instance, bin Laden probably actually didn't know what the plans were, or exactly who was involved, even if the terrorists turn out to be from his group, precisely because he wouldn't want to be vital as a living person to the success of this and other acts; he'd want to be able to say that the reason it worked was simply because there are people who are both clever and sufficiently angry at the US, and that, as long as the US behaves badly, this is certain to happen every once in a while, even without any obvious leaders.
A message from a Canadian to all Americans... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm going to write something now that is so thoroughly and utterly Canadian in sentiment, although I'm sure it's a view shared by many other countries and individuals the world over. The United States is like our big brother. That is meant in the most fraternal of ways. It is a role Canada, and many other countries, willingly accept. The analogy is accurate in a number of ways. As the economically and culturally larger, more physically powerful sibling, you sometimes flaunt your power and tease your smaller brethren. But when one of us falls and skins our proverbial knee, you are always first to arrive on the scene, to make sure that everyone is ok, and safe. In return for the safety and protection you provide, we make you laugh, we sing and dance, and make arts and crafts of every kind for your amusement. We do some extra chores for you when the need arises, and we even put up with your teasing. We do this gladly, usually, for the benefit of letting you have your way most of the time, is the ability to fall asleep every night knowing that things aren't going to be so bad tomorrow, because somewhere out there our big brother is looking out for us.
And the best thing is you really seem to relish the situation. America and it's citizens, although as equally capable of being evil and misguided as any population on the planet, inarguably live in the freest and most progressive society in the world. Although other countries all over the earth have certain benefits and advantages over the U.S, when taken as a whole, America is without peer in so many more ways. Have no doubt, you can be cruel sometimes, but you always seem to make up for it in the long run, and certainly you've contributed the most to our home, this beautiful and singular planet we share, and that definitely entitles you to some concessions.
We hate to admit it, and will only do so under a firm twisting of our arm, to make us say uncle as it were, but we do look up to you and we think you're pretty great. Our big brother has done great things; you're the strongest, fastest, smartest, kindest, most noble and good big brother... a little brother or sister could ever ask for. And now you're hurt, someone sucker-punched you when you weren't looking, in your own backyard no less. We are all in shock; we are all hurt, by seeing our protective and kind sibling get rocked back a little bit. Someone snuck up on you from behind and gave you a black eye, and I know I speak for a lot of people around the world, all your loyal brother and sisters, when I say we can't wait to see you get back up again. We can't wait to see you rise to your feet, shake the dust off, and accept our hugs and affection as we try to reassure you that we're right here to offer any help you need. We can't wait to see you gather yourself, re-affirm your bearing, and then go get the guys that did this too you. We can't wait to see you catch up with the bad guys, and wipe them off the face of the earth, once and for all.
We know you'll take your time. We know you're going to make sure you have the right people before you act. We know you'll do your best to protect the innocent as you exact your completely justified revenge. We know you're going to get them this time, no matter what it takes. And we are so happy to know that soon our home, our global neighborhood, will be a whole lot safer for all of us. We are so proud to be your siblings, America. We may argue sometimes, but it's nothing serious... not like this. You really are the best, and we are so grateful for all you've ever done. We couldn't ask for a better friend and brother. Go get them. We've got your back. Peace to each and every one of you.
Re:ESR is totally wacko (Score:5, Insightful)
For crying out loud, the terrorists apparently took over the plane with -knives-. I'm guessing ceramic ones, so they could slip past the metal detectors. How in the world a plane full of 50-90 people were unable (or unwilling) to confront 3-5 "armed" people is beyond me. To me this is just evidence that the average American citizen is now nothing more than a fattened coward who thinks freeom and peace come without any work. That's the government's job, right?
I am getting absolutely sick of people being called crazy for having firearms and ammunition "just in case.". You may think ESR is nuts for wanting armed citizens on planes, I think everybody else is nuts for NOT wanting them. The founding fathers would probably shit a brick to find out that 90 citizens weren't able to overpower a team of 5 because none of the law abiding people had any sort of weapon on them -- even more appauled that they could pull it off with knives. I'm standing here today not under British rule (not that I think Britians are bad) because armed citizens revolted against a tyranical government.
People often spout off silly examples of one lunatic pulling out their gun and dropping a few people just because they're pissed off. Give me a freaking break. Do you -really- think somebody is going to pull out a gun for some silly-assed reason when it's encouraged for the average citizen to carry a gun? I really doubt it, unless they're criminally insane and have a death wish. Remember the shooting in a NYC subway a few years ago when some loon hopped on board with a semi-automatic handgun and rattled off 30 shots? Lets do some math here:
If memory serves he was using some type of 9mm pistol with 15 round clips. Lets say this guy really knew his stuff and could rattle off a shot every
So, allow passengers to carry? Nope, ban anything that holds more than 10 rounds. Honestly, what kind of logic is this? Granted, you can still buy guns which hold more than 10 rounds, and you can buy the clips too; but only used clips. Now what used to cost 20 dollars for a piece of metal and plastic can run you anywhere from 50-150 depending on the type of gun you're looking for.
There's outrage that gas prices were jacked up when people paniced and began filling up their tanks "just in case." At the same time, K-mart pulls it's firearms and ammunition off the shelves to look like a good guy. Good guy my ass. If somebody had turned off the gas at their gas station for fear of somebody building a bomb we'd consider the gas station owner crazy. K-mart pulls their guns and nobody seems to really give a rat's behind. The country is under attack and you intentionally keep people from buying arms and ammunition? Re-read that sentence again -- let it sink in. I will never set foot in K-mart again; and I do intend on writing a nice calm letter to their head office when this is all said and done.
Given that the nation has received the ugly end of an act of War I would consider ESR's piece right on topic, not "hardly appropriate". Yes, there was a tragedy yesterday. Yes, perhaps ESR is taking this opportunity to point of why he thinks his view is right, but I don't consider his opinion any less valid than discussion of any other anti-terrorism measures the government is thinking about taking. The rules of engagement have changed. Citizens are being treated as if they're military soldiers -- so act like it. Don't own a guy? Buy one, learn how to use it. Go grab a few hundred rounds of ammo and put them in your closet. If you can in your state, carry it wherever you feel comfortable carrying a weapon.
Re:A different Perceptive -- Harry Browne (Score:2, Insightful)
An eye for an eye leaves the world blind. There should be a response to this latest tragedy. If the right response is to send in the Seals to grab Bin Laden, or just to build a higher WTC and send the bastards a message that they cannot win, it should be chosen because it's right, not because it's popular.
Re:Donate money to the red cross (Score:1, Insightful)
(For those of you that dont understand irony: you are probably a girl or a child)
Re:Should the missile shield be built? (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually it's more like putting bullet-proof glass in every car in the US. It would be hugely expensive, increasing the cost of the average car by thousands of dollars. For the average family, it might never be useful. And it is pretty much pointless if people are always dying in car crashes instead.
For a better analogy look at the Maginot Line in France. At the time it was a "high tech" defence against invasion by the German army, it took years to build and cost a lot of money. When the Germans invaded France, they simply went around it. The line was never taken by force, but that didn't matter much because by the time the French surrendered it, it was meaningless.
All a defence like the Maginot Line or a Star Wars missile shield will do is force an attacker to change attack plans. That in itself has some value, but it could probably be accomplished for less than $100 billion dollars.
For more info on the Maginot Line (and other comparisons to the Star Wars plans) search on Google.
Re:Cowards (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, we go to more lengths than anyone to avoid hitting poor people while still actually doing something about predatory governments such as Serbia's previously. Yes, sometimes civilians get harmed in these attacks, but it is the exception now more than the rule.
Most of the people rebelling against America's involvement overseas are not poor. Bin Laden is a multi-millionaire, as is Saddam, as is Khaddafi. Quite frankly, they are upset that our policies undermine their anti-human and anti-democratic regimes.
The UN court is a nice idea, but it is useless without enforcement. Right now, the only truly effective enforcement is through the US and its allies.
But let's be realistic, even if we were as nice and amoral in our international dealings as Sweden, it would continue to happen to us. We're the biggest, and the symbol of power that those who covet power wish to hurt to make themselves feel better. Fundamentally, that is what it is all about.
Clouded judgement (Score:4, Insightful)
It is now two years since this latest European war began. From that day in September, 1939, until the present moment, there has been an over-increasing effort to force the United States into the conflict.
That effort has been carried on by foreign interests, and by a small minority of our own people; but it has been so successful that, today, our country stands on the verge of war.
At this time, as the war is about to enter its third winter, it seems appropriate to review the circumstances that have led us to our present position. Why are we on the verge of war? Was it necessary for us to become so deeply involved? Who is responsible for changing our national policy from one of neutrality and independence to one of entanglement in European affairs?
Personally, I believe there is no better argument against our intervention than a study of the causes and developments of the present war. I have often said that if the true facts and issues were placed before the American people, there would be no danger of our involvement.
Here, I would like to point out to you a fundamental difference between the groups who advocate foreign war, and those who believe in an independent destiny for America.
If you will look back over the record, you will find that those of us who oppose intervention have constantly tried to clarify facts and issues; while the interventionists have tried to hide facts and confuse issues.
We ask you to read what we said last month, last year, and even before the war began. Our record is open and clear, and we are proud of it.
We have not led you on by subterfuge and propaganda. We have not resorted to steps short of anything, in order to take the American people where they did not want to go.
What we said before the elections, we say [illegible] and again, and again today. And we will not tell you tomorrow that it was just campaign oratory. Have you ever heard an interventionist, or a British agent, or a member of the administration in Washington ask you to go back and study a record of what they have said since the war started? Are their self-styled defenders of democracy willing to put the issue of war to a vote of our people? Do you find these crusaders for foreign freedom of speech, or the removal of censorship here in our own country?
The subterfuge and propaganda that exists in our country is obvious on every side. Tonight, I shall try to pierce through a portion of it, to the naked facts which lie beneath.
When this war started in Europe, it was clear that the American people were solidly opposed to entering it. Why shouldn't we be? We had the best defensive position in the world; we had a tradition of independence from Europe; and the one time we did take part in a European war left European problems unsolved, and debts to America unpaid.
National polls showed that when England and France declared war on Germany, in 1939, less than 10 percent of our population favored a similar course for America. But there were various groups of people, here and abroad, whose interests and beliefs necessitated the involvement of the United States in the war. I shall point out some of these groups tonight, and outline their methods of procedure. In doing this, I must speak with the utmost frankness, for in order to counteract their efforts, we must know exactly who they are.
The three most important groups who have been pressing this country toward war are the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt administration.
Behind these groups, but of lesser importance, are a number of capitalists, Anglophiles, and intellectuals who believe that the future of mankind depends upon the domination of the British empire. Add to these the Communistic groups who were opposed to intervention until a few weeks ago, and I believe I have named the major war agitators in this country.
I am speaking here only of war agitators, not of those sincere but misguided men and women who, confused by misinformation and frightened by propaganda, follow the lead of the war agitators.
As I have said, these war agitators comprise only a small minority of our people; but they control a tremendous influence. Against the determination of the American people to stay out of war, they have marshaled the power of their propaganda, their money, their patronage.
Let us consider these groups, one at a time.
First, the British: It is obvious and perfectly understandable that Great Britain wants the United States in the war on her side. England is now in a desperate position. Her population is not large enough and her armies are not strong enough to invade the continent of Europe and win the war she declared against Germany.
Her geographical position is such that she cannot win the war by the use of aviation alone, regardless of how many planes we send her. Even if America entered the war, it is improbable that the Allied armies could invade Europe and overwhelm the Axis powers. But one thing is certain. If England can draw this country into the war, she can shift to our shoulders a large portion of the responsibility for waging it and for paying its cost.
As you all know, we were left with the debts of the last European war; and unless we are more cautious in the future than we have been in the past, we will be left with the debts of the present case. If it were not for her hope that she can make us responsible for the war financially, as well as militarily, I believe England would have negotiated a peace in Europe many months ago, and be better off for doing so.
England has devoted, and will continue to devote every effort to get us into the war. We know that she spent huge sums of money in this country during the last war in order to involve us. Englishmen have written books about the cleverness of its use.
We know that England is spending great sums of money for propaganda in America during the present war. If we were Englishmen, we would do the same. But our interest is first in America; and as Americans, it is essential for us to realize the effort that British interests are making to draw us into their war.
The second major group I mentioned is the Jewish.
It is not difficult to understand why Jewish people desire the overthrow of Nazi Germany. The persecution they suffered in Germany would be sufficient to make bitter enemies of any race.
No person with a sense of the dignity of mankind can condone the persecution of the Jewish race in Germany. But no person of honesty and vision can look on their pro-war policy here today without seeing the dangers involved in such a policy both for us and for them. Instead of agitating for war, the Jewish groups in this country should be opposing it in every possible way for they will be among the first to feel its consequences.
Tolerance is a virtue that depends upon peace and strength. History shows that it cannot survive war and devastations. A few far-sighted Jewish people realize this and stand opposed to intervention. But the majority still do not.
Their greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio and our government.
I am not attacking either the Jewish or the British people. Both races, I admire. But I am saying that the leaders of both the British and the Jewish races, for reasons which are as understandable from their viewpoint as they are inadvisable from ours, for reasons which are not American, wish to involve us in the war.
We cannot blame them for looking out for what they believe to be their own interests, but we also must look out for ours. We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples to lead our country to destruction.
The Roosevelt administration is the third powerful group which has been carrying this country toward war. Its members have used the war emergency to obtain a third presidential term for the first time in American history. They have used the war to add unlimited billions to a debt which was already the highest we have ever known. And they have just used the war to justify the restriction of congressional power, and the assumption of dictatorial procedures on the part of the president and his appointees.
The power of the Roosevelt administration depends upon the maintenance of a wartime emergency. The prestige of the Roosevelt administration depends upon the success of Great Britain to whom the president attached his political future at a time when most people thought that England and France would easily win the war. The danger of the Roosevelt administration lies in its subterfuge. While its members have promised us peace, they have led us to war heedless of the platform upon which they were elected.
In selecting these three groups as the major agitators for war, I have included only those whose support is essential to the war party. If any one of these groups--the British, the Jewish, or the administration--stops agitating for war, I believe there will be little danger of our involvement.
I do not believe that any two of them are powerful enough to carry this country to war without the support of the third. And to these three, as I have said, all other war groups are of secondary importance.
When hostilities commenced in Europe, in 1939, it was realized by these groups that the American people had no intention of entering the war. They knew it would be worse than useless to ask us for a declaration of war at that time. But they believed that this country could be entered into the war in very much the same way we were entered into the last one.
They planned: first, to prepare the United States for foreign war under the guise of American defense; second, to involve us in the war, step by step, without our realization; third, to create a series of incidents which would force us into the actual conflict. These plans were of course, to be covered and assisted by the full power of their propaganda.
Our theaters soon became filled with plays portraying the glory of war. Newsreels lost all semblance of objectivity. Newspapers and magazines began to lose advertising if they carried anti-war articles. A smear campaign was instituted against individuals who opposed intervention. The terms "fifth columnist," "traitor," "Nazi," "anti-Semitic" were thrown ceaselessly at any one who dared to suggest that it was not to the best interests of the United States to enter the war. Men lost their jobs if they were frankly anti-war. Many others dared no longer speak.
Before long, lecture halls that were open to the advocates of war were closed to speakers who opposed it. A fear campaign was inaugurated. We were told that aviation, which has held the British fleet off the continent of Europe, made America more vulnerable than ever before to invasion. Propaganda was in full swing.
There was no difficulty in obtaining billions of dollars for arms under the guise of defending America. Our people stood united on a program of defense. Congress passed appropriation after appropriation for guns and planes and battleships, with the approval of the overwhelming majority of our citizens. That a large portion of these appropriations was to be used to build arms for Europe, we did not learn until later. That was another step.
To use a specific example; in 1939, we were told that we should increase our air corps to a total of 5,000 planes. Congress passed the necessary legislation. A few months later, the administration told us that the United States should have at least 50,000 planes for our national safety. But almost as fast as fighting planes were turned out from our factories, they were sent abroad, although our own air corps was in the utmost need of new equipment; so that today, two years after the start of war, the American army has a few hundred thoroughly modern bombers and fighters--less in fact, than Germany is able to produce in a single month.
Ever since its inception, our arms program has been laid out for the purpose of carrying on the war in Europe, far more than for the purpose of building an adequate defense for America.
Now at the same time we were being prepared for a foreign war, it was necessary, as I have said, to involve us in the war. This was accomplished under that now famous phrase "steps short of war."
England and France would win if the United States would only repeal its arms embargo and sell munitions for cash, we were told. And then [illegible] began, a refrain that marked every step we took toward war for many months--"the best way to defend America and keep out of war." we were told, was "by aiding the Allies."
First, we agreed to sell arms to Europe; next, we agreed to loan arms to Europe; then we agreed to patrol the ocean for Europe; then we occupied a European island in the war zone. Now, we have reached the verge of war.
The war groups have succeeded in the first two of their three major steps into war. The greatest armament program in our history is under way.
We have become involved in the war from practically every standpoint except actual shooting. Only the creation of sufficient "incidents" yet remains; and you see the first of these already taking place, according to plan [ill.]-- a plan that was never laid before the American people for their approval.
Men and women of Iowa; only one thing holds this country from war today. That is the rising opposition of the American people. Our system of democracy and representative government is on test today as it has never been before. We are on the verge of a war in which the only victor would be chaos and prostration.
We are on the verge of a war for which we are still unprepared, and for which no one has offered a feasible plan for victory--a war which cannot be won without sending our soldiers across the ocean to force a landing on a hostile coast against armies stronger than our own.
We are on the verge of war, but it is not yet too late to stay out. It is not too late to show that no amount of money, or propaganda, or patronage can force a free and independent people into war against its will. It is not yet too late to retrieve and to maintain the independent American destiny that our forefathers established in this new world.
The entire future rests upon our shoulders. It depends upon our action, our courage, and our intelligence. If you oppose our intervention in the war, now is the time to make your voice heard.
Help us to organize these meetings; and write to your representatives in Washington. I tell you that the last stronghold of democracy and representative government in this country is in our house of representatives and our senate.
There, we can still make our will known. And if we, the American people, do that, independence and freedom will continue to live among us, and there will be no foreign war.
Re:Brilliant! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It's time for some religious INtolerance (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm a citizen of both the US and Canada, and I draw a different conclusion here. If you asked around the world today and said "what country thinks they are the supreme country and their president is the most powerful man in the world", most people would point to the US. If you asked "which country treats the population of the rest of the world like mongrel scum and commits horrendous atrocities on those people", many people would point to the US.
Maybe this will finally wake the people of the US up to the fact that even the most friendly neighbors (Canada and Mexico) are often pissed off at the way the US treats the rest of the world. "The American Way" is not the only way, and isn't the same as "the right way".
Even the fact that you suggest that somehow the US might have the option of enforcing it's views on which religions are "A-OK" and which are "unamerican" shows the kind of arrogance the rest of the world can't stand.
The destruction of the WTC and the Pentagon were horrible tragedies, but they were the direct result of the US pushing the rest of the world around with its monetary and military might.
Instead of asking "who can we kill to avenge this?", maybe you should ask "why would someone hate us enough to do this?"
Bye bye Karma, but this rant was necessary.
Re:It's unfortunate... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Cowards (Score:3, Insightful)
Cowardice is to be afraid to act. Violence is preferable to cowardice, but it requires much more bravery to remain non-violent in the face of violence. (Gandhi said that.)
Slaughtering innocents in Afghanistan, Palestine or Iraq is no better than slaughtering innocents in New York, nor is it justified by what happened yesterday.
The US should respond, but not with indiscriminate violence. It's too easy for us to be deluded by racist undercurrents and nationalistic propaganda that seeks to restore America's tough image instead of her ideals of freedom and justice.
Those who advise caution want to make sure that the situation does not happen again. We want to make sure that justice is served on the correct parties, not on a scapegoat. We want to ensure that we don't spark fear and hatred in the nations who were not responsible for yesterday's attacks.
If we act in a heavy-handed and indiscriminate manner we will only make more enemies and provoke more attacks. We don't care about angering the terrorists who are responsible for yesterday, we just don't want to create more terrorists by overreacting. By all means prevent those who are responsible for yesterday's attacks from ever doing it again, but let's not strike out prematurely and blindly.
Do not confuse vengeance with justice. Vengeance heals wounded pride but causes more problems. Justice heals wounded spirits and prevents more problems.
As an American, i believe that we must show that we can be strong without being tyrannical to other nations. We must show other countries that we will defend our citizens but we will not indiscriminately harm theirs.
Grown-ups know that an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth leaves us all blind and toothless. (Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi said that.)
Let's take care of our wounded and grieving first and defend ourselves from a repeat as well. When we know who is responsible then we can talk about what to do about it.
Re:Cowards (Score:3, Insightful)
Good idea. Now let's blow up Timothy McVeigh's country too.
Re:Our Sentate -- Clouded In Talks of Revenge (Score:3, Insightful)
Sound like our terriorists, hunh? What happens if we actually *made* those terrorists with our own actions? What do we have to say for ourselves?
If the above happened, then we screwed up, big time. And we must learn from this.
I say now is not the time for comdemnation, but a time for reflection. Let us not judge those less we walk in their shoes and drink from their cup. Let us not restrict the freedoms of others less we loose our democracy. Let us follow the doctrine of the second testiment, the god of compassion.
I am a Catholic, and I believe in compassion. That is why I feel we need to destroy those responsible.
I do not ask for vengeance; that's not my call. I ask for whatever action is necessary to prevent this from happening again. Thus we show compassion for the next round of terrorism victims. If you can come up with a more effective way than rendering those responsible incapable of repeating their crimes, I ask you to speak up now.
It's like police. You can sit there, and explain how the Man has beaten you down, how the government has made you into the menace you are. The cop doesn't care, because he does care about the civilians he is protecting. And whatever you say, all he wants is for you to drop the gun. Now.
To some people, this is about vengeance and judgement. To me, this is about prevention. Protecting our civilians is what our military is for. To say that we shouldn't counter is to say that we should never have responded to Japan back in the forties, it is to say that we should let these people walk all over us.
People will die. Innocent people will die. I will gladly kill a hundred to save thousands. That is Christian calculus.
Re:US Imperialism and anti-US sentiments worldwide (Score:2, Insightful)
Unfortunately, the assumption that killing anyone, including terrorists, is the true naivety. Terrorism is the symptom. The disease is the desperation that much of the world endures while being steamrolled under our economic imperialism (what you call 'economic expansion'). The cure, is to reach out and re-build our reputation as protectors of liberty rather than protectors of our own god-given right to gorge ourselves on junk food while the rest of the world starves.
Re:Cowards (Score:3, Insightful)
That's largely a matter of perception. I think it's more accurate to say that the U.S. fights those who are perceived as a threat its interests. Often they're "bad guys", sometimes they aren't. On the other hand the U.S. often supports bad guys.
I'm not likening anything to anything and I'm not condoning either. I'm saying that that the motivations are similar. The U.S. uses aircraft carriers and hits military targets because it has the ability to do so. Terrorists hijack planes because it works. I didn't say it was right.
I have no beef with Americans. I've been to New York and I love the city. It's horrible to think what's going on there. Yet somehow you've managed to elect some pretty awful leaders. I didn't say the U.S. should give me (or "us") money - I wouldn't see any of it. I said that if you want to see a proper peace you should contribute to an effective international court instead of trying to police the world unilaterally. If you don't want peace then that's really sad. It means wonderful cities like New York are going to keep being hit.
A cheap ad hominum argument might be that (Score:1, Insightful)
CIA trained, not Russian trained (Score:3, Insightful)
We made him, now it's time to recall him.
Words of wisdom for dark times. (Score:2, Insightful)
~ Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.