Here's a military presence.
Curfew and martial law are a tad different.
20029. AceofSpades - 9/11/2001 3:50:02 PM
Kill them all. All of them.
20030. Jenerator - 9/11/2001 3:50:25 PM
Message # 20022
I agree Indiana. I have four commercial pilots in my family, and I've had flying lessons, too. Flying a commercial airline, especially a Boeing 767, isn't "easy". After the last lesson I had, I sat in the cockpit with my great uncle, from Seattle to Dallas. The dials, switches, controls, and pattern of the interior was completely different than that of a cessna.
I think that these terrorists could fly commercial jets because they were trained pilots.
20031. LimeGirl - 9/11/2001 3:50:27 PM
I'm sure they had their own pilots, although the flight sims are so good these days, they could have done much of their training on those -- you can even choose your cockpit on them, so they could have been very familiar with it without a lot of actual practice.
Martial law doesn't seem like a good idea. It feels important that we attempt to stand strong, not become overly paranoid. It disturbs me to see how many things are closed today, I can't tell if they're closed as a day of mourning kind of thing, or if it's fear that's propelling them to all close. I can understand the first, if it's the second, I'm bothered.
20032. thoughtful - 9/11/2001 3:50:58 PM
When we find out who did this.....
anyone remember how to hang, draw and quarter someone?
20033. concerned - 9/11/2001 3:51:56 PM
Re. 20024 -
David Koresh could in no way have been considered a terrorist, of course.
20034. Indiana Jones - 9/11/2001 3:52:41 PM
Whoa! There's Ace.
Even some of the liberals were worried about you, old shoe.
20035. PelleNilsson - 9/11/2001 3:53:14 PM
From what I hear beteween lines from Swedish officials (including the Prime Minister) it is clear that a big international intelligence gathering operation is underway.
20036. ronski - 9/11/2001 3:53:17 PM
No pilot would fly a plane into a building. He'd crash it first. The terrorists had to include pilots. They needn't have been super skilled, but they would have had to have some experience flying a jet.
My guess is that if it is bin Laden, he had these guys in his employ for some time. They were probably pilots for the military in a middle eastern country at some time. Or commercial pilots, but many of those have military experience. Whether this implicates an actual state though is another matter.
20037. Jenerator - 9/11/2001 3:53:30 PM
I like a strong military presence. Show the terrorists that we're tough and fully capable of destroying small countries. I like organization. This also shows strength in my opinion.
20038. ronski - 9/11/2001 3:53:59 PM
Ace,
You may not believe this, but some of us were worried about you.
20039. thoughtful - 9/11/2001 3:54:20 PM
curfew and martial law entirely unnecessary...this is not a residential area but a business area that typically drained of people at 5. Right now, hordes of people are walking across the bridges trying to get home. It looks like a NY city marathon in reverse.
20040. Jenerator - 9/11/2001 3:56:33 PM
thoughtful,
When we find out who did this.....
anyone remember how to hang, draw and quarter someone?
We can't, remember? We don't believe in the death penalty it's too barbaric, just ask Pelle.
Me personally, I say execute everyone involved.
20041. ronski - 9/11/2001 3:57:39 PM
There are plenty of apartments in adjacent Battery Park City. I actually hope those people are not prevented from going to their homes. It is no doubt traumatic enough for them already.
20042. concerned - 9/11/2001 3:57:48 PM
Correct me if I am wrong, but choosing the WTC buildings was not a very good choice for a terrorist attack, since (I've never been there) it would seem that there might be a high proportion of foreign nationals present in those buildings.
And the hit that international, not just American, stock exchanges and markets are taking aren't going to be making the perpetrators and sympathizers of these terrorist acts anything but enemies in the industrialized nations.
20043. Jenerator - 9/11/2001 3:59:19 PM
A friend of ours who was military intelligence for 8 years was just contacted by his former superior. Somehow they tracked his cellphone number and wanted to know his location.
It seems that the military is going to use all of its resources, including members not even in reserve anymore!
20044. RustlerPike - 9/11/2001 4:00:07 PM
Jenna:
I like a strong military presence.
You just want to see all those musclebound men milling about in their uniforms. Admit it.
20045. ronski - 9/11/2001 4:00:20 PM
connie,
A large subway bombing attack by Palestinian Arabs was planned for Brooklyn but was thwarted, only blocks from the second-largest Arab community in the borough. They don't think about these things.
20046. pseudoerasmus - 9/11/2001 4:00:48 PM
I was in Moscow at the time of the August/September 1999 terrorist bombings which eventually led to the second Chechen war. Like the USA, Russia had been more or less a virgin to such attacks. And the reactions being heard on the television in the USA are eerily reminiscent of the reactions I heard and saw in Russia.
On the other hand, I'm sure Arab-Americans would not be rounded up. At the Kazan railway station in Moscow two days after the bombing, I witnessed two Caucasians being harassed, strip-searched at gun point and nearly beaten by the Moscow militia.
20047. christipeters - 9/11/2001 4:01:02 PM
The hardest parts of flying are take-off and landing. I assume the hijackers let the commercial pilot take off, then took over. Obviously, they didn't need to know how to land. They had to have some flying experience, but they didn't need to be very experienced pilots or commercial pilots.
20048. RustlerPike - 9/11/2001 4:02:36 PM
Here's a military presence.
20049. ronski - 9/11/2001 4:02:53 PM
Mind you, I'm not convinced about who is responsible. I do think a home-grown band of nuts is not entirely out of the question, but it is unlikely. We haven't had any major suicide political attacks. At least not yet.
20050. Indiana Jones - 9/11/2001 4:03:11 PM
On the contrary, I think the World Trade Center is the perfect target. Visible and unmistakeable from the air, lots of deaths with good chances for collateral damage around it, symbolic of but also integral to America's economic empire, and less likely to be well defended.
Hitting the Pentagon was much ballsier on that last score.
Make no mistake, though. I'm with the "kill them all" faction. And "execution" sounds too medicinal.
I have calmed down some from this morning, but I expect once I'm able to get around a TV and see footage that will change.
20051. CalGal - 9/11/2001 4:04:26 PM
Ace, it's good to see you. I wasn't completely sure, but I thought you said you worked downtown.
I heard on the radio that a guy called in on his cell to say they were hijacked; has it been on the news or was that a rumor?
20052. Property of Jesus - 9/11/2001 4:04:54 PM
The commercial jet that crashed in western Penn. was aiming itself at Camp David, Maryland.
20053. CalGal - 9/11/2001 4:05:46 PM
The footage is horrifying. I don't choke up much at disaster footage, but the first time I saw the building collapse it was extremely upsetting. And it's only going to get worse.
20054. Ms. No - 9/11/2001 4:06:51 PM
Concerned,
The WTC is the symbol of America's wealth and the Pentagon the symbol of its military might. Why would the presence of lesser countries' financial offices deter a terrorist from striking at the heart of American business?
Any:
How about something simple? All four flights are regular commuter-type flights-----hence the low flight numbers. They fly every day, on time to regular destinations with a specific amount of fuel.
What's so difficult about buying six or eight tickets for each of these flights and putting your terrorist crews aboard them and then taking over the flights?
Most of the timing is just regularly scheduled by air traffic controll. All the terrorists had to do was get on the plane, overpower the crew & passengers and then replace the pilot with one of their own to ensure the target.
It doesn't seem all that complicated to me. Perhaps that's why it's so horrifying.
20055. christipeters - 9/11/2001 4:06:54 PM
It was on the news. See 1:20pm on the news monitor site I linked.
Here's the link again:
News Monitor
20056. RustlerPike - 9/11/2001 4:07:25 PM
CNN is quoting US sources that say they have specific, new intelligence information linking this with Osama followers.
20057. concerned - 9/11/2001 4:07:31 PM
Maybe the US govt. should hire Stooge Reno to smoke out the perpetrators. We already know she has no qualms over roasting babies.
20058. Åse - 9/11/2001 4:07:47 PM
One of the links in this article http://www.sptimes.com/ has a section about the cell-phone guy.
That was on the plane that crashed in pennsylvania.
20059. mgleason - 9/11/2001 4:07:47 PM
NBC said that the guy who called was on the plane that crashed in Pittsburgh. He was apparently calling from the bathroom.
20060. Indiana Jones - 9/11/2001 4:07:48 PM
ronski: Sure it could be home-grown. If it turns out to be Middle Easterners who were in Bin Laden's employ for a long time and trained as pilots as you posited earlier, that's a helluva deal. In that case our intelligence agencies probably deserve shooting only a little less than the people who did this. If people meeting that description can roam around and board US planes in groups without detection...!?
OTOH, remember, Tim McVeigh was an ex-US military.
20061. christipeters - 9/11/2001 4:08:06 PM
While you are there, check out the link to the State Dept Travel Warnings
20062. CalGal - 9/11/2001 4:09:24 PM
MsNo,
But they must have had guns, and I think guns are still hard to get on planes.
20063. Jenerator - 9/11/2001 4:10:46 PM
Nice gun Rustler. I shall hire you to protect me.
Perhaps I'm in touch with my "masculine" side, because I am the biggest fan of the military. If I had it to all over again, I would have enlisted in the airforce or have been a SWAT sniper.
In any case, I think that it shows strength, unity, and purpose when the US rallies behind a strong and orderly US military presence. We have to show the world that we're tough and that we're going to make it.
20064. Absensia - 9/11/2001 4:11:20 PM
Ms. No...didn't know they were commuter flights. We don't have those here..makes a lot of sense to me. Thanks.
20065. mizphys - 9/11/2001 4:11:54 PM
I don't think they would have had to have guns. Just maybe a vial of something that they could say was a biological weapon or something.
20066. concerned - 9/11/2001 4:12:11 PM
Re. 20062 -
Not if the luggage isn't inspected, as it should be. Also, I know of a Glock pistol, for instance, which is designed to not be detectable by X Rays.
20067. RustlerPike - 9/11/2001 4:12:55 PM
Ms. No:
I guess you're right, but still - I don't know. How did they succeed so devastatingly? They always fuck up in even the simplest of schemes -and here, they succeeded so amazingly!
20068. Jenerator - 9/11/2001 4:14:04 PM
I think that the planes only had about three terrorists on board, assuming that none were on them in a professional capacity.
20069. ronski - 9/11/2001 4:14:28 PM
Indy,
The reasons you cite is why I haven't ruled out McVeigh types. But why would homegrown nuts want to go after the WTC, and not the White House, Capital, etc. This smacks more of people concerned about American "imperialism." And that doesn't sound like American militia types to me.
And if Camp David was indeed a target, and it's the anniversary of the Camp David accords, it points overseas.
20070. CalGal - 9/11/2001 4:14:35 PM
767 and 757 are not commuter flights.
20071. Property of Jesus - 9/11/2001 4:14:41 PM
Pray for the NYC firefighters and their families. ABC reported that at least 200 are dead.
20072. judithathome - 9/11/2001 4:14:52 PM
Building 7 of the WTC complex is on fire now and expected to collapse...CNN.
20073. RustlerPike - 9/11/2001 4:15:18 PM
Someone was saying that if there were enough of them they didn't need guns. That's true.
20074. Jenerator - 9/11/2001 4:15:23 PM
Boston to LA is a pretty long commuter flight. No doubt the planes were full of gasoline making the explosions much more intense.
20075. Ms. No - 9/11/2001 4:15:34 PM
CG,
Why must? I think that six or eight military trained killers hi-jacking a plane are scary enough for most folks not to attempt to over-power them.
In the event that someone did try, there are other weapons besides guns that can be smuggled onto a plane that would discourage heroic attempts.
I think it could easily come down to a numbers game. It's hard to get 35 people to risk their lives all at once to attack terrorists when the odds are that they'll be rescued or spared later.
20076. thoughtful - 9/11/2001 4:15:54 PM
plastique is not detectable by the metal detectors
20077. ronski - 9/11/2001 4:15:55 PM
Capitol.
20078. CalGal - 9/11/2001 4:16:05 PM
commuter planes, I mean.
20079. Francis Urquhart - 9/11/2001 4:16:09 PM
The size of the nation will temper the bloodlust. Because we are so massive, even as grand scale an attack as this will be absorbed rather quickly. To the extent any rabid calls for hasty retribution continue, they will exist simply because television will let them vent under the banner "America Under Attack -Day ___".
Regardless, trust in the media's ability to suck the meaning and context out of any happening (in 36 hours, real, seemingly non-retarded people will be taking the positions taken by jexster and concerned before Geraldo and O'Reilly and the rest of the crew), and any dangerous venom will be dissipated under a blizzard of human interest stories ("Arab Beaten in Puxatawney"), political blather, rank speculation (cue Pierre Salinger), and the airing of all opinions, no matter how moronic.
After Karne Hughes statement, for example, the well-coiffed Brian Williams opened his comments to Tim Russert with (I kid you not), "Style point, here, Tim . . ." as he queried whether the Presdient should have spoken, as opposed to Ms. Hughes.
Concern over style points mutes vengeance.
Thus, hopefully, political pressure to react will be stymied, and we can bide our time to find the perpetrators.
And then, as Ace states, in a month, or two, or six, kill them. Kill them all.
20080. RustlerPike - 9/11/2001 4:16:45 PM
I'm falling asleep.
20081. pseudoerasmus - 9/11/2001 4:16:54 PM
The question is, why were the DC targets so much less ambitious (in terms of visibility) than in New York?
20082. LimeGirl - 9/11/2001 4:17:25 PM
It doesn't seem like it'd be out of the ordinary that Bin Laden would have pilots in his employ. And intelligence could know about this, and still not expect that him having people who knew how to fly planes would end up like it did.
When they try to be exceedingly careful about letting Middle Easterners into the country, then you get articles like the one I read a while back about an author from the Middle East who was coming to the US for an awards ceremony or something, and he refused to be fingerprinted, so they wouldn't let him in. And he was horrifed at how prejudiced the US was.
It's difficult to find the balance, and if they are more secure about checking identities on entry into the country, they're going to get flak about it. This incident may make people care less about the fussing about more difficult entry, but it certainly has been an issue in the past.
20083. Ms. No - 9/11/2001 4:17:51 PM
CG,
No, not commuter flights in the sense of small business jumps that the same people take every day. But commuter-type in that they are regular, daily flights going to the same destination, possibly with the same flight crews day after day after day. Yes, trans-continental but still just a long bus-ride kind of flight.
20084. Indiana Jones - 9/11/2001 4:18:37 PM
ronski: I know. But suppose you wanted to do something and blame it on the Arabs. After all, they already hit the WTC once.
Until they recover the black boxes, the passenger lists are the biggest clues. And that's why I'd look for pilots or people with pilot training.
My bet is that it's the usual suspects (Middle East terrorists). But maybe not.
20085. Francis Urquhart - 9/11/2001 4:18:43 PM
The tops of the World Trade Center fall before the eyes of Guiliani, he screams "Fuck!" They play the cut. Go to Brian Williams.
"Style point, here, Tim . . . "
20086. Jenerator - 9/11/2001 4:18:47 PM
Planes are equipped with emergency notification systems. The fact that none of the flights were reported as being hijacked *during* the flights (except for the lone cell call) tells me that either the pilots were executed immediately or that the pilots themselves were the terrorists.
20087. CalGal - 9/11/2001 4:19:19 PM
I dunno. I'd be delighted if we do retaliate, but ever since someone mentioned Lockerbie--and, for that matter, the WTC--I've been wondering if that's not a possibility. It will just fade from view.
20088. ronski - 9/11/2001 4:19:34 PM
I'm not sure the DC targets were less ambitious, the Pentagon and Camp David.
20089. concerned - 9/11/2001 4:19:49 PM
FU -
--will be taking the places of Jexster and FU, that is...
20090. ScottLoar - 9/11/2001 4:20:47 PM
Guns. Why assume they needed guns? I would think on each plane at least 3-4 men were involved, one of whom would have to fly the plane. The US pilot and copilot would have been killed (hell, you can strangle a man with a necktie), then the terrorist pilot guided the plane to the target. I would think the age of the terrorists to be dissimilar to avoid the appearance of a group, and on board at least two or three would be needed to stand outside the cockpit door to prevent passengers from rushing the hijacking pilot. Any weapon - a plastic shiv - could cut down anyone who approached, and I think the terrorists probably said to the crew and passengers they had nothing to fear as this was a hijacking that would end by safely landing the plane at the nearest airport.
You've all flown on US airlines and you know how casual it can be for passengers in the front to go to the bathrooms next to the cockpit; it would be easy to threaten a flight attendant to open the door, or even step in when the flight attendants were serving beverages and lunch to the flight crew.
20091. concerned - 9/11/2001 4:20:56 PM
Re. 20084 -
Aliases are quite likely...
20092. Francis Urquhart - 9/11/2001 4:21:03 PM
Style point, here, ronski.
Isn't targeting Camp David too visible a shot at American Jewry?
Would not Bin Laden have been better served targeting Camp Ochebogowa?
20093. alistairconnor - 9/11/2001 4:21:16 PM
Here's an extract from the BBC: pilots reckon it's not that hard for an amateur to hit a skyscraper.
By BBC News Online's Sheila Barter and Jenny Matthews
The pilots of the doomed American airliners could have been dead by the time their planes hit their targets, say airline experts.
Ex-pilots believe that even a man with a gun to his head would not fly into a building housing thousands of people - and faced with certain death, would crash the plane elsewhere.
I doubt the pilots were at the controls
David Learmount, Flight International
And a terrorist with no previous flying experience would have found it relatively easy to steer a plane through the final moments of its journey and into its target, David Learmount, Operations and Safety Editor of Flight International, told BBC News Online.
"It would be dead easy to aim an aircraft at a target that big," he said.
"They may have shot the pilots, or taken out at least one of them, and taken over the controls.
I'm sure they would never have got an airline pilot to have done their dirty work
Anonymous pilot
"As a former pilot, I would just aim for the ground, even if it would mean the death of everyone on board.
"I doubt the pilots were at the controls."
Other pilots also believe the crews were dead.
"I'm sure they would never have got an airline pilot to have done their dirty work. I hope it was mercifully quick," said one contributor to the pilots' internet site, the Professional Pilots' Rumour Network.
20094. ScottLoar - 9/11/2001 4:21:39 PM
The targets I'm sure were all symbols of US power.
20095. judithathome - 9/11/2001 4:21:45 PM
if they are more secure about checking identities on entry into the country, they're going to get flak about it.
Who cares? Let the flak fly rather than highjacked planes; Israel gets flak for the stringent checks they do at the airports but it works.
20096. LimeGirl - 9/11/2001 4:22:05 PM
I'd think there could be all kinds of ways to get weapons onto a plane besides waltzing through the metal detector with them. People have to clean the plane between flights, etc. They could have figured out a way to have their weapons ready and waiting for them when they boarded.
20097. CalGal - 9/11/2001 4:22:23 PM
Christin--but the flights leaving at that time would normally be packed. It is possible that traffic really is that light due to the recession, but it is still unusual.
Francis--that the media have already named this catastrophe demonstrates that it's just one more item in a busy news cycle. If the public buys this approach, it's even more likely they'll all forget about this in a few months.
20098. ronski - 9/11/2001 4:24:35 PM
The media is based in NY and DC. The media will have known people who died. The media will not forget.
20099. Francis Urquhart - 9/11/2001 4:24:44 PM
It is the true testament to American greatness, the twin towers of vastness of size and short attention spans.
This is not a criticism. Look at the fates of the little nations that can never let more minor violent slights go.
20100. Seamus - 9/11/2001 4:25:01 PM
They had knives or somesuch, since two of the flight attendants were described as having been "stabbed" before the assailants got onto the flight deck.
20101. CalGal - 9/11/2001 4:25:11 PM
Scott,
It is awfully hard to get into the cockpit. Also, I'm not sure that passengers would sit still for a hijacking if there weren't guns involved. Maybe. I agree that it is possible, and probably more possible than them getting guns on the plane.
20102. LimeGirl - 9/11/2001 4:25:27 PM
Who cares? Let the flak fly rather than highjacked planes; Israel gets flak for the stringent checks they do at the airports but it works.
Obviously. But usually it takes an event of disasterous proprotions before people are willing to do things like that.
20103. concerned - 9/11/2001 4:25:27 PM
Re. 20050 -
I was speaking in terms of the extent of the backlash that would result from such actions.....
20104. christipeters - 9/11/2001 4:26:01 PM
I'm worried about my co-workers of middle-eastern extraction. I hope none of the rednecks in town hurt them.
20105. ronski - 9/11/2001 4:26:17 PM
God forbid that any flight attendants be armed.
20106. concerned - 9/11/2001 4:26:32 PM
Expert says bin Laden warned of unprecedented
U.S. attack
20107. mizphys - 9/11/2001 4:27:00 PM
Speaking of Britain, my children's school headmaster just called and expressed his condolences to us because he knows we're American and from New York. It was a nice gesture, but kind of odd too.
20108. Jenerator - 9/11/2001 4:27:10 PM
People will not forget about this in a few months.
The destruction of the Manhattan skyline, the destruction of the Pentagon and *thousands* of lives lost is not the same as the "End of Camelot".
20109. Francis Urquhart - 9/11/2001 4:27:31 PM
ronski
The media will not fotget, they will simply chew on it from so many increasingly absurd angles that it will lose meaning, hopefully giving adults the opportunity to assess, calculate and strike.
For example, what was the time span between the killing of American servicemen at the German disco and the massive bombing of Libya, a bombing that killed many in Qaddafi's (sp?) family an left him without testicles?
20110. CalGal - 9/11/2001 4:27:41 PM
It is the true testament to American greatness, the twin towers of vastness of size and short attention spans.
True enough. But if we don't figure out a way to retaliate in a manner suitable to our attention span, I'm not sure how long we can stay great. That presumes continued attacks, though, and I doubt too many of this magnitude can be pulled off in a decade.
20111. CalGal - 9/11/2001 4:28:51 PM
The destruction of the Manhattan skyline, the destruction of the Pentagon and *thousands* of lives lost is not the same as the "End of Camelot".
Well, as far as the news coverage goes, it is. In any event, I wouldn't count on it. No, we won't "forget"--not with the media around to remind us. But there is a real possibility that we'll "move on".
20112. Indiana Jones - 9/11/2001 4:28:55 PM
If I were coordinating a timed attack involving four jets hitting targets around the US, I'd want pilots flying them. Remember also that the second jet hit the second tower.
I also read (which may of course may be false among so much other rumor today) that the hit on the Pentagon was in a particularly sensitive area. Of course that may also have been luck.
But you don't carefully plan and think of details like choosing planes with full trans-continental fuel loads while saying "Let Abdul crash the plane. He always wanted to fly one of these birds."
20113. ronski - 9/11/2001 4:29:09 PM
I got a call from my English family. I was having trouble reaching them. I had taken my late partner's brother and wife to the WTC area several times. They are in shock.
20114. mgleason - 9/11/2001 4:30:07 PM
Tom Brokaw said that Barbara Olson called her husband from her cell phone to say 'We're being hijacked; can you believe that?' and then the phone went dead.
20115. Jenerator - 9/11/2001 4:30:40 PM
The greatest attack on US soil in history will not be forgotten.
Oklahoma wasn't, neither will New York.
If anything, this will have a lasting legacy of anti-Muslim sentiment.
It was bad during the Gulf War, I can only imagine how bad it's going to be now.
20116. concerned - 9/11/2001 4:31:16 PM
Contrary to FU's and CalGal's beliefs, there shouldn't be much worry about people 'forgetting' this. Many still haven't 'forgotten' the OC bombing, which was only a hundredth as damaging.
20117. CalGal - 9/11/2001 4:31:19 PM
Fortunately, travel is light right now. So in the short term, everyone will tolerate any increased security. Economy picks up, travel increases, and we have very short memories. Figure a year, maybe less, of tight security.
Incidentally, American and United must be absolutely shellshocked.
20118. Indiana Jones - 9/11/2001 4:31:34 PM
Seamus: Where did you hear that detail about the flight attendant?
20119. CalGal - 9/11/2001 4:32:06 PM
Oh, I thought Judith said Olsen was at the Pentagon.
20120. mgleason - 9/11/2001 4:32:19 PM
They're advising people in Muslim attire to stay out of public areas. It begins.
20121. Jenerator - 9/11/2001 4:32:21 PM
CalGal,
Forgetting is not the same as moving on, surely you know this.
20122. pseudoerasmus - 9/11/2001 4:32:27 PM
Was Camp David actually attacked?
20123. concerned - 9/11/2001 4:32:40 PM
Re. 20117 -
There will be permanent security changes at airports, or at least ones that will last many years.
20124. Francis Urquhart - 9/11/2001 4:33:03 PM
Eh, the anti-Muslim sentiment suggests backwaterism that I don't believe is the case. Now, when some person of Middle Eastern descent does get a sock in the jaw, count on six camera crews and page 1.
20125. Seamus - 9/11/2001 4:33:04 PM
IJ,
Unfortunately, I'm suffering from source overload, so I can't remember, but it was part of the reported conversation between the 911 operator and the cell phone guy.
20126. concerned - 9/11/2001 4:33:05 PM
Re. 20122 -
No.
20127. mgleason - 9/11/2001 4:33:06 PM
Yeah, Barbara Olson is said to have called from the plane that crashed into the Pentagon.
20128. ronski - 9/11/2001 4:33:22 PM
No. But it has been reported that the fourth plane downed in Pennsylvania was headed there.
20129. CalGal - 9/11/2001 4:33:31 PM
Many still haven't 'forgotten' the OC bombing, which was only a hundredth as damaging.
They caught him and he acted alone. Besides, Americans have "forgotten" it to the extent that they would resist the hell out of any increased security in the name of OKC.
20130. judithathome - 9/11/2001 4:33:49 PM
Cal, I said she was on the plane that hit the Pentagon...bizarre that she was able to call her husband.
20131. ronski - 9/11/2001 4:33:55 PM
Last message to PE.
20132. mizphys - 9/11/2001 4:35:01 PM
I heard an interview with Tom Clancy on BBC Radio 4 today (speaking of angles on the story); he apparently wrote a novel in which terrorists crash a plane into the Capitol Building. He was urging people not to turn against islamics. Or novelists, presumably.
20133. christipeters - 9/11/2001 4:35:06 PM
I believe it was not actually attacked but that one of the two other hijacked planes that crashed was "aimed" for Camp David.
I'm not sure how they could know that when there weren't any survivors.
20134. Ms. No - 9/11/2001 4:35:15 PM
CG,
I don't know what the normal occupancy for those flights is. Perhaps they are merely flights to return planes to LA and SF. I'm sure that info will come out later. All I'm saying is that the hi-jacked flights were routine, daily flights which means that the scheduling is cake and the security is likely to be far more lax than for other flights. It means that the plan could be far cheaper and far simpler than many have proposed.
Simple, cheap plans work best. Their the easiest to remember and execute and have less chance for error.
20135. CalGal - 9/11/2001 4:35:31 PM
Oh, duh. I thought she was in the Pentagon.
Doesn't sound like she was particularly worried, which does suggest something like Scott's scenario.
Jenerator--that we can "move on" from this the way we "moved on" from OKC or the WTC is rather frightening. Short of a war, I see nothing that will prevent it from being equated to the two lesser events in a year or two.
20136. Åse - 9/11/2001 4:36:01 PM
> Incidentally, American and United must be absolutely shellshocked.
Oh, I believe that (ex-United worker here).
Wonder what on earth they will do.
20137. concerned - 9/11/2001 4:36:06 PM
Maybe if Hilliary flies over to Palestine and kisses Arafat's wife again, everything will be smoothed over.
Whaddya think?
20138. Jenerator - 9/11/2001 4:36:40 PM
CalGal,
Are you nuts? Manhattan is devastated as is Washington and you think people are going to forget about it and resist increased security??!!
20139. CalGal - 9/11/2001 4:37:42 PM
MsNo,
I have often travelled on early flights East-West, and really, the count seems light. But it may just be the recession. I'll ask my dad later.
20140. thoughtful - 9/11/2001 4:37:48 PM
the exaggeration has already begun, Guiliani referring to this as the most heinous act in world history. This is bad, but really!
20141. Francis Urquhart - 9/11/2001 4:38:58 PM
Good style point, thoughtful.
20142. mgleason - 9/11/2001 4:40:27 PM
May I say how stylish you probably looked in your red shirt, FU?
20143. Raskolnikov - 9/11/2001 4:40:31 PM
Emotions are high, so cut people slack.
20144. Toenails - 9/11/2001 4:40:40 PM
What I think, concerned, is that you're an all-American asshole. This isn't about Hilary or Clinton. God! Get OFF it already!
And Jex is an even-bigger asshole, since he's busy attacking the current President, even before he's had any opportunity to act.
20145. CalGal - 9/11/2001 4:40:43 PM
Thoughtful,
Really? Provide a short list of single acts that tally up.
Ase,
My dad works for American, now that I think of it, since they bought TWA. I know how TWA felt about flight 800, and it pales in comparison.
Jen,
No, I'm not nuts. I'm also not big into exclamation points.
20146. concerned - 9/11/2001 4:41:08 PM
Short of a war, I see nothing that will
prevent it from being equated to the two lesser
events in a year or two.
The only people I could imagine this of are the stay at homes and children.
20147. Francis Urquhart - 9/11/2001 4:41:27 PM
Jen
Withing 2 weeks of increased airport security, the news stories regarding civil liberties, racial profiling, increased travel time, and poor airline response will outnumber stories including the by-then well-worn footage of the cascading World Trade Center 10 to 1.
20148. thoughtful - 9/11/2001 4:41:29 PM
Now we know NYC is in real shock...they've opened the whitestone and throgs neck bridge and are letting people through without paying tolls!
20149. mgleason - 9/11/2001 4:42:49 PM
They'd never have dared do that if Robert Moses were alive, Thoughtful!
20150. concerned - 9/11/2001 4:44:18 PM
Re. 20144 -
But isn't it true that their policies have had a large impact in creating the current Mideast situation, unlike GWB's?
20151. Francis Urquhart - 9/11/2001 4:45:01 PM
mgleason
If I do say so, I was precise, somber and lugubrious, all at the same time. I even stated, "At the risk of the hackneyed, my thought was that this was our generation's Pearl Harbor, with enemies unknown, but certainly not identifiable nations such as a Germany or Japan."
To which the interviewer said, "Hack-what?"
And the cameraman added that "Pearl Harbor" sucked and he didn't care what I said.
20152. Åse - 9/11/2001 4:46:12 PM
How are they going to come back? (The airlines).
I flew Pan Am to Sweden the first time I went back after moving to the US - this was a year or two after Lockerbie, and I was still working for United (they didn't fly there, so no flight bennies). They had all these security things in place that I wasn't used to, and haven't quite seen since (except when flying Northwestern out of Amsterdam this spring).
I have no idea if the disaster had any connection to their demise, though.
20153. CalGal - 9/11/2001 4:46:39 PM
Well, that's because you should have said "at the risk of sounding hackneyed." Poor interviewer didn't understand the context.
20154. Jenerator - 9/11/2001 4:47:07 PM
All of the malls have been closed. My mom is locked in City Hall.
20155. mgleason - 9/11/2001 4:48:06 PM
But I'm sure you looked good, FU.
20156. Francis Urquhart - 9/11/2001 4:48:35 PM
I never risk sounding hackneyed. I either do it full bore or don't.
20157. PelleNilsson - 9/11/2001 4:49:10 PM
Why doesn't anyone mention Saddam?
20158. Francis Urquhart - 9/11/2001 4:49:20 PM
mgleason
Your assuredness pleases me.
20159. CalGal - 9/11/2001 4:50:35 PM
Ase,
I don't know that anything will ever outweigh the American dislike of inconvenience.
That said, heaven help the next folks who try to hijack a plane; I don't think the passengers will be accomodating.
20160. Indiana Jones - 9/11/2001 4:50:36 PM
I mentioned Iraq waaaaaayyyyyy upthread Pelle.
20161. Jenerator - 9/11/2001 4:50:59 PM
Francis,
I welcome tighter security at the airports and I think that people will understand the need for it. Granted there will always be weirdos like the ones who yelled at the woman in Seattle to jump simply because they were inconvenienced, but, I think that this is slightly different and people will be more patient.
20162. Ms. No - 9/11/2001 4:51:01 PM
they're
they're
they're
they're
sheesh
20163. concerned - 9/11/2001 4:51:07 PM
Re. 20157 -
He doesn't strike me as being insane enough to pull a stunt like that.
20164. mgleason - 9/11/2001 4:51:14 PM
Damn. There were 40 fire companies before the second tower collapsed. Most are feared dead.
Fires are still burning in the area, and rescue workers waiting to go in.
20165. thoughtful - 9/11/2001 4:51:36 PM
Saddam.
There.
20166. CalGal - 9/11/2001 4:52:00 PM
But "at the risk of the hackneyed" has no meaning, does it? One can either be it or sound it. But it's not a noun.
20167. Seamus - 9/11/2001 4:52:34 PM
Saddam
20168. Francis Urquhart - 9/11/2001 4:53:00 PM
One other point.
When the retribution occurs, it almost has to be disappointing unless it has an identifiable head. Otherwise, it will be a throng of cruise missiles slamming into some baby food factory or some town or some military outpost.
That was what made the retaliation against Qaddafi so right. We killed his family and his shaggy ass was hiding under the desk like Bernard Shaw.
Bounty on Bin Laden. $10 million. $20 million with the head brought back.
And the decimation of his family, town, village, livestock and social circles.
Including his book club.
20169. CalGal - 9/11/2001 4:53:13 PM
I welcome tighter security at the airports and I think that people will understand the need for it.
Past experience contradicts you. But as I said, we're in a recession so it will be a while before the protests start.
20170. Åse - 9/11/2001 4:53:52 PM
>I don't know that anything will ever outweigh the
American dislike of inconvenience.
I suspect that too.
Speaking of Saddam, wasn't a "US spy plane" (alleged) shot down over Iraq this morning? I think they talked about it on NPR right after "we have reports that an air plane has crashed into the world trade center" little blurb at the beginning of the news.
Not that I think these are necessarily connected.
20171. judithathome - 9/11/2001 4:54:31 PM
I know this is stupid of me to ask but is anyone else getting weird numbers at the top of the page when they refresh? Like "20156-20166 out of 20165"
20172. CalGal - 9/11/2001 4:55:03 PM
When the retribution occurs, it almost has to be disappointing unless it has an identifiable head.
Well, it's not an original point. (g) I said the same thing. Americans were able to focus on McVeigh because he acted alone, or close to it.
20173. christipeters - 9/11/2001 4:55:17 PM
Ase - Yeah, I saw that on the news, too. It was a drone plane.
20174. concerned - 9/11/2001 4:56:30 PM
About the DFLP, from Stratfor:
1515 GMT, 010911
The Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) has reportedly claimed responsibility for the attacks on the World Trade Center. This report, from a television station in Abu Dhabi, in unconfirmed.
The DFLP was formed in 1969 with an estimated membership of 500. It was originally based in Syria, but the location of its current headquarters are unknown. The DFLP receives financial and military aid from Syria and Libya. It operates in Syria, Lebanon, Israel and the occupied territories. Its leader is Naif Hawatmeh, according to Israeli-based Interdisciplinary Center.
The group was largely dormant from 1988 until this summer, when it claimed responsibility for an Aug. 25 attack against an Israeli military post in the Gaza Strip that left three Israeli soldiers dead. This attack was the first instance of Palestinians successfully using conventional military-style tactics.
Before this year, DFLP operations have always taken place either inside Israel or the West Bank and Gaza. Typical acts include minor bombings and grenade attacks, as well as operations to seize hostages and attempts to negotiate the return of Israeli-held Palestinian prisoners.
The group split from the Palestinian Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) years ago, but reconciled with the PFLP -and with Palestinian Authority leader Yasser Arafat - in August 1999.
The attacks differ significantly from the DFLP's previous methods of operation. Likewise, the resources and infrastructure necessary for such attacks are far beyond the group's traditional means. Either the DFLP's claims are spurious, or it has joined forces with other groups.
20175. Francis Urquhart - 9/11/2001 4:57:08 PM
Jen
What you welcome is interesting, but not necessarily relevant. You are an attractive, patriotic, statist, blonde. You might welcome the scrutiny and the added fondling (as might the security guard).
But a bazillion fliers and harassed men of Middle-Eastern descent and Ron Kuby and Paul Wellstone and the entire panel of Court TV will not. Nor will CBS, CNN, ABC, NBC, or MSNBC, all of whom have to come up with post-calamity stories in their never-ending quest to flesh out important "style points."
20176. PelleNilsson - 9/11/2001 4:57:46 PM
Indy
Sorry. I barged right in when I came home without backtracking.
20177. Francis Urquhart - 9/11/2001 4:58:11 PM
Of course it is an original point, as I only read my own posts.
20178. Ms. No - 9/11/2001 4:58:19 PM
Judith,
Might be because the posts are moving so quickly, but I've had a couple of glitches with "posts per page" as well. I'm set for 20, but I got defaulted to 50 a couple of times and had to reset it.
20179. CalGal - 9/11/2001 4:59:18 PM
Nor will CBS, CNN, ABC, NBC, or MSNBC, all of whom have to come up with post-calamity stories in their never-ending quest to flesh out important "style points."
To say nothing of the fact that all the media folk are themselves frequent fliers and won't take kindly to delays.
20180. concerned - 9/11/2001 5:00:19 PM
When the retribution occurs, it almost has to be
disappointing unless it has an identifiable head.
Otherwise, it will be a throng of cruise missiles
slamming into some baby food factory or some town
or some military outpost.
The overuse of this type of 'retaliation' can be traced almost entirely to the last administration which used it numerous times to no effect. It is unimaginative and ineffective.
IOW, its primary aim was to temporarily divert the attention of the American public, for which reasons I won't state here at the risk of being unfairly called an 'asshole' again.
20181. Francis Urquhart - 9/11/2001 5:01:26 PM
concerned
Please find your retarded brother.
20182. Seamus - 9/11/2001 5:01:33 PM
IJ,
I've looked but have been unable to find the source for that information I offered earlier. So, you may as well consider it spurious...as indeed most of my comments are.
20183. concerned - 9/11/2001 5:01:36 PM
Re. 20179 -
CalGal -
The convenience of the media and air travelers in general may well be indefinitely compromised by the legislation and regulations passed to increase security.
20184. Indiana Jones - 9/11/2001 5:01:51 PM
Someone on Free Republic is wondering whether Gary Condit will be able to attend the intelligence briefings.
20185. PelleNilsson - 9/11/2001 5:02:10 PM
I see this thing is already being trivialized into potential future delays at airports.
20186. Indiana Jones - 9/11/2001 5:03:13 PM
Seamus: I wasn't trying to question its accuracy. I just thought if details like that were becoming available then something about the hijackers themselves would be known soon as well.
20187. CalGal - 9/11/2001 5:03:29 PM
Francis,
Ah. Well, I was just taking a roundabout way of saying that I agreed with you, that the high likelihood of our only being able to snag a nameless hack or two increases the risk that we'll all move on and forget about it.
I wonder who will be caught?
"Yussuf--you are assigned to be captured and brought to trial." "No, no! I wanna go up in flames at the WTC!" "Sorry, Yussuf. But you'll fry eventually, and until then you'll have to suffer godless American television. It is a good way to die."
20188. Property of Jesus - 9/11/2001 5:03:37 PM
ABC has exclusive video of the second jet crashing into WTC from Trinity Church.
Unbelievable.
20189. Francis Urquhart - 9/11/2001 5:04:20 PM
Pelle
Are you heaving sobs now, you supercilious scold?
20190. concerned - 9/11/2001 5:06:16 PM
Re. 20185 -
Blame CG for that, and worse.
20191. Francis Urquhart - 9/11/2001 5:06:27 PM
If they do it right (i.e., let the media do their job and stuff the screaming mobs with chum until we draw a bead on the whole skeeving rabble and jelly-gas six generations in), we can all be happy.
20192. Francis Urquhart - 9/11/2001 5:08:12 PM
And if concerned is correct and there are "legislation and regulations passed to increase security", that's a bonus.
20193. PelleNilsson - 9/11/2001 5:09:46 PM
Francis
Hahaha! (But how ashamed I am to laugh in these tragic circumstances)
20194. Francis Urquhart - 9/11/2001 5:10:50 PM
Pelle
That's okay. Let it out.
20195. mgleason - 9/11/2001 5:12:09 PM
The President is en route to Washington, where he is to address the country tonight.
20196. Francis Urquhart - 9/11/2001 5:15:44 PM
Good style move, that. Brian Williams will be reassured.
Adios.
20197. concerned - 9/11/2001 5:17:03 PM
What is the attitude of the US Socialist Party to this WTC/Pentagon disaster?
National security is not something that can be won by intimidation. Only peace with justice can be a secure peace. We will renew our own efforts to transform the United States into a country that has no enemies---not because our enemies have been vanquished, but because we are capable of getting along with our neighbors.
Don Doumakes
National Co-Chair
Socialist Party USA
Do I hear echoes of: 'Thank you, sir; can I have another?' in that?
20198. Property of Jesus - 9/11/2001 5:18:22 PM
You must be one of the 30,000 people in the country who watch MSNBC.
20199. Property of Jesus - 9/11/2001 5:18:28 PM
You must be one of the 30,000 people in the country who watch MSNBC.
20200. concerned - 9/11/2001 5:19:30 PM
...about this...
20201. concerned - 9/11/2001 5:21:46 PM
Just heard that US markets will be closed all week.
Not gonna forget that too soon.
20202. mgleason - 9/11/2001 5:22:08 PM
NBC has an unconfirmed report that an American flight attendant was on a cell phone with operations saying that the crew had been shot and another attendant stabbed when they lost contact with her.
20203. concerned - 9/11/2001 5:22:24 PM
or, could be closed all week (CYA)
20204. ronski - 9/11/2001 5:24:02 PM
If this hasn't been mentioned, bin Laden is officially denying involvement, but saying he supports actions like these.
It is also being suggested that he is not currently in Afghanistan.
20205. mgleason - 9/11/2001 5:25:12 PM
Another building, roughly twenty stories high, collapsed in the WTC complex.
20206. ronski - 9/11/2001 5:27:28 PM
That would be Bldg. Seven in the WTC complex, I believe. It had been hit by one of the collapsing towers.
20207. PelleNilsson - 9/11/2001 5:30:26 PM
A video of the second plane smashing into the WTC is available at CNN.
20208. concerned - 9/11/2001 5:31:00 PM
Building 7: 47 stories tall.
20209. mgleason - 9/11/2001 5:31:06 PM
Andrea Mitchell reports that there is evidence of Bin Laden's involvement, and that the US had warned the Taliban that they would be held personally responsible for any action on his part.
20210. Andonly - 9/11/2001 5:34:19 PM
Henry Kissinger to CNN: ''This is comparable to Pearl Harbor and we must have the same response and the people who did it must have the same end as the people who attacked Pearl Harbor.''
20211. ronski - 9/11/2001 5:35:18 PM
It was Seven, and it's gone.
20212. concerned - 9/11/2001 5:35:44 PM
I'm hearing reports of $3-$4 gasoline in some parts of the country, already.
Definitely negative effects on global markets.
20213. Indiana Jones - 9/11/2001 5:36:26 PM
Take him out, one way or the other.
1. We've wanted to do it for years.
2. World opinion will never be more on our side.
3. Whether he did this or not he would like to do it and has likely helped with such operations in the past.
4. If we don't and he pulls something like this in the future, then we're partly culpable.
5. If he didn't do it, it'll make those who did do it sleep less easily until we settle with them.
Assuming that not everyone involved is already dead, and I think that's probably a valid assumption.
20214. PelleNilsson - 9/11/2001 5:36:48 PM
Poor Henry. Hyping it up to get into the limelight again.
20215. Andonly - 9/11/2001 5:38:59 PM
Make no mistake: we have warplanes on the way to Afghanistan now, or possibly elsewhere. We're at war, folks, and nobody has realized it yet.
Ariel Sharon was just on TV saying the war against terrorism is a war of the free against "forces of darkness" and "forces of evil". He designated tomorrow a national day of mourning in Israel, pledged solidarity with the American people, and offered condolences to the victims of the attack.
20216. Jamie R - 9/11/2001 5:40:46 PM
Just wanted to say how impressed I am with this forum today. The dreck at the Rant is making me too ill to comment. Here's a sample:
As for the Palestinians, you can't really blame them. [for dancing over the deaths of innocents.] As far as they are concerned, the US is a big bully who deserves to be cut down a bit. And their view is not entirely unfounded. I agree, though, that they are not improving their position by open celebrations.
So nice to see such broadminded tolerance of differing viewpoints.
20217. ronski - 9/11/2001 5:42:09 PM
Fox is reporting that U.S. sources are saying there are signs pointing clearly to bin Laden, and that he has been training terrorists to fly jet planes in Afghanistan.
A professor from Bentley College on another network says it is also possible that the umbrella group in Afghanistan to which bin Laden is linked has a role.
Also, from Fox, that the actual pilots/terrorists could have been nationals from any number of countries.
20218. judithathome - 9/11/2001 5:44:40 PM
Just heard that Barbara Olson, on the plane that crashed into the Pentagon, said they had knives and box cutters only, no guns...she called her husband on her cell phone before the crash.
20219. concerned - 9/11/2001 5:45:49 PM
It almost makes sense, given these hijackings and their results, to mandate 'fly by wire' commercial passenger aircraft in the future, where all cockpit control could be overriden by ground control if necessary.
This may ultimately be the most straightforward way to completely avoid future incidents such as the WTC/Pentagon terrorist attacks.
20220. concerned - 9/11/2001 5:48:13 PM
Re. 20218 -
That's actually positive news, in a way. Knives and box cutters on board an aircraft would be much
simpler to circumvent, in the future, than firearms.
20221. Slackjaw - 9/11/2001 5:51:30 PM
where all cockpit control could be overriden by ground control if necessary
Sounds like a great reason to storm an ATC tower, for the megalomaniacal terrorist group on your block.
20222. ScottLoar - 9/11/2001 5:56:18 PM
I said, three or four persons, very dissimilar, in commercial class (forward section of the aircraft), using knives (anything but the guns some believe without which violence and force are impossible), one of whom can guide the plane to its target. One man - the pilot - gets up after the seatbuckle lights go off and goes into the bathrooms directly behind the cockpit; the others wait until the flight attendants go to the cockpit and open the door to deliver those cokes and meals to the flight crew. One or maybe two storm the cockpit, immediately killing the pilot and copilot (no conversation, no demands, just kill or incapacitate), then the "pilot" comes out of the bathroom and into the control seat as the attackers now stand guard over the entrance to the cockpit. They tell the passengers to sit down, be calm, the plane will land as soon as possible.
20223. AceofSpades - 9/11/2001 5:57:18 PM
Don't be assholes. Were the german people responsible for Hitler? Of course they fucking were. According to your faggy moralizing, we shouldn't have killed German soldiers or civilians, but ONLY Hitler and the German High Command.
A people get the goverment it deserves, and a people are responsible for the actions of its government.
Afganistan has been harboring bin Laden for ten years. Its citizens are complicit.
988. AceofSpades - 9/11/01 10:54:07 PM
This is war. You do not fight a war with "investigation," with the FBI, with trials, with "evidence." You fight a war by destroying enemy states who have attacked you.
This is war. This is not law enforcement.
Clinton embraced the law enforcement model for eight fucking years. It doesn't work.
This is war.
In war, cities get leveled. There are no trials. There are bombings. There are no jail sentences. There are assassinations.
989. AceofSpades - 9/11/01 10:56:36 PM
Incidentally, I'm suuuuuuure all those partying, clapping, singing maniacs in hebron, Cairo, Beirut, and Baghdad don't support terrorists, or give them safe harbor, or make donations to them, or get them clean passports when needed, etc.
Yuhp. Sure, they clap and sing about 10,000 murdered Americans. But they don't actually support such terrorism. Oh, no.
20224. concerned - 9/11/2001 5:58:23 PM
Re. 20221-
Not at all. Control can be switched between control towers, or even alternate sites, given the available technology of encryption, GPDs, etc. Authorization could also be restricted for such overrides to make it essentially impossible for random bandits to access it.
20225. Andonly - 9/11/2001 5:59:05 PM
Pelle: Kissinger has merely expressed what the American people feel, or will feel, when the shock wears off.
And incidentally, I have spent half the day trying to ascertain whether four people on my block alone, and two friends visiting from Dallas, were alive or dead. All are fine, but at least three would not have been but for little twists of fate. So--not to put too fine a point on it--I, for one, am not interested in reading more of your ever-so-arch remarks on this subject, at this particular point in time.
20226. Slackjaw - 9/11/2001 6:00:32 PM
"Yes, but this system really is fool proof."
20227. judithathome - 9/11/2001 6:03:26 PM
Go to CNN to see Kabul being strafed by someone....
20228. Absensia - 9/11/2001 6:03:50 PM
Bombings in Kabul..probably missles from Arabian Sea or Indian Ocean.
20229. judithathome - 9/11/2001 6:05:07 PM
The reporter is saying it sounds like missles coming in...big fire at one point. Tracer bullets in retaliation.
20230. judithathome - 9/11/2001 6:05:44 PM
Fuel depot seems to be hit.
20231. concerned - 9/11/2001 6:06:05 PM
Longer flights could also be required to have their 'galley cook' be trained and armed with such devices as would be efficacious in taking out knife and box cutter wielding scum.
20232. PelleNilsson - 9/11/2001 6:06:17 PM
Andonly
I couldn't care less about what you care to read or not. What I post here is not a function of your preferences. Am I making myself clear?
20233. Indiana Jones - 9/11/2001 6:07:10 PM
Off in search of a television set.
20234. Absensia - 9/11/2001 6:07:50 PM
They may have come from warships and maybe US. But had to go through airspace of Pakistan, which means the President/General of Pakistan would haved to agree, no doubt. Regarless of what he might say later.
20235. Andonly - 9/11/2001 6:07:53 PM
It has begun. We are bombing Kabul.
20236. ronski - 9/11/2001 6:08:43 PM
Well that is interesting.
20237. Andonly - 9/11/2001 6:09:43 PM
Pelle: fuck yourself. Am I making myself clear?
20238. mgleason - 9/11/2001 6:09:47 PM
CNN reports that the the explosions in Kabul seem to be indicative of cruise missiles.
20239. concerned - 9/11/2001 6:10:00 PM
Re. 20235 -
Who are 'we', precisely?
20240. mgleason - 9/11/2001 6:11:12 PM
This is rich; the Taliban calling it state-sponsored terrorism.
20241. judithathome - 9/11/2001 6:11:13 PM
It's on.
20242. ronski - 9/11/2001 6:12:07 PM
Has it been confirmed as actual retaliation? CNN is not saying so.
20243. ronski - 9/11/2001 6:12:28 PM
Nor are they saying it is surely from the U.S.
20244. Absensia - 9/11/2001 6:13:16 PM
Who knows who "we" are, but it seems a bit too coincidental. I doubt Hatch et al, really think it is civil war in Afghanistan that just happened tonight.
20245. mgleason - 9/11/2001 6:14:07 PM
Andrea Mitchell says her sources in the intelligence community tell her that it is NOT the US, but Afghan dissidents within Kabul.
20246. judithathome - 9/11/2001 6:14:40 PM
They think it's an ammo dump that has been hit and no one is claiming it's the USA....
20247. concerned - 9/11/2001 6:15:37 PM
And of course, there is the old standby - no ready access between the passenger and pilot compartments between liftoff and landing enforced with secure bulkheads.
20248. Absensia - 9/11/2001 6:20:15 PM
But, the dissidents have not attacked like that in years. This sort of attack within Kabul? These appear to be incoming.
20249. mgleason - 9/11/2001 6:23:00 PM
It's messed up, Absensia. This isn't the end.
20250. concerned - 9/11/2001 6:24:40 PM
Now, if people will note, I've offered three real world solutions, any one alone of which would be efficacious in preventing such terrorist attacks as have happened this morning at the WTC/Pentagon.
20251. Absensia - 9/11/2001 6:25:09 PM
Very true, mgleason. And that's what scares me.
And who knows if we will ever really know what or who happened.
20252. judithathome - 9/11/2001 6:27:11 PM
, I've offered three real world solutions
And very sensible they were, concerned.
20253. mgleason - 9/11/2001 6:27:46 PM
The Beeb says that an Afghan opposition leader was attacked yesterday; the explosions could be timely retaliation, taking advantage of what must be general confusion.
Now the Solomon Bros. building has also collapsed in NY.
20254. concerned - 9/11/2001 6:27:47 PM
Thanks:)
20255. pseudoerasmus - 9/11/2001 6:28:12 PM
Absensia, you haven't noticed, Afghanistan is already in a state of civil war. The leader of the opposition, Ahmed Shah Massud, was recently the victim of an assassination attempt. The theatre of operations for the civil war is Panjshir Valley, not far from Kabul itself.
Those explosions in Kabul likely have nothing to do with the USA.
20256. concerned - 9/11/2001 6:28:36 PM
My last was regarding 20252, of course.
20257. judithathome - 9/11/2001 6:29:05 PM
At another forum I was reading, they are speculating that it's us attacking and that GW will announce it in his speech; they are saying that is why he was at Offet SAC base today...
20258. ScottLoar - 9/11/2001 6:32:56 PM
I also would not assume those explosions in Kabul are by the US. What the hell would we be attacking? The Kabul Disinformation & Religiosity Building?
Any response by the US must, must, be measured and absolutely accurate as immediately afterwards the President must explain to the world towards whom the attack was made and on what grounds.
20259. ScottLoar - 9/11/2001 6:34:18 PM
The President was at the SAC base because that it the very place deep within the mountains of Colorado where he would hole up in case of nuclear attack - the safest place on this planet.
20260. EricCartman - 9/11/2001 6:35:57 PM
Aren't those idiots in Kabul still threatening to hang eight foreigners, including two American women, for proselytizing?
Isn't that reason enough to level 'em?
20261. Absensia - 9/11/2001 6:36:10 PM
Pseud...I have noticed a lot...Massud was reported as being killed by a car bomb...since when has the Talaban done that? And cruise missles, from within? You many be right but there have been no attacks on Kabul in years.
We shall see. Frankly, I am not taking anything "politicians" say. And, I hope you are right, and I am wrong.
20262. concerned - 9/11/2001 6:36:58 PM
Easy there, EC. Diversity, you know.
20263. concerned - 9/11/2001 6:39:14 PM
I know - warped sense of humor.
20264. concerned - 9/11/2001 6:40:07 PM
Me, I mean.
20265. EricCartman - 9/11/2001 6:43:29 PM
Concerned:
Yeah, but the US gov't is just itching for it to be bin Laden not just so they can take him out, but also as a solid pretext to get rid of the Taliban. They're first-rate nutjobs, and between grinding the country further into the dirt, victimizing their own people, and pissing off the neighbors, they're asking for it.
20266. EricCartman - 9/11/2001 6:44:25 PM
As for the warped sense of humor, obviously I'm in that boat too.
20267. concerned - 9/11/2001 6:45:44 PM
Anybody see this before?
Taliban slammed over bin Laden appointment
MOSCOW, Aug. 30 (UPI) -- Russia's Foreign Ministry on Thursday condemned the appointment of Saudi terrorism suspect Osama bin Laden as the commander-in-chief of the armed forces of Afghanistan's ruling Taliban regime, the official RIA Novosti news agency reported.
Bin Laden's appointment confirmed that a center of international terrorism is being set up in Taliban-controlled territory, the ministry said in a statement.
"Pseudo-religious values are being used as a cover to prepare a bridgehead for expansion of militant extremism and separatism far beyond the region's borders," added the statement.
This month, Russian media quoted Pakistan's Nation daily as saying that the Taliban had named bin Laden commander of their troops. Afghanistan's civil war concerns the Kremlin as hundreds of Russian border guards monitor the Afghan-Tajik border and a potential spill of violence could plunge the whole region into chaos.
20268. concerned - 9/11/2001 6:47:26 PM
Moreover, the Taliban's aim to build an orthodox Islamic state has given rise to many Islamic extremist movements in the former Soviet republics in Central Asia. In recent years, Islamic insurgents from Afghanistan launched raids on Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.
The Taliban's ongoing clashes with the Northern Alliance movement backing ousted President Burhanuddin Rabbani -- the leader of the government general recognized by international organizations -- have alerted Russia and its partners as arms smuggling, drug trafficking, kidnapping and other crimes have flourished along the Afghan-Tajik border.
On Thursday, Moscow also condemned the appointment of Juma Namangani as bin Laden's deputy. Namangani, an ethnic Uzbek, was liked to a number of raids on Kyrgyzstan's Batken district over the last three years. Namangani advocates creation of an Islamic state run by a regime similar to the Taliban's and spreading over Central Asia.
"Incorporation of the international terrorists' leaders into the ruling structures of the Taliban shows the need to take decisive measures to collectively counter global challenges that are put forward from the Taliban-controlled territory," said the statement.
-- Copyright 2001 by United Press International.
All rights reserved.
So, can we expect to see the reinstitution of good old Central Asian customs such as feeding decrepit oldsters to mastiffs, playing polo with human heads, etc.?
20269. Andonly - 9/11/2001 6:49:28 PM
Concerned: your 20239--yes, good question. I just heard on CNN that the explosions in Kabul were not US military action.
20270. Absensia - 9/11/2001 6:50:00 PM
And, if that happened, Cartman, the US might be able to have a strong military base close to China.
20271. CalGal - 9/11/2001 6:52:47 PM
Jamie,
I missed that. I was struck by the people who thought Bush had caused this.
20272. judithathome - 9/11/2001 6:53:04 PM
Rumsfeld just categorically stated the explosions in Kabul were not from us.
20273. EricCartman - 9/11/2001 6:53:12 PM
Absensia:
I thought that was why we have Okinawa and Guam.
20274. Khabees Khargosh - 9/11/2001 6:57:10 PM
Eric,
Okinawa and Guam don't cover India and Pakistan.. The two recent Atomic powers with a potential of using it.
20275. Absensia - 9/11/2001 6:58:57 PM
EricCartman,
Can never have too many close bases, and isn't the Afghanistan location better?
20276. Absensia - 9/11/2001 7:00:57 PM
The strategic position of Afghanistan is much more important with Russia, Iran, Pakistan, India, China and the oil bearing central asian republics in sight.
20277. EricCartman - 9/11/2001 7:04:28 PM
Khargosh:
Well, I was being somewhat facetious. Absensia implied that, since we need to "keep an eye" on China, that occupying Afghanistan might have some utility in that regard. But that's why we have Japan, Taiwan, and S. Korea in our back pocket.
Not that we'd ever screw up the nerve to actually do anything about China in the first place. Hell, everyone's too damned scared to even deny them the Olympics.
As for India and Pakistan, please. They can't even conquer each other, with or without nukes. India's best offense might well be encouraging its innumerable citizens to vote with their feet.
Now that you mention it, though, the acquisition of nukes by those two countries was also a huge lapse on the part of our $40 billion per year intelligence community.
20278. EricCartman - 9/11/2001 7:06:53 PM
Absensia:
Yes, I would think that having a military presence in Afghanistan would be better utilized by keeping an eye on our oil fields....er, uh, I mean the Azeri oil fields. Wouldn't want Ivan getting any bright ideas about the proposed pipeline to Ceyhan, now would we?
20279. Francis Urquhart - 9/11/2001 7:07:12 PM
I hope we have not acted immediately, not out of some namby-pamby fear of upsetting the world's chieftains, but because it will be rushed and thus minimalist (fuel depot? Oh please), and at a time when those who may be responsible would best be able to assign the attack to rash judgment.
We should wait, have the case prepared, and then, in weeks, or even months, strike with when the time is opportune, we will have our brief to the world prepared, and the actions will be mammoth and unprecednted in the annals of retributive strikes.
In any fight, when you strike in anger, you lunge like a fool and rarely hit your mark. You may feel better, but you do little damage. But if you can know that your prey is coming down the street at 6:05 pm and you await around the corner with a 2x4, and a pre-printed statement demonstrating the evidence of the foul deeds of your enemy, it is a better end.
Patience. We are at war, but that doesn't mean we need act half-cocked.
20280. concerned - 9/11/2001 7:08:00 PM
If it's Bin Laden, and he's the Taliban's military chief, I say let's given them 48 hours to produce him in irons and surrender. If they don't, we can re-landscape the Pathan yurt disease.
20281. EricCartman - 9/11/2001 7:08:46 PM
Good point, Urkel. Let's wait until we're fully cocked.
20282. Absensia - 9/11/2001 7:09:16 PM
Well, "keeping an eye" was a light way of putting it, but I think a military base in Afghanistan might be "just swell."
BTW, India is considering giving away a lot of cheap tvs to its people so they watch that at night, instead of procreating. CNN...all the news..all the time.
20283. CalGal - 9/11/2001 7:09:24 PM
I can't believe it's us. If we're going to go off halfcocked, it will be to blow some country into an ash-heap, and to the extent that we think about that first, so much the better. But I can't believe that we'd rush to bomb a depot.
20284. Francis Urquhart - 9/11/2001 7:11:29 PM
A depot is exactly what we'd rush to bomb. It has the trappings of doing something, but it is a harmless thing. Fortunately, I understand that Rumsfeld has stated that we have done no such thing.
Cart is correct. This is a job for a deliberative and full cock.
20285. concerned - 9/11/2001 7:12:23 PM
It wasn't us. I'm fairly sure that the Defense Department is telling the truth.
20286. Absensia - 9/11/2001 7:12:41 PM
"Our oil fields" does have a certain ring to it. The Afghan rebels are now claiming they did the bombings. Good!
20287. CalGal - 9/11/2001 7:13:18 PM
No, that's silly. We would never rush to bomb a depot after this kind of tragedy. Even were the military advisors asinine enough to suggest it, there isn't a politician in the world who would approve it.
20288. concerned - 9/11/2001 7:14:00 PM
Re. 20284 -
So, FU: are you a lover or a fighter?
20289. CalGal - 9/11/2001 7:14:14 PM
How many weapons do you need to kill thousands of American civilians in about an hour?
Answer: None.
20290. EricCartman - 9/11/2001 7:14:45 PM
Cart is correct. This is a job for a deliberative and full cock.
Yes, and since I'm busy at the moment, I nominate Ron Jeremy for the job.(hyuck hyuck)
20291. Francis Urquhart - 9/11/2001 7:16:02 PM
"We" have in the past.
20292. Francis Urquhart - 9/11/2001 7:17:05 PM
Cart
The deeds of the Taliban might very well merit importation of Mr. Jeremy.
20293. Absensia - 9/11/2001 7:17:08 PM
Depots have always been a prime target for attacks...all those arms and explosives just ready to go off.
20294. Francis Urquhart - 9/11/2001 7:17:40 PM
And trains. Lots of trains.
20295. CalGal - 9/11/2001 7:18:01 PM
Francis,
"We" have bombed a depot because of an assault on our shores that killed thousands of people? I must have missed that news cycle.
20296. concerned - 9/11/2001 7:18:10 PM
WTF is Ron Jeremy?
20297. Francis Urquhart - 9/11/2001 7:19:33 PM
Cal
Apparently. So.
concerned
A porn legend with a cock the size of a baby food factory.
20298. CalGal - 9/11/2001 7:20:01 PM
Sigh. That's not my point. I am merely saying that if the US has finally come to its senses and started to treat terrorism as an act of war, rather than as a criminal activity, they will not be rushing off to bomb a depot. Not as a response. As a tactical maneuver, as a quick way to stop some critical activity, fine. But not as a response.
20299. Absensia - 9/11/2001 7:20:18 PM
Always the trains. If the trains don't leave on time, the country is ours.
Cal, I meant war in general, not this. And I hope it is not the US.
20300. judithathome - 9/11/2001 7:21:09 PM
Well, they haven't done that...have they? Donald Rumsfeld said we haven't so that's that.
20301. CalGal - 9/11/2001 7:21:57 PM
If so, I shall be most depressed.
Francis,
I presume you were being sarcastic? So what does it matter if we've bombed a depot in the past as a response, if we are all agreed that the US government perceives this as exponentially worse?
20302. concerned - 9/11/2001 7:22:11 PM
Re. 20299 -
I'm glad to say that your hopes are not in vain.
20303. Francis Urquhart - 9/11/2001 7:22:39 PM
A solid, prudent decision. Let us pick up the pieces, and pick our spot. Geraldo will stem the bloodlust in the interim.
Except for LucAce Brazi. Even I can't call him off.
20304. CalGal - 9/11/2001 7:22:59 PM
Judith,
I know. But Francis was implying that the US could have done it, that it's the sort of thing they've done in the past.
20305. concerned - 9/11/2001 7:23:20 PM
Now, if were C*******, bombing the depot would be exactly the thing I'd expect.
20306. Absensia - 9/11/2001 7:23:46 PM
Do we really need all this information from cabinet memebers? Probably, but who is listening?
20307. concerned - 9/11/2001 7:24:06 PM
But, thank god, GWB is not C********.
20308. Francis Urquhart - 9/11/2001 7:25:49 PM
In 1965, the last time the Pentagon and the World Trade Center was decimated by hijacked planes, we responded immediately with a surgical strike on a fuel depot.
No lie.
20309. Absensia - 9/11/2001 7:27:06 PM
Oh no, I spoke too soon, now members of the House are talking....poor Geraldo, he can never compete with this.
20310. EricCartman - 9/11/2001 7:28:20 PM
Nope, it really doesn't seem as if "we", meaning myself and the aforementioned Mr. Jeremy of course, are bombing Kabul after all. If it were "us", the city would be leveled by now. Better yet, "we" would be strafing the rural areas where bin Laden's training camps are located.
It's not us yet, but it soon will be. I disagree with Urkel that we will wait and methodically strike when the moment is perfect, weeks down the road. Amid the incessant media navel-gazing we all expect, an actual number will surface very soon. The body count. It will be enormous, and Americans will not want to be patient once they hear that number.
20311. concerned - 9/11/2001 7:31:06 PM
Re. 20310 -
True. Nothing remotely like that since Vietnam, wrt body count.
20312. mgleason - 9/11/2001 7:31:15 PM
I love to see these politicians chasing 'face time' after scurrying back from their safe houses.
20313. wonkers2 - 9/11/2001 7:31:36 PM
By the way Pelle where was your daddy during the war? Which side was he on? [WWII that is.]
20314. CalGal - 9/11/2001 7:32:42 PM
Francis,
How many people died?
20315. CalGal - 9/11/2001 7:34:30 PM
Eric,
I agree. If we're going to retaliate, it will be soon and my hope is any fussing is due to the severity of the attack.
It is possible that we won't retaliate at all, and treat it as a criminal matter.
20316. Francis Urquhart - 9/11/2001 7:35:49 PM
Cartman
Every effort must be to waiting, to resisting the impulse for instant gratification. I agree that some public and political pressure will be brought to bear. But I have faith that the resilience of the nation, its enormous size and ability to "move on", and the three-card monty of the press, which sucks simple context out of the most unambiguous efforts, will give us that time.
And if we wait for the roaches to feel comfortable in alighting from their hovels, and if we prepare in such a manner as to murder every roach, and all the right roaches, and if our evidence of roach activity is unimpeachable, we will have strengthened the hand of American foreign policy -and we will have sated appetites for revenge for a much longer period of time.
For the roach will know that the hammer falls harder every day it is delayed.
Bin Laden planned his strike for some time, and look at how effective it ended up.
Thank you, and God bless you all.
20317. EricCartman - 9/11/2001 7:37:44 PM
Great. Urkel's road-testing his new speech while he runs for Prince George County dog-catcher. The mind wobbles.
20318. Francis Urquhart - 9/11/2001 7:40:12 PM
Easy, you Chomskyite whatever-else pseudo calls you fucknut. Just because you can't wait until the popshot doesn't mean you have to ruin the movie for the rest of us.
20319. Absensia - 9/11/2001 7:40:21 PM
Hmmm, Madeline Albright agrees with FU.
20320. Francis Urquhart - 9/11/2001 7:41:09 PM
Sue she does. I nailed her.
20321. CalGal - 9/11/2001 7:42:33 PM
Bin Laden had years to prepare without public scrutiny--or, apparently, even covert scrutiny. He is not running a country in his spare time, nor is he dealing with a media and an outraged public that not only will want to know everything, but will openly discuss every option that comes to mind, nor is he dealing with experts who will comment on all the possibilities he has to consider and rate them in terms of effectivness so that his target can be prepared. Bin Laden can kill anyone of his people on a whim, much less for betrayal, Bush could only ever kill the occasional Texan for murder.
Exactly how is it that you consider these situations analogous?
20322. Francis Urquhart - 9/11/2001 7:43:59 PM
You mean, Bin Laden and Bush aren't exactly analagous? Get out. That's incredible! I thought they were peas in a pod.
20323. ScottLoar - 9/11/2001 7:45:15 PM
Who gives a damn if Americans are impatient for retaliation after hearing the body count? It is the US military, intelligence services and administration who will act, not the body politic. And I don't believe they'll be impatient. No, contrary to the festering in this thread about impatience and looting and a general disregard for the general public that general public seems to be collected, angry but cool, and fully allowing the authorities time to clear this up and mark direction, nothwithstanding the stupid questions of some few newsreporters which often disgust the viewing public.
20324. MaxMacks - 9/11/2001 7:47:03 PM
just saw Bush on TV for first time.
this thing is WAY OVER HIS HEAD...
he looked like a deer caught in the HEADLIGHTS
of a truck at night....
20325. EricCartman - 9/11/2001 7:47:06 PM
Urkel:
But won't all this hoo-ha distract Bush from he really should be doing, besides improving his Crash Bandicoot scores -- annexing Mexico?
20326. Francis Urquhart - 9/11/2001 7:47:32 PM
Scott
Well said, but don't denigrate the reporters. They are useful to delay and mute the more hasty tendencies of the public, as "Day of Terror" becomes "Aftermath of Terror: Day 34".
20327. pseudoerasmus - 9/11/2001 7:48:12 PM
Chomskyite scum Cartman:
Armenia and Azerbaijan were at war during the first half of the 1990s. They are still officially at war.
The USA sided with Armenia, a commercially and economically worthless country, against Azerbaijan, a country which plays host to dozens of American multinationals prospecting for, and transporting, oil and gas in the Caspian Sea region. The US Congress imposed comprehensive sanctions on trade and aid to Azerbaijan.
This doesn't exactly sort with nincompoop Chomskyite worldview that US foreign policy is dictated by corporate interests, does it?
20328. Khabees Khargosh - 9/11/2001 7:48:53 PM
20277 Eric,
Well you and everybody else knows it very well that strategic positions are not acquired necessarily to defeat some country. Sometimes you have an apparent conflict of interests or an apparent enimity and sometimes just to keep an eye on the affairs and to let others know who's the boss. No matter Pakistan and India can "conquer" eachother or not, they still remain a nuclear flash point and an "eye" must be kept on them.....not to foget the others such as China, the central asia and Iran.
By the way I dont think Afghanistan can conquer USA either , now can she?
20329. CalGal - 9/11/2001 7:48:54 PM
Francis,
Hey, dude, you were the one who said: Bin Laden planned his strike for some time, and look at how effective it ended up.
as the reason why Bush should wait. So don't kvetch at me.
Scott,
I don't think it needs to be tomorrow. But for any number of reasons it should be soon. Not least of which is that the time in which Americans will be willing to do whatever it takes is fairly limited. We have a short attention span. I also think the possibility of the government's every option being openly assessed and discussed on air is entirely feasible.
20330. EricCartman - 9/11/2001 7:49:11 PM
Who gives a damn if Americans are impatient for retaliation after hearing the body count?
I'm sure Zogby is already vetting the poll results. Wait and watch, Loar. Soon as an official number comes out, there will be a demand for someone's head.
Unless, of course, Love Cruise can keep enough mouth-breathers pre-occupied....
20331. MaxMacks - 9/11/2001 7:49:33 PM
i never watch much TV.
reporters sound almost gleeful when there is some great calamity to talk about
mostly they make guesses and spread false rumors.
20332. Francis Urquhart - 9/11/2001 7:49:39 PM
Eric
Not at all. If all goes to my recommendation, the pros will collect the evidence, select the day, gather the intelligence and recommend the retaliation. And Bush will assent, with his own addition of doubling the punch of that retaliation.
Collaborative government at its best.
20333. concerned - 9/11/2001 7:49:46 PM
RE. 20321 -
Calgal is obviously confusing GWB with her idol Clowntoon who had the occasional Arkansan offed, according to some.
20334. Andonly - 9/11/2001 7:50:11 PM
The Afghan Northern Alliance has claimed responsibility for the attack in Kabul.
If they did indeed have cruise missiles...that's interesting.
20335. Francis Urquhart - 9/11/2001 7:51:50 PM
Cart
The last administration has made you cynical. One more crime to add.
Where is the carefree, boyish Cart?
Damn you, Bill Clinton! Damn you to hell!
20336. EricCartman - 9/11/2001 7:54:06 PM
Nattering douchebag Psuede-o:
Armenia and Azerbaijan were at war during the first half of the 1990s. They are still officially at war.
So are Russia and Japan, I understand. So what? What has been the recent state of the war? Not much, right?
The US Congress imposed comprehensive sanctions on trade and aid to Azerbaijan.
Ah. Cutting the lucrative Azeri-American market out of the loop. That'll teach 'em.
This doesn't exactly sort with nincompoop Chomskyite worldview that US foreign policy is dictated by corporate interests, does it?
Are you seriously proposing that that is not the usual case?
20337. arkymalarky - 9/11/2001 7:55:59 PM
Message # 20323
Hear hear.
20338. EricCartman - 9/11/2001 7:56:27 PM
Frances:
The last administration has made you cynical.
No. Blame "reality" TV. They've made me wait too long to watch Wheel of Fortune rejects get hunted and eaten by the Masai. I just can't waits no longer, I tells ya!
20339. Francis Urquhart - 9/11/2001 7:56:35 PM
Isn't it natural that a nation would be more predisposed to nations with whom it has common corporate economic relations?
20340. Khabees Khargosh - 9/11/2001 7:58:16 PM
The popular belief is that the Afghan Northern Alliance is backed by the "West". If we believe that, it could be possible that this attack was under "orders" to see public response in case of a US retaliation attack. Remember that the president has still to speak in less than an hour now.
20341. mgleason - 9/11/2001 7:59:48 PM
Over 250 fire-fighters are being reported dead by their union, and 78 police missing.
20342. pseudoerasmus - 9/11/2001 8:00:01 PM
Message # 20336
Armenia and Azerbaijan had an all-out, quite bloody war over Nagorno-Karabakh. A piece of shit war over a piece of shit territory, but it was a real war, unlike the rather peaceful "state of war" between Russia and Japan.
Ah. Cutting the lucrative Azeri-American market out of the loop. That'll teach 'em.
Azerbaijan contains more lucrative business opportunities for US multinational corporations than all of Central America and the Caribbean combined. Yet you should Chomskyite idiots have no problem believing that US policies in those countries are motivated by business interests.
Are you seriously proposing that [US foreign policy is not dictated by corporate interests]?
Of course. Suggesting? I have had long arguments with you in the past on this very question, in which I stated explicitly that US foreign policy is not so motivated. But then no country's interests are purely motivated by commercial considerations.
Hundreds of billions of dollars were spent in the Vietnam war to make Vietnam, a market of subsistence peasants, safe for American products?
The US now trades with Vietnam and China but doesn't with Cuba, which is doing business with everyone except the one country for whom business supposedly comes before all?
The USA supports Israel against the Arabs, even though siding with the Arabs clearly makes more sense economically than siding with Israel. Western Europe was not victimised by the Arab oil embargo. The USA was.
Then there's Armenia and Azerbaijan.
The dumbfuck Chomskyite view is fundamentally at variance with the facts and the norms of state behaviour.
20343. Francis Urquhart - 9/11/2001 8:01:30 PM
Khabees
To see what "public response"? If the president ordered mass disembowling of those who lay on Afghan rugs, he would receive a favorable public response at this moment.
I find it unlikely that President Bush, who needs as much time with prepared text as possible, is waiting for the numbers on the bombing of a depot by the ANA, before he sets the nation's sail.
20344. EricCartman - 9/11/2001 8:02:19 PM
(drums fingers on table, waiting for the inevitable table demonstrating beyond a doubt how Amero-Azerio trade deficits have nearly quintupled since the dreaded trade sanctions, and how they account for nearly 3.141579% of Azerbaijan's GDP....)
20345. pseudoerasmus - 9/11/2001 8:06:51 PM
Cartman's bravado becomes ever more pathetic as his Chomskyite world view is deconstructed and confuted before his eyes.
20346. EricCartman - 9/11/2001 8:08:21 PM
A piece of shit war over a piece of shit territory [Nagorno-Karabakh], but it was a real war, unlike the rather peaceful "state of war" between Russia and Japan.
Yes, but as you say, early 1990s. What has taken place recently, say, in the past five years?
Azerbaijan contains more lucrative business opportunities for US multinational corporations than all of Central America and the Caribbean combined.
True. Again though, what real effect have the trade sanctions had on the Azeri economy? Somewhere between slim and none, I'll wager. Maybe I missed it, but I sure as hell don't recall Chevron being told to pull up stakes and leave Baku in the hands of Gazprom.
I have had long arguments with you in the past on this very question, in which I stated explicitly that US foreign policy is not so motivated. But then no country's interests are purely motivated by commercial considerations.
Yes, and that's why I pointedly quantified it as usual. I agree that policies in Vietnam and Cuba have been motivated by more than mere commerce, but that doesn't mean those policies were merely pure misguided ideology, either.
20347. EricCartman - 9/11/2001 8:09:50 PM
Cartman's bravado becomes ever more pathetic as his Chomskyite world view is deconstructed and confuted before his eyes.
Well, ya got me there, cowboy.
20348. Khabees Khargosh - 9/11/2001 8:10:55 PM
Francis,
By public I didnt specifically mean the American public, I also included the other nations, The aliies, which some official( I don't remember who he was) mentioned and asked for Support and back ....now don't start saying that America doesnt care what others say and its not answerable to anybody or that the rest of the world doesn't matter. Despite America's position and the status, you can't exclude the importance of a response by the rest of the world in case of an attack.
20349. pseudoerasmus - 9/11/2001 8:13:33 PM
Cartman, what difference does it make what has been happening since the ceasefire was declared? And what difference does it make what real effects the sanctions have had? The fact is, US policy was tilted against the interests of its own corporations.
20350. pseudoerasmus - 9/11/2001 8:15:07 PM
If the USA had supported Azerbaijan, Chomsky and Chomtman would have known all about the US support for the evil Haider regime in Baku. But since the facts went against their prejudices, they were silent.
20351. pseudoerasmus - 9/11/2001 8:15:31 PM
Haider Aliyev regime
20352. EricCartman - 9/11/2001 8:15:34 PM
Despite America's position and the status, you can't exclude the importance of a response by the rest of the world in case of an attack.
Well, the French have declared that they are behind us, so I feel safe in saying that we can now proceed with confidence and impunity.
20353. Francis Urquhart - 9/11/2001 8:17:55 PM
Khabees
It is my understanding that under the short but barbaric reign of George W. Bush, the United States has become a unilateralist menace, uninterested and undeterred by the opinions of Swedes, Laotians, Macedonians, and others of their ilk.
While this view may be hyperbolic, I remain confident that the public reaction of the rest of the world is far down on the list of priorities for this Administration, at this time, and even if it were high on such a list, the use of an ANA attack on a fuel depot would be a poor vehicle to gauge international public opinion on American retribution.
20354. mgleason - 9/11/2001 8:18:23 PM
Yeah, well, just wait until we have to fly over their airspace.
20355. Francis Urquhart - 9/11/2001 8:19:55 PM
I yield the balance of my time to the right honourable Maria Gleason of Derby.
20356. Raskolnikov - 9/11/2001 8:20:10 PM
Cartman: Look at a map. Any serious effort against the likely suspects is going to require having some allies, and world sympathy, unless we want to stir up a larget hornet's nest. I hope GW will learn from his father about how to be a multilateralist.
20357. Khabees Khargosh - 9/11/2001 8:20:19 PM
Eric,
Good !! Keep us updated with the other countires.
And whom do you want to attack?...Bin laden ? You don't even know for sure where he is !!
20358. amax - 9/11/2001 8:23:01 PM
From a chomskyite friend:
Just writing to be sure everyone is safe and sane after the terrorist
attacks today. This is one of the most devastating and surreal events
I
have experienced. It seems that strange days are upon us.
In a local school here in Berkeley, one of our worker's 14-year old son
called and said all the kids were beating up the "Arab kids." In the
aftermath of this attack, it seems like there is great danger in the
days
ahead, and I sure hope that cool and thoughtful heads will prevail.
Take care everyone. Please let me know that you are all OK.
20359. Francis Urquhart - 9/11/2001 8:23:38 PM
Rask
I do not believe world sympathy will be much of a factor, nor should it be. When we act, if we act as we should, many an innocent baby and mother will be incinerated. This will create sympathy for the targets, and the same hornets will always buzz about to the tut-tuts of Kofi Annan.
Your point as to strategic partnerships is better taken.
20360. mgleason - 9/11/2001 8:23:40 PM
Many thanks, FU. I shall read the Wife of Bath's tale into the record.
20361. Francis Urquhart - 9/11/2001 8:24:54 PM
As you please. Let the record reflect the Wife of Bath's tale, as read by the oh so right and oh so honourable Maria Gleason of Derby.
20362. Khabees Khargosh - 9/11/2001 8:25:06 PM
Rask,
You are right. For a formal attack, Us will need allies, there is no land access and US will need other countires' air space to fly over in case of an air attack
20363. EricCartman - 9/11/2001 8:26:21 PM
Cartman, what difference does it make what has been happening since the ceasefire was declared? And what difference does it make what real effects the sanctions have had? The fact is, US policy was tilted against the interests of its own corporations.
Um, it makes a big difference, goofball. On the first question, if hostilities have indeed ceased since the declaration of ceasefire, then the state of war, like Russia-Japan, is merely diplomatic semantics.
On the second question, if the sanctions had no teeth to them, or if there was little trade to sanction in the first place, then it's just more convenient semantics.
Look, we (the US) also lecture endlessly about how committed to human rights we are, yet we coddle and cater to China, we're a billion or so into Plan Colombia, even though the State Dept. has excoriated the gov't there for murdering its own citizens. Not to mention plenty of various CIA ops and policies over the last half-century that stand in stark contradiction to our stated policies.
Words mean little if actions don't jibe with them.
"Chomtman"....you make that one up all by yourself? Nice try. You can go on and on about Chomsky all you like, but I have told you this time and again -- I disagree with a great deal of what Chomsky has said in the past. It's mainly in his assessment of the mainstream media as spokestool for the money/power class that he spot on.
20364. Indiana Jones - 9/11/2001 8:26:34 PM
Why the towers collapsed 
Time for the President.
20366. pseudoerasmus - 9/11/2001 8:32:05 PM
Message # 20363
Um, it makes a big difference, goofball. On the first question, if hostilities have indeed ceased since the declaration of ceasefire, then the state of war, like Russia-Japan, is merely diplomatic semantics. On the second question, if the sanctions had no teeth to them, or if there was little trade to sanction in the first place, then it's just more convenient semantics.
Hardly diplomatic semantics. The US embargo helped Armenia win the war.
Sanctions had plenty of teeth. Arms for Armenia, none for Azerbaijan (which was faced with a Russian embargo as well). Plenty of economic, food and other non-military aid flowing to Armenia, particularly with Armenian-Americans like Cher raising millions for Azerbaijan, while Azerbaijan could count only on Turkey for solid support abroad.
Look, we (the US) also lecture endlessly about how committed to human rights we are, yet we coddle and cater to China, we're a billion or so into Plan Colombia, even though the State Dept. has excoriated the gov't there for murdering its own citizens. Not to mention plenty of various CIA ops and policies over the last half-century that stand in stark contradiction to our stated policies. Words mean little if actions don't jibe with them.
That's very nice, but irrelevant to the corporate interests theory of foreign policy determination.
I disagree with a great deal of what Chomsky has said in the past. It's mainly in his assessment of the mainstream media as spokestool for the money/power class that he spot on.
In your babbling about death squads, corporate interests, and such stuff, you are Chomsky lite. Face it. Embrace it. Live with it.
20367. Francis Urquhart - 9/11/2001 8:34:31 PM
Style point.
He flubbed a word and his tie is too blue.
Tim?
20368. Khabees Khargosh - 9/11/2001 8:35:24 PM
He is reading from a telepromptor.
20369. iiibbb - 9/11/2001 8:35:49 PM
20324. MaxMacks - 9/12/01 12:47:03 AM
just saw Bush on TV for first time.
this thing is WAY OVER HIS HEAD...
he looked like a deer caught in the HEADLIGHTS
of a truck at night....
Who wouldn't be in way over their head? Please tell me how president Gore would have solved this problem in 8 hrs or less?
20370. EricCartman - 9/11/2001 8:37:07 PM
In your babbling about death squads, corporate interests, and such stuff, you are Chomsky lite. Face it. Embrace it. Live with it.
Okey-fine. And we've never bankrolled or encouraged any death squads, nor have we ever made policy by placing money over people or moral principle. If you say so.
Isn't this about the time you begin lecturing me on how Chilean stadium executions were of utmost necessity in resuscitating a moribund copper market?
20371. pseudoerasmus - 9/11/2001 8:40:08 PM
The point of contention is not whether the USA has supported death squads, or overthrown governments, or the like. Most of those things are undeniable. The question is whether the USA did those things in order to serve corporate interests.
Chilean stadium executions were necessary to rid the country of filthy vermin. Copper prices tanked in 1974 to one-third of the 1973 levels, anyway.
20372. Francis Urquhart - 9/11/2001 8:40:54 PM
Brian Williams: "Style point. Bush blinks a great deal. Tim, how do you think such blinking will register with Bin Laden?"
Tim russert: "Well, Brian, if you blink at a teleprompter, will you blink at the moment of decision? That is a question that can only be answered in the coming days."
Brian Williams: "Thank you, Tim."
20373. mgleason - 9/11/2001 8:43:11 PM
He said it again: The US will make no distinction between those who committed these acts and those who harbor them.
20374. Raskolnikov - 9/11/2001 8:44:02 PM
FU: Strategic partnerships are what I meant. I don't care any more about Belgian opinion than you do. But I do care about Pakistani and Arab opinion. The Gulf War was made a hell of a lot easier with support, or just neutrality, from key states.
Not that we should back off if we *can't* get that level of cooperation, but we should work hard to get it.
20375. Laura C - 9/11/2001 8:46:36 PM
He had me up until the 23rd Psalm.
20376. mgleason - 9/11/2001 8:47:59 PM
Yeah, I expected a cue to the Battle Hymn of the Republic at that point.
20377. Francis Urquhart - 9/11/2001 8:50:08 PM
I don't really care that much for Pakistani or Arab opinion. They will condemn what I hope to be a massive and indiscriminate retaliation. That said, I'm sure no one presumes that any administration, no matter how unilateralist, will cease diplomatic efforts in lieu of having its actions understood and, if possible, accepted. But to the extent you modulate your response based upon the vagaries of the either fanatical or fickle Arab world, you may as well abandon the type of response that is necessary.
I call for prudence in terms of timing. I do believe that we should wait until our case is strongest and our prey is more vulnerable.
But when the time comes, I agree with Ace that the actions must be like nothing the terrorists and those who harbor them have ever seen. And given that prerequisite, I am relatively sure that the most deft of diplomatic entreaties will not stem the condemnation of the Arab world.
20378. EricCartman - 9/11/2001 8:50:41 PM
The question is whether the USA did those things in order to serve corporate interests.
And the obvious answer is along the lines of "sometimes" or "frequently". Chomsky himself has never said "always". You can pant over the quantifiables all you like, my main beef has been that there has never been any real accountability.
Chilean stadium executions were necessary to rid the country of filthy vermin.
Yeah well, a couple of those "vermin" were fucking American citizens, and I resent the fact that the US gov't let that turd Pinochet get away with murdering Americans, as well as assassinating people in our fucking capital (Letelier).
Leaving aside your smarmy acceptance of people having electrodes attached to their nuts and being shot without trial, there is supposed to be the rule of law, and accountability. Either you believe that as a matter of principle, or a matter of convenience. If it's the latter, so what? Nothing to be proud of there.
Copper prices tanked in 1974 to one-third of the 1973 levels, anyway.
So what you're saying is that economic decisions didn't factor into that scenario, then?
20379. judithathome - 9/11/2001 8:52:08 PM
Well, style points aside, who feels better now that Bush has read?
20380. Francis Urquhart - 9/11/2001 8:53:49 PM
I would have preferred if he personally tucked me in tonite, but I feel cozy.
20381. Francis Urquhart - 9/11/2001 8:54:29 PM
Although, he tanked on the critical role of any chief executive.
Style points.
20382. Khabees Khargosh - 9/11/2001 8:54:38 PM
FU,
US must use Pakistani or Iranian air space to attack. Does that matter by any chance?
20383. EricCartman - 9/11/2001 8:54:54 PM
Urkel:
Maybe he'll let you drill in Jenna's protected wetlands....
20384. Francis Urquhart - 9/11/2001 8:55:20 PM
I mean, style points aside, juditha?
As Brian Williams will tell you, and I'm sure you know, the game is style points.
20385. Absensia - 9/11/2001 8:55:33 PM
Not me, Judith.
20386. EricCartman - 9/11/2001 8:58:01 PM
Frances:
Knock Brian Williams all you want, but I'll always remember him crying when Di died. Made me feel like I'd lost a member of the family.
Until later, when I realized she was just some broad who had more money than brains, who I'd never thought much of in the first place....
20387. mgleason - 9/11/2001 8:58:55 PM
Well, call me naïve, but I'm glad to see him in DC and gladder still to hear a message of business as usual. I'm not going to criticize him at this point.
20388. Francis Urquhart - 9/11/2001 8:59:06 PM
Khabees
You presume that our response will be solely by bomber. You also presume that we will request clearance of air space from Iran or Pakistan.
This calls for something more than the massive bombing, go home, hooray.
We soften them by missile, we bomb them, air clearance or no, and then we send in strike teams to shoot every dog still moving.
20389. Indiana Jones - 9/11/2001 8:59:24 PM
I concur with Francis and what I assume Ace would say as well re Arab opinion. The Egyptians, who, next to Israel, receive more American largesse than any other nation, were shouting "Bull's eye!" when the second jet smashed into the second tower.
As a minor aside, I've not heard any talk that this might be the work of Serbians. Will just throw that out there so on the off chance it is, I can say, "See, what did I tell you?" I don't think it was Serbian terrorists, though they have as much cause to do this as anyone and used to have a pretty good reputation for mayhem.
20390. Francis Urquhart - 9/11/2001 8:59:54 PM
maria
Well I am.
The man has no style.
20391. Francis Urquhart - 9/11/2001 9:01:08 PM
Serbian terrorists would have run the planes into each other.
20392. mgleason - 9/11/2001 9:01:21 PM
It's sort of endearing, FU. Really.
20393. Francis Urquhart - 9/11/2001 9:02:50 PM
I didn't like his tie at all. This is a tragedy, not an Easter egg hunt.
20394. Indiana Jones - 9/11/2001 9:03:30 PM
Bush has no style, but business as usual is important.
The more we magnify this, the more we let the terrorists accomplish what they wanted. If they have any hint of rationality, we make it clear to them that they're not going to get any reaction from us but an ass-kicking.
Of course that does little good because they have all the rationality of a rabid dog.
Only one cure for a rabid dog.
20395. EricCartman - 9/11/2001 9:04:13 PM
Serbian terrorists would have run the planes into each other.
I thought that was Polish terrorists. Or am I thinking about the Polish terrorist who tried to blow up a bus, and burned his lips on the exhaust pipe?
20396. pseudoerasmus - 9/11/2001 9:04:15 PM
Message # 20378
And the obvious answer is along the lines of "sometimes" or "frequently".
No, the only possible and coherent answer is: very rarely, if ever at all.
Yeah well, a couple of those "vermin" were fucking American citizens, and I resent the fact that the US gov't let that turd Pinochet get away with murdering Americans, as well as assassinating people in our fucking capital (Letelier).
I don't think the Yankistan government "let" Pinochet do anything. Pinochet was his own man. He did whatever he wanted.
Leaving aside your smarmy acceptance of people having electrodes attached to their nuts and being shot without trial....
I don't approve of that at all.
...there is supposed to be the rule of law, and accountability. Either you believe that as a matter of principle, or a matter of convenience.
Well, the Allende regime was an outlaw regime. Overthrowing him was a good thing.
So what you're saying is that economic decisions didn't factor into that scenario, then?
Zero.
20397. Francis Urquhart - 9/11/2001 9:04:28 PM
Indy
Agreed. Move on. Start the memorials. Bury the dead. Bide.
Incinerate.
20398. Khabees Khargosh - 9/11/2001 9:09:56 PM
FU,
Don't you belong to the best democracy in the world??? WOW!!! I am impressed !! You don't think the violation of a country's air space means anything or is it your "right"? May be that plane disassembled by China was sent to prove your point of view too.
By the way, didn't USSR try to kill some dogs in those streets too?
I remind you, that Afghanistan has no land route available for a land attack unlike Iraq.
20399. EricCartman - 9/11/2001 9:13:01 PM
No, the only possible and coherent answer is: very rarely, if ever at all.
Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
I don't think the Yankistan government "let" Pinochet do anything. Pinochet was his own man. He did whatever he wanted.
Nonsense. You don't get away with torturing/murdering American citizens (even lefty radicals), and blowing up a car in DC, without someone letting you. Pinochet should have been brought to heel for such actions, yet never was. Why do you think that is?
I don't approve of [people having electrodes attached to their nuts and being shot without trial] at all.
Right. You referred to them as "vermin" (in the throes of orgasmic polemicism, no doubt). Not demanding accountability for such actions is tantamount to acceptance, afaic.
Well, the Allende regime was an outlaw regime. Overthrowing him was a good thing.
Hmmm. Was Allende not democratically elected by the people of Chile? Maybe, maybe not -- who can tell with these backwater countries? But even if not, why is one coup d'état legitimate and the other not? Explain yourself, Pedro. Are these not economic considerations -- Allende was nationalizing the copper mines and fucking up commodities markets, yes?
20400. Francis Urquhart - 9/11/2001 9:15:42 PM
Khabees
What is the point of being the top dog in the neighborhood if you can't pee on all the fire hydrants?
Actually, if you actually believe that any great nation would require the assent of Pakistan or Iran to bomb its enemies, it is clear that your sympathies are third-world, to the detriment of your understanding of realpolitik.
I have a question for you?
If you were the President of the United States, and it was proven that Bin laden was behind the attacks, and I could guarantee you that tomorrow, Bin Laden, every one of his associates, every one of their parents, grandparents, brothers, sisters, and children, and every around them for an area of 200 yards would be eliminated by painful fiery death, would you authorize me to commit this act?
20401. Indiana Jones - 9/11/2001 9:16:11 PM
And the Nazis had a lot trouble handling Yugoslavian resistance, too, Khargosh. That fact didn't slow us down any.
Talk to our European friends about why something can't be done. You're dealing with Americans now.
20402. pseudoerasmus - 9/11/2001 9:23:36 PM
Message # 20399
You don't get away with torturing/murdering American citizens (even lefty radicals), and blowing up a car in DC, without someone letting you. Pinochet should have been brought to heel for such actions, yet never was. Why do you think that is?
Pinochet didn't get prior permission from the Yankistan government. He just did what he did, and apparently the US government looked the other way. I don't think that's "letting" Pinochet do something.
Right. You referred to them as "vermin" (in the throes of orgasmic polemicism, no doubt). Not demanding accountability for such actions is tantamount to acceptance, afaic.
I don't mind if you demand accountability.
Was Allende not democratically elected by the people of Chile?
No.
Allende failed to win the majority vote in the general election, garnering only 36%. According to the Chilean constitution, it was then up to the Congress to select a winner. The Chilean Congress chose Allende. Got that? It was a legal selection.
But even if not, why is one coup d'état legitimate and the other not?
The same Congress, three years later, passed a resolution accusing Allende of "attempting to establish a totalitarian regime" in Chile and all kinds of violations of the constitution, and threatened to invoke its right to remove the president from office on the grounds of incompetence. I can post the full text of that resolution if you wish, whether in English or in Spanish. I think this resolution constitutes a de facto legal basis for the removal of that scum. The coup came two days later.
20403. pseudoerasmus - 9/11/2001 9:23:52 PM
Are these not economic considerations -- Allende was nationalizing the copper mines and fucking up commodities markets, yes?
No, no, and no. You are among the most arse-ignorant fools I know.
Allende's predecessor, the US-backed Eduardo Frei of the Christian Democratic Party, had begun the nationalisation process by expropriating 50% of foreign-owned copper mines. Allende merely completed this process. And the Chilean congress voted for this expropriation unanimously. That means not only the leftist members of congress but also the US-backed right-wing and centrist members of Congress voted for the nationalisation.
20404. Khabees Khargosh - 9/11/2001 9:25:11 PM
FU,
I belived so far that America was the king of the jungle...a lion...Gawd!! i never thought you considered yourself just a "top dog". Grow up and know that you r not a dog...learn to behave like a lion.
as far as your question is concerned,
If I were the president of America, do you think I would listen to you or trust your information????
20405. ronski - 9/11/2001 9:27:45 PM
PE,
BBC International just had a fellow named Chowdry on, talking about U.S. support of Arab dictators and those alleged puppets' failure to observe the holy words of the Koran, and various crimes against Islamic people. Do you know who he is?
20406. Francis Urquhart - 9/11/2001 9:28:53 PM
I asked you a question, and a fair one at that, as it is not proffered to test your loyalties, but your judgment. The information you have received is not from me. For purposes of the hypothetical, it is from the most unimpeachable source you can imagine. And for purposes of the hypothetical, the consequences set forth are certain.
Will you answer or equivocate further?
20407. CalGal - 9/11/2001 9:31:05 PM
How come Francis never answers hypotheticals but always poses them?
To answer (as if there were any doubt): fry them all. Hell, I'd say the same thing if it were 20 square miles.
20408. pseudoerasmus - 9/11/2001 9:31:10 PM
There must be a hundred people surnamed Chowdry, and I'm sure they're all a bit clammy.
20409. Khabees Khargosh - 9/11/2001 9:31:23 PM
FU,
I am the thirld world and I want to make it clear that I most strongly condemn what happened today and I am totally against terrorism of any kind. I also believe that those who are responsible should be brought to justice.....death of the worst kind. But that doesnt mean you take out your missiles and start firing on any country you wish without any evidence against a so far alleged terrorist.
20410. Absensia - 9/11/2001 9:31:36 PM
FU, why would you want to wipe out relatives, children, et al?
20411. Absensia - 9/11/2001 9:32:51 PM
Yes, Cal, I wondered about FU too. But..fry all of whom?
20412. ronski - 9/11/2001 9:33:11 PM
Clammy as in those harvested in a hot month during a red tide scare, actually.
20413. Indiana Jones - 9/11/2001 9:33:45 PM
There must be a hundred people surnamed Chowdry, and I'm sure they're all a bit clammy.
Google supports this, except hundred appears to be an underestimation.
20414. pseudoerasmus - 9/11/2001 9:34:55 PM
I meant 100 million.
20415. Absensia - 9/11/2001 9:35:25 PM
and even more named Chaudhry, and other variations.
20416. Francis Urquhart - 9/11/2001 9:35:50 PM
Absensia
Because to the extent the retaliation is like nothing they have ever experienced, it advances American interests and sets the proper tone.
Khabees
You have answered a hypothetical that guarantees the evidence and identifies the perpetrators with certainty by questioning the evidence and the identification of the perpetrators. Your condemnation notwithstanding, you have answered with a resounding "no."
20417. Indiana Jones - 9/11/2001 9:35:59 PM
But that doesnt mean you take out your missiles and start firing on any country you wish without any evidence against a so far alleged terrorist.
Khabees: Whether or not Bin Laden is implicated in this act, it's high time to get rid of him.
20418. CalGal - 9/11/2001 9:37:19 PM
I heard mention that the producer of Frasier was on one of the planes--David Angell, I think?
20419. Francis Urquhart - 9/11/2001 9:37:31 PM
As for questions, if there is a question that someone would like me to answer, ask away. I will answer.
20420. Khabees Khargosh - 9/11/2001 9:37:39 PM
FU,
If I were the president and had the PROOF that its Laden and that HE is in whatever square of miles I would definitely go for it. But the point is you are not sure if it's Laden and you dont know where he is.
20421. Raskolnikov - 9/11/2001 9:38:02 PM
Pseudo: How viable is the Taliban's opposition at the moment? The US has a long track record of taking strong sides in civil wars to its strategic advantage. I am just wondering how possible that is in this case. Assuming that bin Laden is indeed responsible, and the Taliban refuses to cough him up - how vulnerable are they to being removed from power with US airstrikes coordinated with opposition ground attacks?
20422. Francis Urquhart - 9/11/2001 9:38:08 PM
The producer of Frasier?
This is war.
20423. CalGal - 9/11/2001 9:39:28 PM
Abs,
I wasn't thinking of the need to kill the relatives, as Francis was. I just consider them expendable; a reasonable cost. What was the word McVeigh used?
Besides, the kids might grow up and want vengeance. Best kill them early, I'd say.
Don't know if anyone mentioned this but the buildings collapsed because the steel melted, according to the structural engineers on Lehrer.
20424. Absensia - 9/11/2001 9:40:05 PM
FU, how does that make us different than those terrorists we condemn. And, KK, said "alleged terrorists" and requires evidence. That is the basic constitutional basis of the United States as well. Not guilty until prove so.
IJ, we get rid of Bin Laden because it's time, even if he didn't do this? Should this be a free for all?
20425. Francis Urquhart - 9/11/2001 9:40:22 PM
Khabees
Thank you for your answer. I am heartened that you deem that acts of such severity that the retlaiation must be massive, to the point of the massacre innocents, including family members, and including children.
20426. Indiana Jones - 9/11/2001 9:40:46 PM
Francis: I can't let an opening like that go by.
How frayed did you get today? Or did you remember Kipling's poem "If" and act upon it?
BTW, completely off-topic, if you haven't read any Walker Percy, you ought to.
20427. EricCartman - 9/11/2001 9:40:57 PM
[Pinochet] just did what he did, and apparently the US government looked the other way. I don't think that's "letting" Pinochet do something.
Ridiculous. That's the exact definition of letting someone get away with something.
I don't mind if you demand accountability.
Awful large of you, but that's not the point. You refer to murdered political dissidents as "vermin", yet you supposedly disapprove of their methods of extermination, or what? How fine a distinction are you trying to draw, or are you just typically indifferent to such things (except, of course, when it's your own flesh and blood being persecuted)?
20428. pseudoerasmus - 9/11/2001 9:41:09 PM
The Northern Alliance is no longer a serious force in Afghanistan. It would have been driven out of Afghanistan, like all other opposition groups, by the Taliban had it not been for the fact