thraxil.org:

kurtis - Tue 11 Sep 2001 22:34:45

I don't know ... there are few things that can be done. You're point is very valid ... you strengthen one thing they will find another hole. No country in the 21st century is a fortress ... it cannot be. We have a passive defense against these kinds of terrorist attacks. These attacks could be considered an active offense ... so how can you realistically expect a passive/preventative defense to stop an organized, premeditated offense that is willing to die to make their point? The only thing that could stop that would be an active defense. As you said ... a police state. However can you imagine the cost of even attempting to make this country terrorist proof?? A cost of much much money and loss of freedom. And not to mention I don't think you can entirely stop all terrorism even with that ... defense simply wont work. If you can't meet terrorists head on ... you can't guarantee success. I think you answer Anders will be soon forthcoming and from the lips and actions of our President. He has the opportunity and resources in the next few weeks to redefine the way terrorism is handled. He has the chance to change the nature of terrorism and how it is dealt with. Not that I have faith he can do this right ... but I think he will definitely do SOMETHING. And maybe there is merit to what will happen. Maybe ... just maybe ... if he does hunt down and brutally murder every semblence of this faction or group or whatever ... maybe that will set the precedent that there is nowhere on this planet that you can hide. That wont stop the zealots willing to die for their cause ... but it will hopefully stop any group with enough resources and cunning to plan large scale terrorism. Not that I believe much of that ... but that's the best I can hope for because I think that is precisely what our country is about to attempt to do.

jere - Tue 11 Sep 2001 22:35:45

I too have no answer to your question, anders. i think of the 4th airplane, in which apparently the passengers thwarted the attempt of the hijackers to aim the plane at yet another target. i don't think hijacking a plane for such plans will work again. those passengers will know that they're going to die anyway, and they some of them will try their best to make sure the plan doesn't succeed, sacrificing themselves. perhaps, in the end, it means each one taking on the question for him-and herself in a willingness to die. a police state? even if there were a will in this country to allow it which, given our history of independence and freedom of person, I don't think could possibly be considered, condoned, allowed, , it wouldn't succeed. anyone with the will to circumvent the system will find a way to do so. the good guys don't always win and the bad guys don't always lose, in which art does not imitate life. so what does it leave us with? people trying their best to make things like air travel secure, but, of course, there will always be exploitable loopholes. (interestingly, in the last months, there have been numerous articles on the hellishness of air travel these days, that it is actually just as fast to drive to your destination if it's within a four-hour drive. there are too many planes, too many flights, too many people to be processed, too much delay both before and after flights, with concentrations in a few hub airports. will the tragedy be a shot of vigor for rail travel?) in the end, you can't prevent someone willing to die for what s/he believes in, taking a whole mess of people with her/him. you can't foresee, you can't plan for contingencies. i personally feel such endless sorrow for the people who went to war yesterday, thinking they were going to work nad those who have been trying for a whole day to rescue them. don't you find it poignant -- the medical personnel, ready and waiting to help the wounded and dead -- with nobody to treat? can you imagine that anybody who was not out of the WTC before the towers collapsed still being alive? Miracles happen, perhaps we will discover that miracles did happen, but in comparison to the numbers of people still in the buildings, now presumably under stories'-worth of rubble? i agree with quiet: bin Laden is a dead man; he will be found; he will be killed, whether at the end of a show of justice or not is irrelevant. but he's not alone; there are others as dedicated to wrneching the capitalist system, trying to bring it to its knees, as possible. all we can do is refuse to go to our knees. but that ain't gonna be easy.

lani - Tue 11 Sep 2001 22:36:45

well, living in Fairfax Co. Virginia (highest military population in the DC area, lots of people working for the Pentagon) as well as working for nrl (technically, both a military and government institution), it definitely feels like people who want peace are in the minority. american flags everywhere. one tacked to the side of a lab building. nrl is Threatcon Delta (it's right next to Bolling Air Force Base which is where Air Force One lands). machine guns at the gates to military housing. plenty of aircraft to watch, but everyone in the lab seems calm. we recieved an email to 'do our job to ensure that we are doing what we are asked to do for our Navy and our Nation.' Not sure if they're talking about complying with security or stepping up research productivity. my scary office mate from Tennessee thinks that the whole thing is a 'reason to have some fun.' 'Course his fondest memory was beating a deer to death with a crowbar and eating it later. (I ask myself on a daily basis, "Who let this man get a chemistry PhD?')... And in my defense, I was not the only one at the grocery store at 11am yesterday stocking up on food and water. word of mouth: my sister (in high school) says that her friends had boyfriends who got calls from the military and are being drafted. heard something on the radio about looking for good people with ages involved (31 and somewhere in late twenties). i still need to confirm. my other sister (at Scripps College in California) says that a lot of her friends have parents who are ambassadors, other government officials, etc. who have already been mobilized. saw a commentary yesterday, the specialist of the hour said that there's nothing that says that the president can't declare war on a person or small group. Apparently it's been done before. The third president declared war on the Barbary Pirates. I feel like this whole administration has anachronistic tendencies. Like the whole legacy campaign didn't make me sick. Just because the Adams' did it, doesn't mean that it should be done now... Looks like they're going to find someone to pin. Read the reports about lost luggage and rental cars with arabic language manuals on how to fly commercial jets? Seems a little contrived to me...if they had all that time to plan, why would they bring anything incriminating and then forget them in a rental car. And if they did need the manuals, why wouldn't they keep them in their carry-ons and not their checked luggage? And why in the hell would they have checked luggage anyway? I don't buy the 'to divert suspicion' deal, because lots of people commute with only carry-ons. Plus, most people travelling that early are on business and only have a roll-on bag and a briefcase anyway, so it's not like they would have drawn much suspicion. Shit. I'm ranting. OK, I'm pretty confident that we're going to declare war on someone, probably on bin Laden and all those 'harboring' this 'evil' (now there's loaded word). I don't think an official military state would ever be imposed. The citizens of the US would be way too opposed and that would only add schisms where unity is the goal. Seattle was basically a military state during the WTO riots, and that only caused more trouble. Plus, the country is way to big to do it nationwide. And there is northern idaho and montana to think about when it comes to that. I think we need to be more wary of subtle infringements of freedom. looking back, all of that was mostly unrelated to the dicussion at hand, but oh well...

kurtis - Tue 11 Sep 2001 22:37:45

You know my first reaction to this whole thing was ... I want to go back home to Maine where none of this matters. I think the moral of this whole story for me is I already don't like cities ... this gives me even less of a reason to ever desire living in one (despite the fact that I currently do). I know that can come off as somewhat self-centered and off-base in light of the fact that thousands are now dead, but I think its an important point. City life at the cost of privacy, space, and safety. Rural life at the cost of 'modern society'. I'm already anti-social so what do I care? But back on topic ... CNN is keeping us right up to date on the death count ... they might as well put a big white ticker in the right corner of their fucking screen with xxxx dead found and increment it. That's about how cold their whole reporting seems. Sure the reporters themselves are breaking down and crying (they're only human)... but the whole concept of an unbiased, perfectly objective news cast is pissing me off. On the other hand listening to congressman make speeches from the heart rather than a script is a welcome change ... even if they are advocating bloody, savage retribution. At least they are authentic. When those men were speaking last night I actually viewed them for the first time as leaders of our nation. Its a shame it took a complete tragedy to get their blood flowing.

jere - Tue 11 Sep 2001 22:38:45

lani: some reports are saying that the documents found in those vehicles may have been left behind deliberately to give a hint as to who planned and coordinated the whole thing. does anyone else find it slightly weird that no one is rushing to claim responsibility? wouldn't somebody who pulled off this sort of thing want to rub our noses into how clever they and how asleep we have been?

anders pearson - Tue 11 Sep 2001 22:39:45

i suspect that the people behind it are waiting until they can get somewhere secure before they claim responsibility. an effort this big and coordinated probably involved a lot of support people who are still stuck in the US. if group X were to claim responsibility now, the feds would round up everyone they could find who might even be remotely connected with group X. you taunt the lions when you're safely on the other side of some strong iron bars, not when you're stuck in the cage with them.

lani - Tue 11 Sep 2001 22:40:45

jere: well, I have heard that most people who commit suicide leave note before they do it. But I don't know about the whole rubbing noses thing, because it's a big nose to rub. I heard that the cheering in Palestinian streets was hushed because Arafat (is that right?) realized how bad the publicity was. It seems like most national leaders are holding up their hands and saying "We didn't do it." I watched techlive last night though, and they found a webpage on Jihad, with a flag of Israel and America in flames over the skyline of Manhattan...does't necessarily mean anything though. Plenty of militia and separtists have equally graphic pages out there. If you want my little theory...the perpetrators have pretty convenient timing...beginning of an administration that doesn't really have the faith of it's people. the legitimacy of america's purist view on its own 'democracy' challenged by this term's election. economic uncertainty. (when did the Persian Gulf happen?) most worldwide markets opened lower than they have since the 80's. people are investing in gold and oil (hmm...who has interest in that?) Well, assuming it's not a conspiracy, I think more damage will be done if the perpetrators lay low. NATO has agreed to back the USA but only if they can positively identify who did it. Everyone interviewed on television, has stressed how important the first couple days will be to restore faith and show power for the country, not to mention the stock market. The government is on a serious time crunch. Anyway, if it's not a conspiracy, I think they would definitely have a bigger shake if they lay low. <br /> Plus, they might be organized in fashion that doesn't allow them to know who's responsible. Like secret service agencies in WWII, operating on a 3-point system, in cells or something. It's very possible and probable, that each cell within each plane had no idea the extent of the plan and maybe even their target until the last minute. I mean, it would really be the safest way to run such a sophisticated attack that requires quite a bit of manpower. True, they were suicide missions, but things can backfire. Anyway, it seems that an entire nation isn't claiming responsibility (because they'd be fscked), so they may be having communication problems.

lani - Tue 11 Sep 2001 22:41:45

oops...pressed the button before i was done. oh, I meant quite a bit of manpower for a terrorist operation. ok, it's true that maybe i've read too much Postman and Chomsky in my life to be talking sanely, but just consider the situation. Plus, wars have been known to motivate some economies. (hello, Republicans...). to conclude, no sane group of people would risk taunting outright and officially the USA and NATO until they were on their own soil behind a big missile. I think that I would be more afraid if they did, because that would indicate to me that they either have something up their sleeve or nothing to loose. Equally dangerous.

quiet - Tue 11 Sep 2001 22:42:45

About the drafting thing, I'm pretty sure you're friends were using the wrong lingo. The boyfriends might have been encouraged by the recruiting officers to join, probably even lied to, but the draft has not been reinstated to my knowledge. And it's kind of interesting that you said that about the speeches from the heart Kurtis. My thoughts watching them where along the lines of "Jesus Christ, some people will use any opportunity to push their fucking agendas." I couldn't tell if the singing thing was contrived or not, either way I think it was still a good thing for people to watch on TV, it helps to not go to bed terrified that you're nation will be taken over while you sleep.

quiet - Tue 11 Sep 2001 22:43:45

And just to cast a little bit more confusion on the situation, about those intercepted phone calls that mentioned "two targets were hit". Did anybody else notice that yesterday 2 of our more sophisticated jets were downed near Iraq and captured?

anders pearson - Tue 11 Sep 2001 22:44:45

quiet, are you talking about <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/09/11/iraq.shootdown/index.html">this</a>? it looks like we lost another unmanned spyplane (we lost one a few weeks ago too). but it hasn't really been determined if it just malfunctioned or was actually shot down. either way, i doubt it's related. honestly, iraq shooting down a spyplane that's flying overhead isn't going to come as a shock to anyone. i think jere is right that this kind of hijacking won't happen again. these terrorists set a precedent that will change how pilots and crews will react to hijacking attempts. previously, most hijackings weren't suicide missions. they were desperate people either trying to take hostages or get the plane to land somewhere that they had asylum. pilots and crew were trained (i would assume) to do whatever they had to to minimize the danger to themselves and their passengers; this generally meant placating the hijackers and doing what they say in the hopes that they'd let everyone go once they were safe and their demands were met. they were operating under the assumption that the hijackers were at least somewhat rational. the reports were that the hijackers were killing flight attendents to lure the pilots out of the cockpit. someone is going to kill a bunch of people unless you let them fly the plane. previously, the choice was pretty clear. now, there's going to be a tinge of doubt. if a pilot is in that situation again, they're going to remember yesterday and the new priority is to not relinquish control of the plane. this will actually make any kind of hijacking more difficult. terrorists now know that no matter what they do to the passengers or crew, they won't be able to get the pilots to budge from the controls. i think this changed mindset and the public understanding of it will have much more of an effect on air security than confiscating people's shaving kits and making them submit to cavity searches before boarding the plane.

kurtis - Tue 11 Sep 2001 22:45:45

Nick ... doesn't surprise me one bit your drew that conclusion. You're a pessimist and I'm an idealist ... :) And anders ... I think you hit the nail on the head. My understanding was that the cockpit was bulletproof and generally very hard to break into. This means the pilots would have to open the door to let them in ... and the only way to goad them into that would be to threaten the attendants/people. It's kind of sick ... because the terrorists has nothing to lose and probably murdered a lot of people before the pilots finally gave (really depends on the pilots). That's a hard position to be in ... but after these events ... I think their resolve to not open that door will be all that much more solidified. Lani ... if you are right (and there is no reason that you aren't) ... then these terrorists are aiming for much more than just terror ... they are aiming for the downfall of america ... and they are being brutally effective about it. Sure today everyone wants to go burn the scapegoat ... but what if in three weeks there is no scapegoat? A crime unavenaged ... justice cannot be served ... the people will grow despondent and our government will grow desperate. Still I think they will find a scapegoat ... even if its the wrong one ... just to avoid the situation you illustrated. History is written by those who win wars and right now Bush is not going to settle for anything less. He's going to make this a war even if there is no one to fight. He's got his chance at history and his time to ride the wave ...

anders pearson - Tue 11 Sep 2001 22:46:45

heheh. 2<small>¹⁰</small>th post.

quiet - Tue 11 Sep 2001 22:47:45

Cockpits aren't as hard to break into as you'd imagine. Remember a few months ago when that guy went nuts on the plane due to a strange bacteria and broke into a cockpit using brute strength? And I'm not a complete pessimist :o) I'm just mostly cynical, and really hate politicians.