world trade center

TWINKLE_TOES · Sep 16, 2001

toddler,

A lot of folks that are faced with working this problem share your belief. I don't have aproblem with making their job easier either.

http://asia.dailynews.yahoo.com/headline....html

Al

Edited by Muhammad on 09/16/01 06:41 PM (server time).

toddler · Sep 16, 2001

cp1969,
I don't think a lot of people are teetering on supporting the US. I suspect a lot are teetering on whether or not to join a radial group that supports terrorism.

Twinkle_Toes,
This is from an article on cable net news http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-7141717.html for the full story. It's only relevent in that it was woried about privacy at the superbowl and other places. The article was on security scanning technologies such as hand print checkers, iris scanners, and face recognition.


Part of the problem with biometrics is that it has come under intense scrutiny from privacy advocates,
including Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. The
American Civil Liberties Union blasted face-recognition technology at the Super Bowl, insisting it
created a "virtual lineup" of innocent Americans; Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey
dubbed it "snooperbowl."

Increased airport security could also become a thorny issue for flyers who must endure the nation's
overburdened air-traffic system. Some aviation experts say the cost of all the delayed and canceled
flights throughout the nation exceeds $5 billion a year. Already, more than 650 million passengers a
year pass through U.S. airports, and the figure is expected to jump more than 50 percent within a
decade, according to the Federal Aviation Administration.

Asking delayed passengers to withstand more waiting so they can file through additional
checkpoints, finger scans or other devices could result in more "air rage"--a new phenomenon in
which weary fliers become violent after sustained delays or cancellations, some say.

But it's unclear how Tuesday's attacks--which could result in thousands of deaths and cost the
United States billions of dollars--could change the surveillance debate. Some experts say the horrific
attack could make Americans much more tolerant of "Big Brother" cameras--and of longer lines
through metal detectors or even finger and iris scanners at airports.

"People are always willing to give up liberties when they feel threatened," said Dr. Jeffrey Tiel,
associate professor of philosophy at Ashland University in Ashland, Ohio, an expert on military ethics
and terrorism. "If they think there's a chance they're going to be on a hijacked plane that gets crashed
into a building, there's no question that people would put up with more hassle at the airport." 

It's funny, I don't think the real delays at the airport, for me, have ever been security. It's always been flight delays. I think I'd welcome the change.

Todd

cowboydoc · Sep 16, 2001

cp,
Although we don't agree on indians /w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif you can just double your post for my response to Todd. Well said!

Alan L. · Sep 16, 2001

The sad thing about all of this is in the supplying of arms to these terrorists. You can trace most of this hardware either to Russia or China, and it will continue. As we remove the kid gloves and start playing as dirty as our enemy, I would hope that we will gather information that will lead us to the supply lines and that we can begin to cut them off. No, they didn't use these weapons in this attack, but these are the weapons they use to remain at large, and to intimidate would be opponents of their extremism.

As for giving up some of our liberties, I think our very existence is in doubt. In is inevitable that one of these groups will use weapons of massive destruction in this country. We need to take steps that we would not ordinary take DURING THIS WAR, such as putting up with increased security and invasion of our privacy via wire taps, the biometrics or whatever it is, etc. Americans sacrificed in other wars, what with rationing of fuel and tires, the excess profits tax, etc. This is no different, but a different type of sacrifice is needed to match the times. We need to pull out all the stops and eliminate as much of these organizations as we can. Our grandchildren will thank us for it.

As for our over-reacting to communism, I don't think I get it. The communists are alive and well and hate our guts - make no mistake about it. The Russians and Chinese both will cut our balls out any chance they get.

Alan L., TX

Alan L. · Sep 16, 2001

Re: Kelvin--Know this

I only hope the American People will be patient. I appears there won't be any quick stikes and that this will be a long drawn out compaign. People are fired up now, but after a few days or weeks I'm afraid many will start saying "Bush is not doing anything".

Alan L., TX

PitbullMidwest · Sep 16, 2001

I'm not scared that encroachment into our right to privacy will lead to the loss of our freedoms.

Todd, gotta disagree this time.

Ben Franklin stated correctly that "Those who would sacrifice their rights to obtain freedom, deserve neither rights or freedom."

PitbullMidwest · Sep 16, 2001

Re: I ECHO your sentiments!

I misspoke, it said they could barely read or write.

Here's the link, read the last paragraph.

http://us.news2.yimg.com/f/42/31/7m/...html

Edited by Muhammad on 09/17/01 08:24 AM (server time).

glennmac · Sep 16, 2001

As if the question of the appropriate military response weren't difficult enough, there is another difficult but ignored issue.

There has been little informed debate in the media as to whether we should consider changing our Middle East foreign policy, as one component of a long term solution to abating anti-US terrorism. It may be that a few of the terrorists, likely including Bin Laden, are madmen, bent on destroying the US just because we exist. But I think 99.9% of the Arab hostility and terrorism arises from the fact that the US finances and arms ******.

To change this foreign policy would be a wrenching decision for the US, but I think it should be intelligently debated.

bgott · Sep 17, 2001

Are you saying we should throw ****** to the wolves in exchange for our possible safety?

Phred · Sep 17, 2001

Sounds like giving into blackmail?
If we show that we will cave in to this kind of thing what do you think will be the method of choice for dealing with us?

If it worked the first time then it would logically work in the future.
Not a good precident to set.

Fred

scruffy · Sep 17, 2001

Glennmac, I would totally disagree! The U.S. should NEVER shun OUR friends! The U.S. has been behind them since their re-establishment as a country, and at no time should we throw them to the wolves (so to speak)!

M. Sullivan · Sep 17, 2001

Kelvin,

Will keep you and all the brave souls in my prayers.

StoneHeartFarm · Sep 17, 2001

Re: I ECHO your sentiments!

Twinkle Toes,

Just read about the rebel leader this morning. Killed by suicide bombers posing as journalists. Yike!

Also heard that Bin Laden's agents in Europe sold a bunch of stock in the companies insuring the World Trade Center the week before the bombing. That may give us a nice, legal back door into his funds. Insider trading could get all his stocks snatched for fines and wouldn't require an act of Congress.

Also heard that the Chinese have captured 5 that they claim were plotting to attack American targets. Double yike! I don't think I'd want to be a political prisoner in a Chinese prison. I like my kidneys.

SHF

ERNIEB · Sep 17, 2001

Glenn, I agree that our biggest problem with arabs in the middle east is our support of ******. But I think it is important to realize that there are other issues as well.
You mention bin Laden. He is not a madman, bent on destroying us because he is jealous of our way of life. He is against the current leadership in Saudi Arabia, one of the first from an elite Saudi family to do so. The U.S. of course supports King Fahd.
During the gulf war, bin Laden was all for gitting rid of ******, but he wanted an all Islamic army to do the job. Like it or not, Americans are considered infidels. Allowing infidels into the land of the two holy places, was the worst kind of affront. And when our troops stayed there after the war ended, it was like rubbing salt into the wound.
I'm not defending bin Laden, I just think if we are going to meddle into mid east affairs, we better know what we are doing. So far that doesn't seem to be the case.
That being the case, I agree with your conclusions.
Throw ****** to the wolves? You got to be kidding.

Ernie

glennmac · Sep 17, 2001

I did not take a position on whether we should change our Middle East policy. I merely raised the issue as a potential way to decrease anti-US terrorisim.

However, for discussion sake, I will point out some of the Arab arguments. If ****** are "friends" and Arabs are "wolves", that is reflective of the exact problem the Arabs see themselves facing. Why do we in the US think that way?

Many, even outside the Arab world, consider the establishment of the state of ****** after WWII to be an historically illegitimate act which dispossessed millions of Arabs from their homeland of 2000 years. The wars and contoversies over this have continued unabated and insoluble since 1948.

Why shouldnt the Israelis and Arabs be allowed to follow the Spanish-Aztec model or or the Flathead-Commanche model: let them fight it out and whoever conquers, wins. Why should the US take sides with money, arms and and our children's lives. Why shouldn't the US just have an even-handed economic trading relationship with all parties, and that's all. Result: possibly no more anti-US terrorism.

I'm not saying I advocate this. I just want to suggest there are reasonable arguments against our historically one-sided policy.

glennmac · Sep 17, 2001

There is yet another intrinsic issue that is inadequately discussed: the nature of the Muslim religion in fostering terrorism.

It is obvious that essentially all the terrorists of modern times are Muslims. They seem to be theologically driven to sacrifice their own lives to destroy their perceived enemies.

This is a fundamental question that should be analyzed: Does the Muslim religion advocate, encourage and theologically "bless" and "reward" the destruction of the US and other enemies by terroristic means?

There are two possibilities. If that is indeed Muslim theology, then we are faced with the problem that a war on terrorism is essentially a war on people of a certain religious persuasion.

If, on the other hand, such terrorism is theologically inconsistent with the Muslim religion, why aren't Muslim clerics and scholars trumpeting this and condemning Bin Laden on theological grounds.

PaulT · Sep 17, 2001

Glen,

You make a very good point. I would like to hear some mainstream Mulsim academics and clerics respond. I don't know that much about the teachings of Islam, but I suspect the situation is much the same as with fanatics in any religion. The holy teachings of the religion in question rarely, if ever, promotes the fanatic behavior that the fanatics exhibit. It is their interpretation of the religious teachings that promote their particular fanatic beliefs. The fervor and charisma that successful (as they define it) religious fanatics usually possess is what convinces people that the good (lord, buddha, tooth fairy) wants it that way! The mainstream religious followers (as opposed to followers of mainstream religions) usually do not share the interpretations of the fanatics.

Just my opinion.

PaulT

PitbullMidwest · Sep 17, 2001

It is obvious that essentially all the terrorists of modern times are Muslims

What about Ted Kadzinski (sic?) or the group who released poison gas in Japan or Timothy McVeigh or Janet Reno (as viewed by many)? Does the fact that The Black Panthers used terrorist tactics in the '60s mean that "essentially all the terrorists of the 1960's" were blacks? Come on glennmac lets not generalize.

Does the Muslim religion advocate, encourage and theologically "bless" and "reward" the destruction of the US and other enemies by terroristic means

According to a friend who lived and taught at the Cairo/American University there is a reward of instant passage to paradise for martyrdom for Islam. It's very complicated as it has to do with who is an infidel. Christians are not considered to be infidels as Jesus is held in high regards as the "sinless prophet". Most Americans (westerners) are not considered to be Christians because they do not follow Jesus' teaching of turning from sin and are therefore considered to be infidels who lead decadent lives of alcohol, lust, greed and so forth.

Muhammad · Sep 17, 2001

Does the Muslim religion advocate, encourage and theologically "bless" and "reward" the destruction of the US and other enemies by terroristic means?

Absolutely not. If the terrorist acts were done in 'the name of Islam', by people who call themselves Muslim, I categorically reject such actions as an absolute, foundational blasphemy, and a perversion of Islam.

It appears they have murdered thousands of innocents. The Qur'an is clear: to murder even one person is as if one had murdered all of humanity.

This is in no way encouraged, blessed, or rewarded by Islam. That's simply the furthest from the truth.

Anonymous Poster · Sep 17, 2001

It is obvious that essentially all the terrorists of modern times are Muslims.

Really?

Contrary to popular perceptions, most terrorist attacks against American targets do not emanate from the Middle East or South Asia. Of the 169 specifically anti-American attacks on foreign soil in 1999, 96 were in Latin America, 30 were in Western Europe (many of these committed by groups opposed to the war in Kosovo), nine in the countries of the former Soviet Union and 16 in Africa. Only 11 were in the Middle East, and just 6 in Asia.

The proportions have been similar since at least 1996.

Much of the terrorism in Latin America, which includes bombings and kidnappings, is committed in Colombia and Peru by leftist rebels and right-wing paramilitary groups. American citizens and commercial interests have been attacked partly for ransom money to help finance insurgencies and partly to undermine national economies.

But these groups, which commit most of the attacks against Americans and their property abroad, get less attention than groups with Arab or Muslim orientations.

In the Middle East and South Asia, the terrorist attacks against Americans that do take place usually arise from a perception that the United States has taken sides in local political conflicts, like those between Turkey's government and the Kurds or between ****** and the Palestinians. Most terrorism in South Asia is linked to conflicts in Kashmir and Sri Lanka. The United States continues to list some countries in these regions -- most notably Iran, Iraq, Libya and Syria -- as "state sponsors" of terrorism, but acknowledges that they are generally far less active today than in the past.

We must not be complacent about terrorism and should continue trying to identify dangerous groups. But we must also be conscious of overreacting and harming totally innocent people.

Arab-Americans and Muslims living in the United States have too often borne the brunt of government suspicion and media stereotyping. After many in the media rushed to blame Middle Eastern terror groups for the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 -- erroneously, as they soon learned -- several Arab-American groups reported an increase in hate crimes and harassment.

Last December, there were reports of increased and sometimes abusive scrutiny of Arab-American travelers after the State Department linked a threat of terrorism around New Year's Day with the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, without giving any specific grounds for such a connection.

Arabs and Muslims, almost exclusively among immigrant groups, have also been subjected to the use of secret evidence in deportation proceedings -- which, in opposition to American traditions of open justice, has been legal since 1996.

If American Muslims are "oversensitive at times," it is because of their own actual experience.

In the first few days after the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, a Muslim organization recorded more that 200 incidents of threats, assaults and harassment targeting American Muslims.

A Muslim mother lost her near-term baby when unknown assailants attacked her house.

CAIR's 1998 report on the status of American Muslim civil rights showed an 18 percent increase in total cases and a 60 percent rise in reports of discrimination, particularly in the workplace.

SO FAR, since the WTC tragedy on Tuesday, there have been 210 attacks reported upon totally innocent Muslims in the USA, including two murders...

An Unbiased Observer

P.S. Terrorist figures are all readily available on the State
Department's web site.
http://www.state.gov/www/global/terrorism/gt_index.html.