I have lurked here since Mark and Tom started this web site and forum. I've really enjoyed the discussions and have learned alot about my hobby--gaming. I have tho, become concerned over the terrorism and WTC discussions here. Please allow me to say why.

I share the outrage that many of you have expressed over this vicious and criminal act of terrorism. Perhaps it is even an act of war. I don't know enough international law to say, but I do wonder if the crimes can legally be that. A moral equivalent certainly, in any case. I feel the grief and pain many of you have expressed. Not only because I have a friend who lives and works in Manhattan and I don't know if he is okay, but simply because of the scale and depth of the tragedy.

I desire vengence and that justice be done. But I am concerned, no, afraid is a better word, that our government is beginning a project that will become a cancer on the body politic. I fear another McCarthy era, an era defined by each person's willingness to denounce terrorism, however terrorism is defined. And I fear that we will lose control over the definition. Every activity and social movment (e.g., even peaceful WTO protesters, social justice and environmental activists), will be viewed through the lens of "terrorism" as defined by mostly corporate interests that are the most prominent interests if not the main influence in the operation of our government. Will the oil interests who now have extraordinary access to the executive branch help to define opposition to drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Preserve (or whatever it's called) as "terrorism."

This country once lost control of the definition of "communism" and it cost society much of our civil liberties, many their careers and some their lives. (As one indicator of how our liberties were eroded: what is your first reaction to hearing that someone chose to "plead the fifth"?)

It can happen again.

And so I see the possibility of fascism or at least of pervasive domestic intolerance and persecution in our nation's new lockstep cheerleading for and program of vengence.

Just a small quibble.

Point noted -- but don't lose sight of what's going on. Calling the pointless death of 10,000 innocent people "terrorism" doesn't begin to describe it. While I see your point, I don't know that I agree. Certainly, it would be tragic to see that happen, but I don't think it's likely.

I hope not.

Bush has said that retribution and the eradication of terrorism is now the focus of his administration. Sec.s Powell and Rumsfeld and Attny Gen. Ashcroft have been speaking of the multi-year committment and project our nation has embarked on. The $40 billion (wasn't it just $20 billion yesterday?) emergency spending bill--most of which is for the military--that will pass soon is only for the the 16 days that remain in the current fiscal year. A new and correspondingly larger $ committment will be needed in the upcoming fiscal year. The administration is seriously considering activating reservists.

Many influential politicians have openly called for new restrictions on civil liberties. Free travel will become much more burdensome and difficult.

The government (the FBI specifically) is using the situation to implant Carnivore (aka DCS1000 or something) listening posts across the country.

My fear is not just a fear, it is a possibility.

Until we get to the bottom of this event, I think it's our civic duty to put up with a few inconveniences -- I might even go so far as to say mild infractions -- on our "civil liberties."

And, I just want to go on record as saying -- things at the airport will be tolerable. It's only now getting to the point that European airports have been at for years, and as someone who travels standby a lot (half my family works for an airline), being at the airport two hours before the plane leaves is only mildly annoying.

Free travel will still be free travel, and in a year, no one will think anything about the stricter regulations.

Not to belittle your fears -- I grant you, it's possible. But I hope that we've learned from our past mistakes.

I think you dramatically underestimate the impact of this event. We've never been invaded, right? Well, we may not have been invaded per se, but we certainly got raped on Tuesday.

The impact is, and will continue to be, profound and deep. Deeper than any event in the last 20-30 years I can think of offhand. I think Jeff's concerns are definitely warranted.

I agree with how profound and deep the impact is, and certainly don't underestimate things. I just don't think that "terrorism" will become a witch hunt for the next three years. Maybe I'm wrong, and only time will tell, but I think not.

I agree, his concerns are warranted. Unless we all consciously keep this in mind, the chances of it happening are far greater than I'd like.

It'll be a fine line to walk -- the country has perhaps been too lax on its views of terrorism in the past. Hopefully we won't over-compensate. But steps do need to be taken -- not just for this event, but we need to make sure that things like this -- terrorism in general -- is not as easy in the future to pull off. But, I agree; we don't want to get too quick to cry wolf, either.

Again, only time will tell.

I am not consoled. I do however take your point about airline travel and perhaps that was not the best example.

It's late and I will probably begin to sound like a conspiracy nut if I go on much longer, but my other examples stand and you could even add to my off the cuff list I bet.

The point still is that there is a strong undercurrent of "there's such a thing as too much democracy" within our government and many of the major interest groups. A unnecessarily large mobilization of the population if steered solely by the government and those interest groups (which restricted liberties and a climate of moral suasion would promote) may well be more costly to most of us than beneficial. Even if we destroy bin Laden, that's not the end of this new project. It will go on.

And...I don't believe we can win this larger project militarily. We learned that in Vietnam, I think, when we fought a whole nation of "terrorists".

So...we appear to have embarked on a massive retaliation that could significantly alter our society for a prolonged period. And given that "winning" may not be possible, it could go on altering our society for a long time. At least one administration's worth.

Perhaps we here on this board have learned from our past mistakes, but I'm not so sure about the larger society. I think they will need to hear the voices of people who have learned that we made this mistake before to avoid it again. And I don't hear those voices much.

"I fear another McCarthy era, an era defined by each person's willingness to denounce terrorism, however terrorism is defined."

Oh, I agree. However, think about this for a minute.

Palestinians have a legimate grievance, and I can see how someone growing up in the third-world country of the West Bank could dance with glee over US suffering. WTO protesters? They're supposed to have taken economic classes, right? They grew up in the suburbs? What's their excuse?

"Maybe this is what was needed to make a change for the better??? It was only a matter of time."

That's a statement from the urban75.com webboard. The obvious implication is now, somehow, through the magic of anarchists-blowing-things-up-leading-to-geopolitical-success/Naderesque "hightening the contradictions" theory, the US will both stop all that nasty free trade business and start handing out free money to third world dictatorships, since it's obviously the US's fault they're poor.

It's a free country, and they have the right to express anything they want. I also have the right to tell them the anti-free trade left to go fuck themselves, as I've been doing for a while now. I'm enough of a liberal that I want single-payer health care, for reference. Also for your edification, Larry Kudrow in a National Review editoral Tuesday called for cutting the capital gains tax rate to deal with the event, and I consider that an equally slimy way to push your agenda, so I'm not picking on ideology here.

That a noticable set of people think a strictly religious, minor power/great power-interplay conflict inspired act of terrorism is related to their pet peeves about tariffs is just a symptom of how ludicrous the attitudes of the capitalist-loathing extreme end of trade protesters are.

'Every activity and social movement (e.g., even peaceful WTO protesters, social justice and environmental activists), will be viewed through the lens of "terrorism" as defined by mostly corporate interests that are the most prominent interests if not the main influence in the operation of our government. Will the oil interests who now have extraordinary access to the executive branch help to define opposition to drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Preserve (or whatever it's called) as "terrorism."'

This is a complete canard. Are you unable to distinguish shades of ethical grey? So far, I've been impressed with how careful everyone's been discussing civil liberties, calling for no changes other than those in airport security and intelligence-gathering.

"So far, I've been impressed with how careful everyone's been discussing civil liberties, calling for no changes other than those in airport security and intelligence-gathering."

I saw some ex-CIA guy on TV talking about the need to be able to better intercept computer messages. That worried me. I'm very wary of giving the government the right to invade my privacy to protect me.

"This is a complete canard. Are you unable to distinguish shades of ethical grey? So far, I've been impressed with how careful everyone's been discussing civil liberties, calling for no changes other than those in airport security and intelligence-gathering."

Your tone is exactly that tone of preemptive superiority that will pave the way for intolerance and worse. I can see ethical shades of gray just fine thank you.

I do fear what I see as a real possibility, but I phrased it as a possibility because it is not an inevitability.

And, since when is the Carnivore project just "intelligence-gathering"? It is that, but it is more. Plenty of sober minded right thinking people just like you are concerned about it and the FBI's opportunistic rush to expand Carnivore's reach concerns them.

And, for the record, I support free markets when they work. Sometimes they don't and a differnt social organizing principle must conterbalance or replace them.

Perhaps I'm just tired, but I read your reply as more of an ad hominem attack than an attempt to discuss the issue. (If I'm wrong about that, then I apologize for that characterization of your reply.) We (as in "the nation") need to discuss this issue and keep it front and center as we pursue justice.

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,46816,00.html

I dunno. I'm worried about this, and the general "let's go to war for several years in the general region of Afghanistan" tone of the current stuff I see on the NY Times.

That sounds like an INCREDIBLY bad idea.

Let's just do a surgical strike, kill this Bin Laden guy and most of his senior supporters, and get the fuck out of there. That should appease the bloodlust and show terrorists we're serious. I don't understand the point of any actions beyond those.

Hmmm...Ready to hear something that people don't say around here very often?

I agree with Wumpus 150% right now. That's the best policy for handling the situation, I think, too.

With regards to the Carnivore situation, I think that could be a bummer, unfortunately. Watching TV coverage in the last couple days it would seem that the average person, well at least television journalists, think our intelligence community is omnipotent. Everyone one wants to know why we couldn't prevent this, well for one thing the terrorist probably did their damnedest to make sure the plan was a secret. But I think that kind of, "the CIA, NSA, DIA and FBI should never not know anything" mentality will lead to the approval of more stuff like Carnivore.

I don't know... I was watching an interview with a former SecDef, or maybe he was an ex-CIA director, anyway the reporter was asking him why it was easier to get human intelligence assets in place in the USSR then it is in a terrorist group. Well, duh, the Soviet Union was a enormous country with a hugely bureuacratic government and is heavily populated by white people. It's much easier for the CIA to recruit a white guy who can be taught to speak Russian, forge some documents and get him a menial government job in Moscow, than it is to recruit an Ethnic Arab who would be willing to go under cover with a small, dangerous group of fanatics who will likely never trust him very well if at all.

People just don't understand very well at all.

Brad Grenz

Wumpus,

What you don't realize is that in order for this to be effective, we are almost certianly going to have to remove the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Taking out one or two guys whose roles could be filled by someone else is going to do nothing.

The threat of a "new McCarthyism" is a legitimate concern. Point noted, and I agree that we need to keep our feet firmly grounded in our traditions (the good ones, not the nasty ones :-)).

Those who point out the illogic and often irrational actions of many anti-globalists and anti-capitalist agitators also have good points. Me, I went through my Marxist phase in grad school. I now believe in "capitalism with a human face," for which we need people to point out when the emperor is naked, and when megacorps are pulling too many strings. Ultimately though no one has ever come up with a better metastructure than liberal capitalism, and I doubt they every will.

In terms of military responses, a single surgical strike is usesless. We can't identify where bin Laden is precisely enough or in a timely enough fashion to guarantee hitting him with anything less than a nuke. In addition, he's only one aspect of the problem. As long as you have places like Afghanistan where terrorists can live and train and plan, you won't be safe. So you have to take out the Taliban as well, which may have the additional benefit of convincing other governments, ruling more advanced (relatively) states, that supporting terrorism is a losing business.

bin Laden, even if he did mastermind this, is only a symptom, he's not the disease. I don't know if we can ever erradicate the disease, but the only way we'll have a chance is to make it crystal clear that harboring, abetting, supporting, funding, or training terrorists is a death penalty offense--for nations, especially. That indeed means a war, or series of wars.

I see no other real option.

"we are almost certianly going to have to remove the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan."

Rob,
Pakistan is working with us already. We'll see how serious they are.

All,
I'm thinking many ostracized countries are quaking now. The giant is awake and we've got a Republican administration and an Intelligence Community/Military leadership who has (no disrespect intended) been hoping for an excuse like this to do some unrestrained cleaning. "Remember Somalia, remember the USS Cole!"

The American people, the world, is behind them in the high 90s poll after poll. And will likely put up with a lot. For example, imagine trying to organize one of those Anti-Gulf War protests I was idealistically (and regretfully) a part of a decade ago. Unimaginable.

-Andrew

'And, since when is the Carnivore project just "intelligence-gathering"? It is that, but it is more. Plenty of sober minded right thinking people just like you are concerned about it and the FBI's opportunistic rush to expand Carnivore's reach concerns them.'

Nice way to change the subject there, from the possibility of McCarthyism returning and resulting in 'the oil interests who now have extraordinary access to the executive branch help to define opposition to drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Preserve (or whatever it's called) as "terrorism."'

'And, for the record, I support free markets when they work. Sometimes they don't and a differnt social organizing principle must conterbalance or replace them.'

Wow, I missed this the first time through. Unfortunately, I need to go to work.

Does it disturb anybody also how little coverage the anti-Arab attacks are getting on the news? Ed Something-or-other on CBS spouted off an alarming list of hate crimes in the US with more than acceptable nonchalance. "Oh these people of Arab descent are getting their homes and shops burnt down... Arab students being told to stay home... back to you, Dan."

I think it's the president's responsibility, while continually fueling the country's bloodlust with talk of retaliation, to also drum it home forcefully to the population that "unifying the nation" means **NOT** persecuting people wearing turbans.

K-mart sold out of guns? Where do you think they're being used?

It's making me sicker than seeing the towers topple to think of all the suffering that must be occurring across the country as the result of sheer ignorance. I also don't think it's implausible that police forces are turning a blind eye (or at least not doing as much as they could for the victims) to the crimes in certain areas.

"What you don't realize is that in order for this to be effective, we are almost certianly going to have to remove the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan."

Are you fucking nuts? Pakistan has nuclear weapons. (Remember the standoff between India and them a year or so back, regarding nuke tests?) Please attempt to think clearly.

Sue Doh Nim - ummm no. You must be watching the wrong coverage - while nothing has been getting as much coverage as the wtc (hell i haven't seen the weather since monday), i have seen numerous accounts of attacks. I also have seen many, many in the local newspapers.

And don't sit there and say the police okay it. That is a disgusting accusation with no basis on facts. Your hate and rumor mongering is just as bad as that you pretend to protest. A mature response, means a mature repsonse all the way around. Grow up before and think you post this reactionary bullshit.

Chet

I just drove by a mosque down the street here in Seattle, near the Northgate mall. I live in an aging white-bread area near the edge of Seattle; more or less suburban commuters.

Arab-Americans were overflowing out the front door, all of them had candles, and every other one had a "we support the US," "violence is wrong," "Islam is love," etc., sign. The cars driving by were honking in support and waving.

Combined with the rather small number of arab incidents I've seen reports of since the bombing (maybe 6) and how careful the national media is being in discussing Arab-Americans (even Fox, which would be the obvious place to worry about), I'm actually not that worried about anything but isolated incidents. The country has come a long way since 1991. The only place left that I'm worried about anti-Arab-American sentiment coming from is Rush & the like on talk radio; anyone know what they're saying?

Truth be told, if there's anything I'm worried about, it's Falwell's & Robertson's safety. Those stupid, stupid fucks.

My understanding is that Rush is really taking the approach that we'd want him to take. He's not condoning attacks on Arab-Americans, in the least. His verbal attacks have only been against the ones that actually committed this deed, I believe.

"I just drove by a mosque down the street here in Seattle, near the Northgate mall"

You do realize that they tried to firebomb this mosque today? The guy is in custody and there was quite a show of support from the surrounding churches of many different faiths. That was probably what you saw this evening.

But I don't think Sue Doe Nim is correct, either. How would I know about the Seattle mosque, if he were?

Most people are level headed. My sixteen-year old is the one I'm most concerned about because he's in high school and high school age kids are, by definition, not thinking with their heads. But in my favor, most high schoolers don't know an Islamic/Arab name when they hear one.

-Tim

All the junior-high and high-schoolers I've seen have handled this very maturely. I haven't heard of any attacks locally -- although there was a Bill and Ruth's sub shop run by some Arab-Americans, and no one ate there the day the attack took place -- kinda sad. That was the only day that happened, though, so maybe we've seen the error of our ways.

I don't know about nation-wide, as I've been a little out of touch news-wise the last 48 hours, but around here, I don't think that there have been many incidents.

'You do realize that they tried to firebomb this mosque today? The guy is in custody and there was quite a show of support from the surrounding churches of many different faiths. That was probably what you saw this evening.'

Whoopsie. Uhm.....uhm.....I blame the local Seattle media for being so lousy that I have no desire to read about local events! Yeah, that's it.

http://seattlep-i.nwsource.com/local/38992_threat14ww.shtml

Still, so far Seattle's a million to two in favor of not killing Islamics, so it's better than I expected.

An amusing situational bit I forget to mention: as I drove by and watched the community support for the mosque, some call-in loon on NPR was yammering on about how the "US Constitution won't work in a non-christian nation, and the US needs to repent and come back before god to deal with this tragedy."

Heh. Peter Jennings was talking to someone today, but I don't know who it was, that was saying things along those lines. A few quotes I liked:

"Any time there's a tragedy, the US realizes that they need to come back to God. This is illustrated by the fact that when things happen, people always say 'Oh, my god. Oh, my god.'"

Heh. My wife and I got a real kick out of that one.

Later, he was talking about God's love and respect for each person (I missed the exact quote, unfortunately) and Peter Jennings said "Well, if...if we can get back to secular matters for a minute..."
Heh. Reading between the lines, "This conversation is making me very uncomfortable...Back to you, George..."

Actually I have heard "Holy Shit!" just as much as "Oh my God."

Does that mean we come back to fecal matter when things go bad? Or maybe it's just God's fecal matter?

The number one phrase for last words on cockpit voice recorders is "Oh shit."

It's darkly humorous that they still hadn't bleeped or filtered out the loud cursing on the footage as of yesterday. *Doubtlessly* the FCC will fine them all.

As for Pakistan...

Their nukes are 50's era technology. BIG and low-yield. They'd pretty much have to load one on a 747 and fly it over to use one on us. Hopefully we'd see that coming.

And Pakistan's government is a military dictatorship anyway. It's funny when they talk about the General who leads the country as being "moderate." Only in comparison to some of the other generals -- we're not talking Al Gore moderate here.

"As for Pakistan..."

"Their nukes are 50's era technology. BIG and low-yield. They'd pretty much have to load one on a 747 and fly it over to use one on us. Hopefully we'd see that coming."


So, your saying that our big, shiny boats sitting out in the water firing cruise missles into Pakistan wouldn't make a tempting nuke target for a government that was about to die anyway? If we back them into a corner, we might not like the results.

Pakistan's may be a military dictatorship, but they're not stupid. The official policy of the US is that any use of NBC (Nuclear, Chemical, or Biological) weapons will result in retailation. So, unless they're willing to commit suicide and take their largest city with them (we're talking about regular military generals here, remember, not kooky nutjobs in the hills of Afghanistan), it's not an issue.

This concern RE: Pakistan's nukes is moot anyway. They've pledged to cooperate with everything we want short of commiting their own troops.

-Tom

"Any time there's a tragedy, the US realizes that they need to come back to God. This is illustrated by the fact that when things happen, people always say 'Oh, my god. Oh, my god.'"

Just like sex.

"Any time there's a tragedy, the US realizes that they need to come back to God."

or other superstitions, like psychic predictions of Nostradamous, etc. it's a common reaction to being confronted with something awe-inspiring or terrifying to seek an explanation from something bigger than us. like the indians who explained lightning through their deities.

Pakistan's nukes aren't entirely moot. We need to understand that this is a country ruled by a coup empowered military. We also need to understand this is a proudly Muslim nation that has maintained ties with the Taleban and allowed them to train and recruit from amongst its most radical students. In return the Taleban as protected Pakistani commercial traffic through the region and even fought as guerilla proxies for them against India.

While Pakistan isn't anywhere as radicalized as Afghanistan and its military leaders do have old Cold War ties to the US military - and cooperated with it in developing the Mujahidin resistance - it's not impossible that elements within the military might radicalize if they perceive the U.S. as imposing its will on Pakistan.

That brings the question of Pakistani nuclear security into play. It's so obvious I'd think we've already collaborated with the current government in securing those locations but it's hard to say anything for sure.

'We also need to understand this is a proudly Muslim nation that has maintained ties with the Taleban and allowed them to train and recruit from amongst its most radical students. In return the Taleban as protected Pakistani commercial traffic through the region and even fought as guerilla proxies for them against India.'

'Proudly Muslim' isn't the same as 'stupidly Muslim.' I doubt there's a broad consensus among the populace of Pakistan for vaporizing US buildings. Israel, maybe, but not the US.