the footage of the 2 planes having a row with the world trade centre is amazing.

Anyone catch Bush Jr in that primary school? He quoted his father: "This will not stand."

What's he saying noww that they've also crashed one into the Pentagon, have one aimed at the White House that the US are trying to shoot down with no regard to the hijacked passengers and CNN was reporting another 8 hijacked passenger jets in the air heading to targets in the US.

You can't make this shit up.

What's he saying noww that they've also crashed one into the Pentagon, have one aimed at the White House that the US are trying to shoot down with no regard to the hijacked passengers and CNN was reporting another 8 hijacked passenger jets in the air heading to targets in the US.

You can't make this shit up.

You all sound like Jamie Fucking Theakston. Stop being so flippant and grow up.

>What's he saying noww that they've also crashed one into the Pentagon, have one aimed at the White House that the US are trying to shoot down with no regard to the hijacked passengers and CNN was reporting another 8 hijacked passenger jets in the air heading to targets in the US.

What we need is a Pocket Shepherd

so your not scared that this may be just the beginning of something that might not let you watch re-runs of faulty towers?

I'm not being flippant.

For anyone interested in history i'll leave you with three thoughts.

Sep 11
Black September
Anniversary

>Psycho Bush is gonna blow the world up.
>
>See you all in the Comedy Forum in the sky.

Oh fuck right off, the lot of you.

>the footage of the 2 planes having a row with the world trade centre is amazing.


too right. just think of that £500 he'll get off Beadle.

"Hello, and welcome to another edition of 'You've Been Flamed'

Top marks to Channel 5 for going ahead with an episode of 'Open House' with the feature "Boom or Bust".

seeing how the whitehouse has been evacuated, bush wont be able to push his big red button.
...or is it portable?
.....or will it go off anyway if 6 planes crash into the big house?

Dangabit!

50,000 people in those two towers, and all the emergency services right in the path as tower 2 goes over.

Fucking horrendous.


What's notable is that this is an attack not designed to damage strategic targets or stop certain people from carrying out their jobs (the usual motive for attacking a building) but rather an attack designed to get onto as many TV channels as possible. Hitting landmarks like some screwed up tribute to Independence Day.

Why stagger the attacks on the WTC, unless you were hoping everyone would be looking at tower 1 when tower 2 gets struck?

It's incredibly media savvy tarrorism. And all the more frightening for it. The consequences in terms of loss of innocent lives unimportant to the lunatics involved when compared to the gains in terms of publicity. Scary shit.

So it's official. Watch too much media satire and you too can become completely blase about tragedies like this.

Agree with UB, Justin and others. Probably up to 100,000 people have been killed. Enough of the jokes, eh? It's not fucking funny.

has anyone owned up for it yet?
palestine was mentioned?

>has anyone owned up for it yet?
>palestine was mentioned?

Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, according to the FT.

Anyone else think that this is the biggest thing ever? It's off the fucking scale and the ramifications are monstrous. Think very carefully before reacting to this one with frivolity.

>Sep 11
>Black September
>Anniversary

Forgive my ignorance - what anniversary is this please?

>Agree with UB, Justin and others. Probably up to 100,000 people have been killed. Enough of the jokes, eh? It's not fucking funny.

Someone should tell this lot: www.cookdandbombd.co.uk

London Stock Exchange evacuated. I'm keeping an eye on Canary Wharf out of my window...

The footage starting to come through of evacuated survivors is really nasty. Manhattan looks like Pompeii. Everything covered in blankets of grey dust.

Any news on plane down in Pittsburgh? What the fuck's in Pittsburgh worth hitting?

>Someone should tell this lot: www.cookdandbombd.co.uk

Oh for fuck's sake. I wash my hands of that bunch of morons.

Countdown's just starting on Channel 4, by the way.

>What's notable is that this is an attack not designed to damage strategic targets or stop certain people from carrying out their jobs (the usual motive for attacking a building) but rather an attack designed to get onto as many TV channels as possible.
>
Is the world trade center not "the center of World Finance", well I heard the BBC calling it just such a thing.. The best way to attack the west is to attack it's Financial centers, working with people who working in the financial district of london they kept telling me of how they had major plans for terriorist attacks...


>Hitting landmarks like some screwed up tribute to Independence Day.
>
My first thought was that it will make an amazing movie (should there be anyone left to make/watch it).

It also seems to me to have certain echos of Fight Club (sorry to anyone who has'nt seen the movie and was planning on doing soo)

>Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, according to the FT.

This has been withdrawn. Fingers were immediately pointed at Islamic fundamentalists back in 1993. I doubt we'll know for sure for a while.

Is it really a Black September anniversary? There were hijacks on the 6th and 12th as far as I know. It's also been suggested that it's in the middle of the anniversary of the Camp David accord.

>Fingers were immediately pointed at Islamic fundamentalists back in 1993.

Er, 95 rather. In 1993 it *was* Islamic fundamentalists. Sorry.

The chain of events is absolutely extraordinary, and I'm only hearing it at the moment. I'm yet to see the TV reports, but the stills on bbc news are sickening enough.

I work in the City and the breakdown since lunchtime, simply as a reverberation of US events, has been deeply affecting. My boss has been sick, a colleague is now trapped over there with no way of getting home (just spoken to her on the phone), the phone lines have been utterly silent as though the entire financial world has gone into mourning. Which it undoubtedly has. In the middle of a stock-market crisis the effects of this can only cause further devastation for weeks to come. Add on the scale of death and emotional destruction and this is far from being suitable for ridicule.

Think of Hillsborough � the death figures are one thousandth of the estimated total for today's tragedy, but everyone in Liverpool knew someone who died on that day. The equivalent ratio for this afternoon's event is, as Louis points out, completely off the scale.

Do we feel safe with Bush in charge?

>I work in the City and the breakdown since lunchtime, simply as a reverberation of US events, has been deeply affecting.
>

I can well imagine. There but for the grace of God and all that.

> ...Add on the scale of death and emotional destruction and this is far from being suitable for ridicule.
>

With you 100%.

>Do we feel safe with Bush in charge?

Well, in the absence of any body to pin the blame on, what could he attack? That and the restraining influence of the Sir Humphreys in the White House are our main hopes.

Whatever, the global scene is a hell of a lot more volatile than it was this morning.

I need to check this at home but here we are pretty sure that the Black September movement was born on Sep 11 1971. I think this is also the Anniversary of either the Yom Kippur or 6 Day War.

I have cousins who work in the World Trade Tower, we've been trying to ring family in New York all day and telephones are engaged.

Interesting addendum to the debate about just where the limit for making jokes about a subject lies.

All telephone lines and mobile communications in that area have been taken down by the authorities (I think).

>>Do we feel safe with Bush in charge?
>
>Well, in the absence of any body to pin the blame on, what could he attack? That and the restraining influence of the Sir Humphreys in the White House are our main hopes.

Plus, while it's on American soil, the WTO must be one of the most internationally mixed buildings on Earth at any one time. Let's hope that has some kind of uniting effect.

One of the Beeb's correspondents was in the 1st tower when it was struck ... he obvisouly got out so maybe there was hope for some of the lower floors ...

Doesn't seem to be much news on that (presumably) hijacked plane flying toward Washington; maybe they've shot it down?

They've evacuated Canary Wharf and the Stock Exchange (just down the road from me, I work in Finsbury Square). The Pentagon's half-collapsed, too.

Oh yeah, and the White House received a warning about everything earlier this morning.

I can understand the use of jokes as defence mechanism against the shock, but as it starts to sink in I'm losing my sense of humour. This is fucking horrendous.

i think rushing to say anything about this horrendous day can make anyone look a bit stupid.

As for jokes, well, i laughed at some Jill Dando jokes, and some JFK Jnr jokes, but it wasn't on the day of their deaths.

Maybe comedy is tragedy plus time.

>One of the Beeb's correspondents was in the 1st tower when it was struck ... he obvisouly got out so maybe there was hope for some of the lower floors ...

Does anyone know how long the evacuation would have taken (quoted as "orderly") for the occupants at the highest surviving point? The tallest building I've ever been in during an evacuation was King's Reach Tower (25th floor) and that took long enough purely as a drill.

Even people with cable modems are having difficulty reaching the news sites.

I've been in a daze all day. Can't put it into words.

It makes you think immediately of those you love and care about.

would feel a whole lot safer if bush wasnt in charge.

just wanted to say that I'm not "G.B." Just "Golly Blenkinsop" and "GB".

I know I shouldn't be but I'm fucking scared. And I live near Menwith Hill so that's always scared me anyway and this makes the paranoia worse.

>Does anyone know how long the evacuation would have taken (quoted as "orderly") for the occupants at the highest surviving point? The tallest building I've ever been in during an evacuation was King's Reach Tower (25th floor) and that took long enough purely as a drill.

Absolutely. Strangely, there were eye witnesses stating that certain fire exits and escape routes were locked; although this may only be debris. Fox interviewed the Director of the WTC and the NYPC officer in charge of the lower Manhattan district; they were unable to say whether or not emergency staff, paramedics etc were in the towers, let alone how long a rescue operation would take.

It isn't something we can even begin to comprehend. It strikes fear into my heart, especially when Bush refers to the terrorists as 'those folks'.

>Does anyone know how long the evacuation would have taken (quoted as "orderly") for the occupants at the highest surviving point? The tallest building I've ever been in during an evacuation was King's Reach Tower (25th floor) and that took long enough purely as a drill.

There was about an hour between the first crash (8:50) and the first collapse (10:00), so I'm hoping that most people would have got out. Just as worrying is the number of people who were still receiving medical treatment near the building when it collapsed.

>Even people with cable modems are having difficulty reaching the news sites.
>

That's because the other end is being overworked so heavily. Apparently the BBC News Online servers are "red hot" in the words of an engineering bod at Kingswood Warren.

>I've been in a daze all day. Can't put it into words.
>

Quite. It's beyond words, really.

>It makes you think immediately of those you love and care about.
>

It makes me think of the whole human race, regardless of whether I know, love or care about them. I'm just sitting here slowly shaking my head.

The death toll will undoubtedly be high - any deaths would be too many - but I don't think the media is helping by speculating on the figures. I had a row earlier with a colleague who quoted one of the estimates. When I suggested it was best to wait for real figures, he told me that the figures came from CNN, as though that was a guarantee. I simply said that CNN were no better informed than he or me, and that you shouldn't trust statistics given out by journalists anyway.

Anyone else see the footage of the people left in the towers looking out as the first tower collapsed, then jumping, realising they would be next?

I din't think you could see people jumping out of the buildings, just about to jump or panicking.
Having watched the BBC news from 2 till about 6 on and off, i can't believe how many times they showed the second plane crashing. It seemed very strange to keep seeing it.

Vile opportunists. I make no further comment.

http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1004616643

>I din't think you could see people jumping out of the buildings, just about to jump or panicking.
>Having watched the BBC news from 2 till about 6 on and off, i can't believe how many times they showed the second plane crashing. It seemed very strange to keep seeing it.

And even stranger to be desensitised to the horror of it all.

>>I din't think you could see people jumping out of the buildings, just about to jump or panicking.
>>Having watched the BBC news from 2 till about 6 on and off, i can't believe how many times they showed the second plane crashing. It seemed very strange to keep seeing it.
>


MSNBC and ABC had live feeds before the sites went into meltdown.

Just to make a quick point; don't be so harsh on those who responded with sick humour or flippancy. It's just how some people cope with things like this.

I've found the whole thing nauseating...but something to think about: how many of you had the split second sickening thought "I wonder if I'll get a day off of work?" ?

Worse than any footage of the events themselves, was the footage of Palestinians dancing for joy in the streets.

The next few weeks are going to be pretty hairy � especially with Dubyer in charge. The Palestinians are going to have a very unpleasant time � with the Israelis piling in. The US are presumably going to have a pop at Afghanistan � but invading Afghanistan makes invading Russia look like a piece of cake. (The gorges Bin Laden lives at the bottom of � in presumably concrete bunkers � are impenetrable by cruise missiles or attack helicopters).

But in the medium to long term I think positive things will come out of it. No one has ever admitted this in public, but I am 90percent certain the Cease Fire in N Ireland came about from the bombs in the City of London. I think very powerful financial people went into the government and said "This cannot be allowed to happen again. You have got to reach a deal with these people."

I think the same will happen in the Middle East. For the first time the US is going to draw back from its total support for Israel. I wouldn't put much on the middle term political survival of Ariel Sharon who, after all, started this whole present cycle of madness.

PS Before people go mad, I would say I spent 8 months working in Israel on a kibbutz for nothing.

>Any news on plane down in Pittsburgh? What the fuck's in Pittsburgh worth hitting?

As soon as the tragic events became known, all planes in US airspace were told to land at the nearest available airport.

The suggestion is that this plane missed the runway in the ensuing panic.

Horiffically, there are further 'missing' planes presumed still in US airspace. And, worst of all, at least one of the planes that hit the WTC had paying passengers aboard it.

This is quite seriously hell on earth.

you'll be pleased to know that ebay auction has been removed

sick b**tards

Terrible. Simply terrible.

I'm sure that all of our hearts go out to those in the United States today and I hope, like jules, that out of this appalling evil some greater good may eventually come.

I saw W. making the usual fool of himself ('those folks' indeed) but as much as I despise him politically I can't even feel ill will towards him right now.

i was listening to the radio when the tower fell down. shivers down the spine stuff.

i have a feeling that this will be one of those moments where people ask "where were you when you heard?"

I shuddered when they said they were evacuating places in London too, I start work at Canary Wharf in a couple of weeks. Only in a shop mind, but i suddenly got the fear and remembered when the IRA bombed the area.

I have a feeling we will not see the last of these attacks.

What can you say? Simply terrifying. When I heard it on the radio at work I couldn't believe it. What a strange, strange day. My head is still spinning, and I've stopped watching the news because I can't bear to hear or watch any more. The sight of the World Trade Centre collasping with so many people inside is heartbreaking.

However, I think this will ensure that the West never ever underestimates Islamic terrorists again; after all, it was lax security that let these madmen wreak such havoc. I fervently hope that there will be no more ramifications, as there's been enough death this year already.

i thought bush's use of the word 'folks' was quite interesting and acceptable, it's the people who talk about war that escalate situations.

i can't say i feel as strongly about it as a lot of people here. my overiding emotion when i see the buildings collapse is 'ooh, wow'.

what was the ebay auction?

"Vile opportunists. I make no further comment."

Removed. Following a tip-off from a colleague, who saw L F Barfe's message, I (and, I would hope, thousands of others) wrote to eBay and threatened immediate legal action. For probably the first time ever in the history of eBay, they sent immediate return confirmation AND the item was removed.

Graeme Peterson,
Legal Affairs,
BBC.

>you'll be pleased to know that ebay auction has been removed

>sick b**tards

What were they actually auctioning? Or will it just depress me?

It was really spiriting to see everyone coming on here today and immediately curtailing the bad office humour before it had a chance to sneer a proper chuckle. That's the best kind of safety-in-numbers.

Humour might be a good defence mechanism against tragedy but it hardly applies to rehearsed wankery like those postings above.

One totally appalling day.

>What were they actually auctioning? Or will it just depress me?

A subway sign from the concourse at the WTC.

Absolutely fucking awful...I've been driving around London with a friend delivering shit all day listening to the news. Just hearing the panic such as "we've just got confirmation that the second tower has now collapsed..", I just didn't know what to think. I was only in that bloody building 2 weeks ago, I have photos of me smiling at the top.
It is beyond belief what this fucking world is coming to.

>Any news on plane down in Pittsburgh? What the fuck's in Pittsburgh worth hitting?

I heard one report that the plane may have been heading to Camp David. There was speculation on CH4 news that the pilot deliberately crashed the plane to avoid the terrorists reaching their target.

One worrying point: if a glance at the MSNBC News messageboard is anything to go by, this could escalate terribly.

http://bbs.msnbc.com/bbs/msnbc-current/index.asp?0cb=-a1b22998

Does anyone know what happened to the plane that mysteriously disappeared off the radar? It's that, more then anything else at the moment, that scares the shit out of me.

Truly dreadful and very frightening. The way the same images are being shown over and over again is making me feel sick.

I think what worries me is that other extremist groups are going to jump on the band-wagon and 'seize the day', thinking that now is the time to make their claim.
I wouldn't be surprised if something else happens.

yep, that's sick. not cos of the content (i'd imagined worse) but purely for the "financial gain from massive tragedy is disgusting" perspective.

if anyone from sky news would like that concept explained to them, e-mail me at [email protected].

aside from that, i'd just like to share my employers reaction to today's events. they decided the safest way to preserve our safety was to... no, i'm going to need another line for this word

LOCK

all their staff into the two seven-story buildings in which we work. good job i was in the pub at the time.

>Does anyone know what happened to the plane that mysteriously disappeared off the radar? It's that, more then anything else at the moment, that scares the shit out of me.

There are lots of stories that have fallen away: what happened to the four unaccounted-for planes that the FAA were highly concerned for? The second plane that was on its way to Washington? There was a Spanish news website that stated that a radio report had said LA airport was on fire.

And so on and so on. Unless there's been some sort of news blackout, presumably these were just rumours and unconfirmed stories that turned out to be baseless.

I'll be interested to see how the speculation boils away into an official version and what relation it bears to the original news stories. I'm surprised no-one in the media has suggested it being down to anti-globalisation protesters or the possibility of biological agents being used in the attacks, so we should be thankful for their restraint.

Sky News, about 4 pm. Apparently live footage of a plane in obvious distress, intercut with scenes of people running out of the White House (according to the Sky reporter, who claimed to recognise the buildings front gates).

Then, total silence. No further mention. I may have been too pissed to be a reliable witness, but that's what I'm sure I saw.

>Sky News, about 4 pm. Apparently live footage of a plane in obvious distress, intercut with scenes of people running out of the White House

At least one other plane has gone down (but no details as to where), according to the following story on the BBC news website at http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1537000/1537916.stm :

"A second United Airlines Boeing 767 has also crashed, bound from Boston to Los Angeles. The airline would not say where this second plane came down.

This flight - Flight 175 - was carrying 56 passengers, 2 pilots and seven crew. Their fate is unclear and friends and relatives concerned about a passenger on this flight should call 1-800-932-8555, the airline said."

The USA is now officially on a war footing (DEFCON 2 I believe); anything goes in those circumstances. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a lot of other stuff that hasn't been reported. For example, there was definite confirmation of a Boston-LA aircraft being hijacked at about 1700h. Since then, nothing.

There's a tendency to over-react in these circumstances, but I think it's fairly safe to say that today's events have been truly era defining ; well up there with JFK being shot, and perhaps the biggest 'thing' that's happened since the last war.
One side of the Pentagon has been destroyed for Christ's sake; it's a damn rhombus now. I just hope that Bush doesn't over react and takes time to evaluate seriously any possible retaliation.

Not a good day.

"In the City of Gold there will be a great thunder, Two brothers torn apart by Chaos, while the fortress endures, the great leader will succumb, The third big war will begin when the big city is burning" - Nostradamus 1654

>"In the City of Gold there will be a great thunder, Two brothers torn apart by Chaos, while the fortress endures, the great leader will succumb, The third big war will begin when the big city is burning" - Nostradamus 1654

Gahhh, he didn't really say that, did he?
Jesus.

>>"In the City of Gold there will be a great thunder, Two brothers torn apart by Chaos, while the fortress endures, the great leader will succumb, The third big war will begin when the big city is burning" - Nostradamus 1654
>
>Gahhh, he didn't really say that, did he?
>Jesus.

There's also mention of the "new city" going up in flames in a similar prophecy.

>"In the City of Gold there will be a great thunder, Two brothers torn apart by Chaos, while the fortress endures, the great leader will succumb, The third big war will begin when the big city is burning" - Nostradamus 1654

Show me proper lexographic evidence that the above is the exact direct translation from medieval rural French, without any embellishment from any other linguist or interpreter or 'futurologist', and that the prediction also corresponded with the timeframe that Nostradamus set aside for this century, please.

>>>"In the City of Gold there will be a great thunder, Two brothers torn apart by Chaos, while the fortress endures, the great leader will succumb, The third big war will begin when the big city is burning" - Nostradamus 1654
>>
>>Gahhh, he didn't really say that, did he?
>>Jesus.
>
>There's also mention of the "new city" going up in flames in a similar prophecy.

"The sky will burn at forty five degrees, fire approaches the great New City. Immidiately a huge scattered flame leaps up when they want to have proof of the Normans"

New York county lies between the 40 and 45 degree parralel in the USA. I have no idea what the Norman reference is all about. Any ideas?

I don't want to alarm anyone unduly, but according to The Guardian the US are on DEFCON#4 military alert (DEFCON#5 is the highest, for nuclear war) and Bush has gone, not to Camp David, but to Strategic Air Command in Nebraska.

This is all exremely worrying and inconceivably sad. The scenes of the Palestinians singing and dancing was particularly shockig; but, given that after the US and co had bombed the shit out of Iraq after the Gulf War the streets of New York were full of ticker tape and celebrations, we must be so careful not to think this is the reaction of the 'twisted Arab mind'. Sadly, I keep seeing top-brass Yanks saying this has got nothing to do with US foreign policy but just the 'evil' of a few man. And on telly at the moment some other Yank is saying how the only rational response is war. All that seems likely now is that many, many innocent people have died, and many more will in the future when the US retaliate against whoever they think did this.

Appalling. And is that quote from Nostradamus real? I wouldn't ask usually, but I saw 'Naked' yesterday.

Two hijaked aeroplanes will crash into New York's World Trade Centre at around 9am U.S. time (2pm BST) - wreaking devastation in the heart of Manhattan - Nostradamus 1502

"President Bush is flying back to Washington from Nebraska", according to the BBC ticker.

I'm getting really pissed off with the Pearl Harbour comparisons. a) the yanks had prior knowledge of the Pearl Harbour attack, and b) it's fuelling the worryingly warlike footing of our american cousins.

>>"In the City of Gold there will be a great thunder, Two brothers torn apart by Chaos, while the fortress endures, the great leader will succumb, The third big war will begin when the big city is burning"

If someone can find this in the Centuries, you're a better man than I. Certainly, the searchable (in both French and English) Nostradamus at http://www.nostradamus-repository.org/search/index.htm doesn't find any quatrain with "brothers" in that matches anything like that. Anyway, Nostradamus was long dead by 1654. Presumably Brie means 1564. I'm not sure he published anything that year, though.

>with the timeframe that Nostradamus set >aside for this century, please.

I really don't think Nostradamus did that sort of thing for the Centuries (which are the most obscure and undated of his prophecies and the only ones anyone cares about). They're in random date order.

For what it's worth, here's the Old French for VI.97

Cinq & quarante degr�s ciel bruslera,
Feu approucher de la grand cit� neufue, Instant grand flamme esparse saultera,
Quant on voudra des normans faire preuve.

which translates to:

At forty-five degrees the sky will burn,
Fire to approach the great new city:
In an instant a great scattered flame will leap up,
When one will want to demand proof of the Normans.

NYC is well south of 45 degrees, though. A Nostradamus website I looked at states: "The reference is clearly to some town or city that, like Naples (< Greek 'Neapolis'), is actually NAMED 'New City' (this substitution-procedure is perfectly normal in Nostradamus): Villanova d'Asti in Italy and Villeneuve-sur-Lot in France are geographically the best candidates"

So let's not get carried away. Particularly when it comes to Nostradamus.

I found the quatrain in question but it actually says "City of God..." not 'gold'

>I found the quatrain in question but it actually says "City of God..." not 'gold'

Can you give us a century and quatrain for that? Although we're drifting a little off-topic, I suppose.

Right now I'm hating how the bombings and tragedies that occur in the middle east rarely get much press. Yet this being America makes it so much more to us?

I mean let's not jump to conclusions, I know this is a big scale disaster, but to be honest whether two hundred or two thousand die it doesn't really make such a big difference to their families.

It just seems to matter more if they spoke English...

There was the earthquake in Istanbul a couple of years back. I don't know what the final toll was, but it ran into the several thousands. So in terms of human tragedy, there is a recent precedent for this. But it's the images that are so shocking. And the simple fact that the WTC and part of the Pentagon have been demolished. And the fact that something other than natural causes is to blame.

>And the fact that something other than natural causes is to blame.

Arguably if it wasn't our human nature to be ignorant about the issues in the middle east then there wouldn't have been need to provoke such reaction this way. Perhaps.

A point I'm not willing to argue about, just something I believe.

Goodnight, sleep well.

Nah. Rightly or wrongly, stuff that happens in the middle east doesn't really affect us. Stuff that pisses off Bush affects us big time. Every single thing I think to write sounds cliched, but this is very, very bad. Tragedies are always bad, of course, but the repercussions here could affect us all. I hope I'm being overly pessimistic. I'm sure I am, it's in my nature. But this is bad.

Presuming that this is indeed connected to the middle east in some way - something i for one am not convinced about.

this concerns us more than the horrors of the middle east because bush, to quote snap HE GOT THE POWER.

Whatever one feels about US Foreign policy in the Middle East (I can't say I was wild about the Gulf - but don't forget the role of the Clinton administration in pushing for a peace deal between Israel and Palestine in the mid 90s) I think the extensive coverage of this event is wholly justified. The numbers *do* matter, and the ruthless cynicism of the attack.

Quite frankly, although I don't like the idea of war, I think the Pearl Harbour comparisons are also justfied. No matter what one thinks of the US, this was an unprovoked and apocalyptic attack. It's all very well trotting out the "the Americans are all warmongers" line but for fuck's sake - 20,000 or more dead at a stroke. If that's not provocation I don't know what is. Imagine if it had been London or Manchester - wouldn't you want those responsible held to account? Not just out of vengeful feeling but to ensure it could not happen again.

when the IRA bomb London we don't launch air strikes against Northern Ireland, you can't fight outright war against terrorists.

Um. Reports are now coming in of explosions in Kabul. It's not known whether this is related or not.

Um. Reports are now coming in of explosions in Kabul. It's not known whether this is related or not.

Well, unconfirmed reports on Newsnight suggest missiles, presumably American falling on Khabul, Afghanistan's capital.
Ex-US foreign policy guy tacitly calling for/predicting (though he's not in power now) for war on Afghanistan, Iraq etc.
Shit. Why must they rush into it? They're going to kill civilians and it's not going to make anything better.

I don't know if I have anything to add to what has already been said, but I feel that I ought to post anyway - I'm still in shock after eight hours and I don't think I can go to bed yet. I've been thinking about many things - my relatives in NY and DC are accounted for but I'm hoping my friends who are there as tourists weren't out of bed at 8.50am - that sounds flippant but I mean it seriously...

I would suggest the Drudge Report, http://www.drudgereport.com/ if you're after information - containing links to pertinent sites and news stories. One of them reports the wife of the US Solicitor General is believed to have been on one of the crashed aircraft. I would imagine that other prominent figures will emerge in time as victims of today - having just typed that, I'm not sure if that matters. I'm not sure what matters.

Having read the Drudge Report site again, some of the stories seem worryingly biased, but it's a useful resource. Some other things - MSN are carrying an interview with a man who was on the 81st floor, and was evacuated (relatively) safely. Hopefully this is indicative of the number of people who managed to get out.

The scenes of some Palestinians rejoicing in the streets are rather saddening. I know it won't be at all representative of the prevailing mood, but still... Although in a month in which people are attacking 4 year old girls on their way to school, I guess we shouldn't be surprised at those kind of actions any more.

Sleep tight.

>when the IRA bomb London we don't launch air strikes against Northern Ireland

Perhaps that's because the IRA have never simultaneously destroyed half the City of London and the Ministry of Defence building. This isn't simply a terrorist bombing - it is an open act of war.

Oh and by the way, the US State Dept are denying bombing Kabul. I doubt they're lying - why would they need to?

so if the IRA destroyed enough of London it would justify military retaliation?

>Anyone else think that this is the biggest thing ever? It's off the fucking scale and the ramifications are monstrous. Think very carefully before reacting to this one with frivolity.

If Bush doesn't respond to this in a very careful, measured way, he could lead to an almighty war between Muslim countries and the West. This *could* be the beginning of the end. It's fucking scary. And the news footage is devastating.
>
>

this will NOT lead to war or anything of the kind. it's the visibily of the targets which makes this a huge event not the act itself.

Isn't the really worrying thing less America's reaction, but the open message to anyone with a grievance that you don't need high technology or modern arms to bring a country to its knees?

As one of the defence experts today said: The secret that the world's security forces kept during the nuclear paranoia years was that anyone could do it. The same tacit denial was in place about global terrorism. Now the world's seen it work, who else is going to try and pull this sort of stunt? And where next?

Even if it doesn't go to WW3, this isn't the end of the killing.

Everything tastes different now. Has anyone else noticed?

>this will NOT lead to war or anything of the kind. it's the visibily of the targets which makes this a huge event not the act itself.

Not the death toll? Which may run into tens of thousands?

Remember Omagh? Remember how appalling that felt, and was? And yet the carnage of that day was but a fraction of what happened in New York alone today. It may not lead to war in the conventional sense, but there will be grave repercussions, have no doubt. And quite frankly, if I were an American, I'd expect them. This is no time for aloof cynicism, or pseudo intellectual sneering at the USA. What happened today was an atrocity - absolutely no question whatsoever.

>so if the IRA destroyed enough of London it would justify military retaliation?

What do you think? How would you feel if 20,000 plus Londoners were massacred in one day? What would be an appropriate response to that?

>Everything tastes different now. Has anyone else noticed?

Do you mean that? I thought that too.

>this will NOT lead to war or anything of the kind.

I don't think you can be so sure of what this will lead to next. The East is a powder keg waiting to go off. I think Bush has to be very, very careful how he strikes back.

Just think I should point out at this stage that I'm not the same James M who posts on the TV forum and seems inordinately interested in idents and Crossroads while the free world possibly goes to hell in a handcart.

I thank you.

>>so if the IRA destroyed enough of London it would justify military retaliation?
>
>What do you think? How would you feel if 20,000 plus Londoners were massacred in one day? What would be an appropriate response to that?

I don't know. But I know that bombing Belfast and killing lots of innocent people wouldn't be.

thank you tim_e, exactly my point. it isn't about revenge, it's about getting peace.

the response to omagh proves my point, it strengthened the desire for peace, we didn't go to 'war' with the real IRA.

and my personal opinion is that the death toll will not be nearly as high as 20,000 although no one knows yet for sure.

It is the Afghan opposition doing the bombing in Kabul
Not the Americans
Let's not try to leap to conclusions. At least for the moment the Americans aren't

>thank you tim_e, exactly my point. it isn't about revenge, it's about getting peace.
>
>the response to omagh proves my point, it strengthened the desire for peace, we didn't go to 'war' with the real IRA.

Yes, and my point is this is not Omagh. It is not simply a 'terrorist bombing'. The IRA would never have contemplated an act because it is fucking insane. The people who perpetrated this act are not interested in peace - it is an act of open warfare. I don't want revenge either - but I definitely don't think this is a time for appeasement.

>and my personal opinion is that the death toll will not be nearly as high as 20,000 although no one knows yet for sure.
I think you're in for a nasty shock. I really don't see how it could be any less.

>Yes, and my point is this is not Omagh. It is not simply a 'terrorist bombing'. The IRA would never have contemplated an act because it is fucking insane. The people who perpetrated this act are not interested in peace - it is an act of open warfare. I don't want revenge either - but I definitely don't think this is a time for appeasement.

So what's your idea of a reasonable response? Nuking Afghanistan?

>Yes, and my point is this is not Omagh. It is not simply a 'terrorist bombing'. The IRA would never have contemplated an act because it is fucking insane. The people who perpetrated this act are not interested in peace - it is an act of open warfare. I don't want revenge either - but I definitely don't think this is a time for appeasement.

So what's your idea of a reasonable response? Nuking Afghanistan?

If I didn't have responsibilities and stuff to do over the next couple of weeks (and if I had money) I think I would've gone on holiday somewhere remote and tried to cut myself off from the news. I really don't want to watch all this unfolding.

>>and my personal opinion is that the death toll will not be nearly as high as 20,000 although no one knows yet for sure.
>I think you're in for a nasty shock. I really don't see how it could be any less.

Indeed. News 24 has just announced that 200 firefighters have been killed in the events of today. That's *200* firefighters....

Drudge Report also says 78 policemen have died. Presumably these people are all on the ground, rather than in the building.

>
>So what's your idea of a reasonable response? Nuking Afghanistan?

Don't be ridiculous.

Don't you think that the US has a right to find out who did this, catch them and punish them? Don't you think they have the right to demand that any nation harbouring the people who committed today's terrible acts hands those individuals over to justice? No-one needs to nuke anyone, and that will obviously not happen. But some military response may take place, and I say again, if this had happened in the UK, you would not be so tolerant.

>Indeed. News 24 has just announced that 200 firefighters have been killed in the events of today. That's *200* firefighters....

i was shocked when i saw that. what i meant was that it seems that most people were able to get out of the WTC buildings before they collapsed, and they keep downgrading the number of people who were inside at the beginning. i never belive the worst case scenarios.

>Yes, and my point is this is not Omagh. It is not simply a 'terrorist bombing'. The IRA would never have contemplated an act because it is fucking insane. The people who perpetrated this act are not interested in peace - it is an act of open warfare. I don't want revenge either - but I definitely don't think this is a time for appeasement.

So what's your idea of a reasonable response? Nuking Afghanistan?

>>Indeed. News 24 has just announced that 200 firefighters have been killed in the events of today. That's *200* firefighters....
>
>i was shocked when i saw that. what i meant was that it seems that most people were able to get out of the WTC buildings before they collapsed, and they keep downgrading the number of people who were inside at the beginning. i never belive the worst case scenarios.

*Inside* the towers, yes. But when a 1350 ft. building falls to the ground in one of the most built-up areas on the planet, and is closely followed by the fall of another 1350ft. building, I wouldn't want to guess at how many thousands of people were *outside*...

>>Indeed. News 24 has just announced that 200 firefighters have been killed in the events of today. That's *200* firefighters....
>
>i was shocked when i saw that. what i meant was that it seems that most people were able to get out of the WTC buildings before they collapsed,

I don't think they did. There are one or two survivors from the upper floors (88th is the highest I think) but these buildings can take up to two hours to fully evacuate. There was only a matter of minutes between the first plane hitting and the second, and only a brief time longer before the buildings collapsed. I fear that it this is one situation where there is no 'worst case scenario' - whatever has happened many, many lives have been lost.

>
>>Yes, and my point is this is not Omagh. It is not simply a 'terrorist bombing'. The IRA would never have contemplated an act because it is fucking insane. The people who perpetrated this act are not interested in peace - it is an act of open warfare. I don't want revenge either - but I definitely don't think this is a time for appeasement.
>
>So what's your idea of a reasonable response? Nuking Afghanistan?

hang on - haven' t we done this?

See above response.

In California we woke up to an unusually cloudy,cool and ominous day--in September the weather is usually hot and humid. And then I was called down to see footage of a World Trade Center tower violently sinking into the ground. Then we were shown footage of cheering Palestinians. We shuddered at this opportunistic media racism, done at the expense of ignorant, oppressed people. And yet I felt like beating some of those people's faces into jelly--and I am half-Arab.
At work we frequently stopped in the middle of our duties and huddled around, listening to the radio. The politicians all came out with the same cliches--"this horrible, evil act"; "we will hunt down and punish these people", "our freedom came under attack," "despicable acts of terror", etc.
This was a masterpiece of terrorism: tightly planned and masterfully designed. 4 planes down--one ominously near Camp David, one gouged into the Pentagon(!!), and two tangled in the ruins of the trade center. They showed us footage of the planes smacking into those buildings, and we watched the passengers die in front of our eyes. They repeated the footage over and over and over....It is part of the national tape loop, along with FDR's "day of infamy," the bullet entering JFK's head, "I Have a Dream," Nixon gesturing goodbye....
The national pride of the US is now in tatters, and the everyone is still in shock.
None of this seems real. Those images would have seemed like magnificent special effects if it hadn't been the news that showed them to us. Because they have the confirmation of truth("It's the news!"), it feels like we're on the cusp of apocalypse. It just doesn't seem real--it seems like a bad action movie; the fully realized plot of James Bond villains...When the towers were hit, scores of firemen and policemen rushed in to help the stricken. And then the building collapsed.
Your grandchildren will be reading of these events in school. This is a new page, and the largest since Watergate and Vietnam.
And yet more died in Rwanda, and elsewhere around the world. But because the US has been shot through the chest, the location of the attacks is seen to matter as much as the body count.
I oppose capital punishment, and the hijackers have given up their lives--that's how strong their passion was. But if the those who planned this operation are alive--those who cold-bloodedly accepted and planned the deaths of thousands upon thousands of inocents--then they do not deserve to live. The lives of thousands meant nothing toward them and they demonstrated this. Any man who acts upon such a dehumanized mindset should not live.
But if many innocents suffer in consequence....Many in this country are filled with total rage, and the power and stupidity of the mass of Americans will...I don't know.
Now we're subjected to George W. Bush giving a puff pastry of a speech and using the God card shamelessly; congress singing "God Save America" in an orgy of awesome tastelessness; the rising wave of jingoism and sanctimony. The world has made a turn, and the conclusion is still in shadows.

nuff said, thanks revelator.

Revelator - all my sympathies extend to you and all Americans today. Thanks for your posting - very enlightening, and a good dose of reality.

The most frightening turn of events since the attack:

"The search is underway for those who were behind these evil acts. I have directed the full resources of our intelligence and law enforcement communities to find those responsible, and to bring them to justice. We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts, and those who harbour them."


President Bush giving himself blanket endorsement for any future bombing and violence against a country his advisors 'identify' as the perpetrator of the atrocious tragedy.


>Now we're subjected to George W. Bush giving a puff pastry of a speech and using the God card shamelessly; congress singing "God Save America" in an orgy of awesome tastelessness; the rising wave of jingoism and sanctimony. The world has made a turn, and the conclusion is still in shadows.

If Bush isn't planning to preach forgiveness and practice restraint and non-retribution, then he shouldn't be invoking God. Makes me sick.

Another thing, Pearl harbour - wasn't that a military attack against a military target in the context of a World War? There is no comparison.




I am working in the newsroom of America's National Public Radio today. Their headquaretrs are about half a mile from the White House. Everyone is really shaken up. If I didn't have to be here, I'd be shutting myself away. I don't need or want to see any more of this carnage.

Bush is now tarring anyone standing near the perpetrators with the same brush ("harbouring" is a very loose term) to increase the size of a possible target for retaliation.

And, equally scary, one of the US security chiefs was talking yesterday about this being an example of "State Sponsored Terrorism". Which is a neat way of deflecting the possibility that the US will have to identify and take out a single, wealthy, fanatical individual, and opening up the possibility of just dropping loads of explosive shit out of the sky on a country full of ragheads.

If it were State Sponsored Terrorism, they wouldn't have needed to hijack planes, surely? Crashing jumbos is a blunt weapon. States use proper guns and bombs. The US top brass are trying to invent an enemy they can understand (a rogue state) so they can quickly establish themselves on a war footing and appear to be retaliating in their usual collateral damage fashion.

In the panic and fear of yesterday, I was prepared to let George Bush lead the free world. It was his people who got killed. He had a right to be furious.

This morning, I'd almost rather someone took him and his Jack D Ripper cronies out before Osama Bin Laden...

God, my stomach's in a knot.

>Bush ...This morning, I'd almost rather someone took him and his Jack D Ripper cronies out before Osama Bin Laden...
>
>God, my stomach's in a knot.

Very well said, UB, and it adds more to the debate than anything written by Polly fucking Toynbee and any other of the bien pensant 'sixpence for a yard o' opinions' cunts who are emoting in the broadsheets this morning. Martin Woolacott in the Grauniad has written the best piece I've seen so far, but the rest can all fuck off.

Coming home from a friend's house last night, I went through all of this with the cab driver. Awful though it is, the US has committed acts as bad (if not necessarily as concentrated) in carrying out its so-called global responsibilities. There is no simple way to take sides. You have to align with humanity, which means aligning neither with Bush nor with whoever committed this atrocity.

Cheers. I'm just scared and I don't know what to think.

(I'm glad I downloaded the incredibly handy and informative Protect and Survive leaflet last week.)

>Cheers. I'm just scared and I don't know what to think.
>

I'd be perturbed if I did know what to think. Gaping mouthed incredulity and fear are perfectly legitimate responses to this one.

>(I'm glad I downloaded the incredibly handy and informative Protect and Survive leaflet last week.)
>

So you've filled up the bath and taken the bedroom door off its hinges, then? Should see you right. I wonder whether, if the balloon were to go up, Patrick Allen would still be the voice of doom?

bbc news online reckons -

"The Taleban authorities in Afghanistan have reportedly offered to consider extraditing the chief suspect, Osama Bin Laden, after studying the evidence against him. "

encouraging. probably motivated by self-preservaton, of course, but good news.

It's funny because, on the archive site where I found the P&S booklet, there were loads of guestbook postings from naive young things who didn't realise the history, laughing at nuclear paranoia.

I wondered at the time what people who were too young to spend the early 80s in a gibbering fug of fear would make of a return to nuclear / global conflict paranoia.

I guess we'll find out soon enough.

"Banking and other services may be disrupted..."

Jack Straw was asked a perfectly reasonable question this morning about whether he thought this was a good time for the US to keep a cool head. He replied by reminding the reporter of the magnitude of casualties from these attacks.
He knows. Not nearly as much as the people who will actually be making the decisions over the next few weeks (and I don't mean Bush or anyone we'll see on tv), but he knows there could be a huge reaction to this.
Bush will be told what to say to the american people, and intelligence will begin target suggestion meetings.

>It's funny because, on the archive site where I found the P&S booklet, there were loads of guestbook postings from naive young things who didn't realise the history, laughing at nuclear paranoia.
>

Aye. Well, it was real enough when I was a kid (I'm now 28).

If you ever see a copy of Duncan Campbell's book War Plan UK, snap it up. It's all about the yawning gap between the extensive contingencies made for the Govt, and the Royal Family etc, in the event of a nuclear attack and the overwhelming crapness of the provisions for the rest of us. There's one wonderful, but chilling, bit, where Campbell shows that the advice given in P&S was substantially the same as that given in a Civil Defence leaflet put out by HMG at the time of the Munich crisis in 1938.

>...Bush will be told what to say to the american people, and intelligence will begin target suggestion meetings.
>

Fucking hell. If anyone needed a measure of how serious this all is, it has inspired Lamb of God to post a perfectly sober and straight message to the Forum. Suits you, sir.

Intelligence having the whip hand is a worry, but hopefully the non-spook aides will keep Dubya away from the special box of Brock's fireworks. Hopefully.

I was on the phone last night to an old friend from the BBC World Service and she joked it wasn't a real crisis til a Dimbleby hove in view. Sure enough, five minutes later�

I found the Dimbleby programme disturbing. The BBC does have an alarming tendency to move to the right in a national emergency. The programme was packed with right wing pro-Israeli heavyweights � Richard Perle, the Prince of Darkness from Washington and another bearded right wing loon from some Washington think tank (he looked like the American equivalent of bin Laden), both saying bomb everything, a Jewish ex-Number Two from the Clinton State Department saying bomb everything, and, of all people, Ehud Barak, ex-Prime Minister of Israel saying � bomb everything.

The only people trying to hold the line of reason was an old Foreign Office United Nations hand and a young woman from the Royal Institute for International Affairs who occasionally tried to stick her head over the parapet. Everytime she did, though, Barak looked as though he was going to murder her. (What he's got to worry about? After the Yanks have got rid of bin Laden, I assume the next person on their list will be his great political rival, Ariel Sharon, who started this whole latest cycle of lunacy by his shameless political ambition).

The last time the BBC swung so visibly to the right (or perhaps pro-Establishment) was during the Miner's Strike. You had to watch Channel 4 News for unbiased coverage.

Congratulations to two BBC hands for trying to hold the line during yesterday � Brian Hanrahan, the Diplomatic Correspondent, who chose all his words extremely carefully and used a wide knowledge of the Middle East to scotch any rumours before they got started; and Olga Guerrin in Jerusalem, who likewise showed great restraint and judgment, and seemed to be aware of the importance of her broadcasts.

>the next person on their list will be his great political rival, Ariel Sharon

Why on earth would they want to kill Sharon? The reason the US is so despised by Palestinians is due to its near-unequivocal support for Israel. That hasn't changed since Sharon came to power.

Apologies � and another point. After they've bombed a whole lot of innocent � and a few guilty Afghans � what are we going to get? A few hundred thousand more Afghan refugees (Afghanistan is the poorest country on earth) desperate to break into the West. Boats off Australia, clinging to trains under the Chunnel.

What goes round comes round.

>Very well said, UB, and it adds more to the debate than anything written by Polly fucking Toynbee and any other of the bien pensant 'sixpence for a yard o' opinions' cunts who are emoting in the broadsheets this morning

Raj Persaut on This Morning took some beating.

> Why on earth would they want to kill Sharon? The reason the US is so despised by Palestinians is due to its near-unequivocal support for Israel. That hasn't changed since Sharon came to power.

I argued in my previous posting that the rich and powerful in the States, after this, and after all the military debt-settling, will demand a more stable situation (just as the City of London after the IRA bombs demanded a peace process). Sharon is obviously a walking disaster who was allowed to carry on with his policies because Bush was following an isolationist policy. It will be isolationist no longer.

>Raj Persaut on This Morning took some beating.
>

Raj Persaud could always take some beating, in my view. Preferably with big sticks. The nation's number one cod-psychologist. The quack hack. I hate him with a passion.

Jesus Christ. They let him loose on something this big and important? Well, I guess it was This Morning, so we shouldn't be surprised. How did Twiggy and that Nolan Sister cope?

apologies to Rob Jones. The US will try - and probably fail - to kill bin Laden. They won't kill Sharon, he will just be removed and replaced by someone more in favour of a peace agreement.

Strong Views on U.S. Attacks on Cyberworld Chatroom
By Inal Ersan

DUBAI (Reuters) - As U.S. officials scrambled on Wednesday to identify the aircraft hijackers who killed thousands in the United States, instant and often passionate views were already being aired in cyberworld chatrooms.

One of several rooms debating the attacks was initiated by a group of Arab Americans to help Arabs reach loved ones missing in New York, but was reduced to a virtual battle zone.

``Arabs started it. Now we will show you the anger of the American people,'' wrote one angry American -- though he also said he hoped Tuesday's events did not herald a Muslim-Christian war.

``Drop atomic bombs all over the Middle East. God bless America,'' wrote another chatterer, demanding retaliation for the attacks in which three planes commandeered by hijackers slammed into the Pentagon (news - web sites) and the twin towers of the World Trade Center.

Venus, who told a Reuters correspondent she was chatting from Georgia where her husband is a U.S. soldier, said: ``I have a friend who is Arab American and I don't blame no one till they say who did it and prove it.''

Leaders of American Muslim groups said followers of Islam ''unequivocally condemned'' the attacks, according to a statement by Islam Infonet. ``Muslims stand with all other Americans who, on this sad day, feel a sense of tremendous grief and loss,'' they added in a letter to President Bush (news - web sites).

Most fingers were pointed at America's sworn enemy, Saudi-born Osama bin Laden (news - web sites), and some accused Palestinians, many of whom detest the United States for what they see as its bias toward Israel, of responsibility for the attacks.

On the other side of the fence, some Arabs and Muslims were celebrating what they saw as ``a lesson to the United States.''

``The sound of Islamic justice shook New York,'' said one gloating chatterer, who was ejected from the room after stating his opinion. Some other chatterers were also ejected.

NEW ERA

One Palestinian hailed the use of hijacked planes in suicide attacks on enemy interests as the ``weapon of a new era.''

Several Americans expressed disgust at the street celebrations staged by some Palestinians under Israeli occupation when news of the attacks reached them.

But expressions of anger, gloating and hatred were matched by calls for prayers and sympathy for the thousands who died and their friends and relatives.

``Let us pray for those who died. Christians, Jews and Muslims,'' said one New Yorker, who said that people from all three monotheist religions had died in the attacks.

Amira, an Arab dietician who lives in Ontario, Canada, said her nephews who attend a Muslim school were subjected to foul language by people angered by the attacks.

``There were people at the gates screaming at the kids -- calling them terrorists and using foul language,'' she said.

Similar speculation prompted harassment of Arab Americans after the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, when a car bomb killed 168 people. A U.S. army veteran, Timothy McVeigh (news - web sites), was found guilty of that attack and executed earlier this year.

``I am angry because...many innocent people are going to pay,'' said Giordanna, a Spanish woman married to an American. She said she expects Washington to retaliate against Arabs.

I was quietly impressed by Tony Blair stressing that this wasn't a religious issue, insisting that Muslims were as horrified by the events as anyone else, and that Islam was a peaceful religion.

I found him remarkably strong and determined, with an admirable measured dignity in his briefing this morning. Makes a change.

Sod the "they're all the same" shit about politicians. Blair's speech reminded me why I'm happier to have someone like him in charge than someone like Bush. In a climate of raghead-baiting, don't hold your breath for Dubya to be spouting similar sentiments today.

Bravo for the wishy washy liberal in times of crisis.

(re: Raj Persaud)

>Jesus Christ. They let him loose on something this big and important?

They actually called him in specially. He reckoned that people in America will be shocked by the news and should perhaps placate themselves by not thinking about it as much. He also seemed to be of the opinion that whoever arranged the terrorist act was probably angry about something but that it got completely out of hand.

All this soup spat out of my mouth.

>I was quietly impressed by Tony Blair stressing that this wasn't a religious issue, insisting that Muslims were as horrified by the events as anyone else, and that Islam was a peaceful religion.
>
>I found him remarkably strong and determined, with an admirable measured dignity in his briefing this morning. Makes a change.
>
>Sod the "they're all the same" shit about politicians. Blair's speech reminded me why I'm happier to have someone like him in charge than someone like Bush.
>
Hear, hear UB.

I think it's important - just as we call for our leaders not to over-react - that we do not. Blair has taken an important lead by, correctly I think, identifying yesterday's events in terms of ideology not race or culture. (And Bush may well have to follow suit if he wants a broad coalition of support). Most Muslims were horrified by yesterday's events.
I cannot agree with earlier statements to the effect that the USA is no better than those who carried out yesterday's attack. It was an attack not just on the USA but on the concept of democratic, secular government. And as flawed as it may be in the west, (and it is) that is what we do have. That is what permits us to conduct this very debate.

Many people on this forum have criticised (correctly) the beliefs and actions of christian fundamentalists. Islamic fundamentalists are just as bad and do not deserve misguided sympathy. If it really was an Islamic fundamentalist group who carried out yesterday's act of barbarism I feel our choice is clear - Dubya or no Dubya we grit our teeth and line up behind democracy. It's not about race, plenty of Muslims believe in democracy too. Look at the pictures from New York yesterday - there were plenty of blacks, asians, hispanics - this was a political attack, not a racial one.

As for Protect and Survive, after yesterday I've never been less concerned about nuclear weapons - who needs nukes when a 767 will do?

>I was quietly impressed by Tony Blair stressing that this wasn't a religious issue, insisting that Muslims were as horrified by the events as anyone else, and that Islam was a peaceful religion.
>
>I found him remarkably strong and determined, with an admirable measured dignity in his briefing this morning. Makes a change.



Absolutely agreed. Blair has come off well so far - lets hope he doesn't spoil it by giving blanket endorsement to any and all of America's 'revenge and retaliation' policies.

To be fair, however, William Hague's statement yesterday was also highly commendable. Even-handed and graced with humility.

At the risk of clich�, they've both acted as very traditional English leaders. The 'wartime spirit' as it's so often called.

It will be interesting to see if the people of America come together likewise. It would be nice if they could abandon the 'blame culture' in the wake of these horriffic events.

I remember, when I was a small child so terrified by nuclear war that I was sent to a child psychologist to sort me out, that I had a chat with my great uncle who had fought in WWII.

Although I knew everything about nukes and hydrogen bombs, the way he described what happened to a friend of his when a conventional shell went off nearby, scared the crap out of me. So much so that I began thinking that, whatever these "shells" were, they must be the worst weapons ever, much worse than A-Bombs.

Years later, I realised he was just trying to give me perspective. Anything can kill you. And it's always horrible. H-Bombs just kill more people more quickly. It's not the weapons. It's the idea of wiping loads of individual people from the face of the earth for no good reason, by whatever means, that's scary.

>Another thing, Pearl harbour - wasn't that a military attack against a military target in the context of a World War? There is no comparison.
>
Rubbish. This was a military attack, on a major military and financial target. It is tantamount to an open declaration of war. The comparison is wholly justified. It simply staggers me when I read some of the comments on this and the TV Forum that the hatred UK intellectuals have for the USA is so great that they think the US is getting what it deserves in some way, or that the American people are all morons because they want military retaliation. They're angry for fuck's sake. And confused and in shock. We all feel it - how do you think Americans feel? New Yorkers? Washingtonians?

I think, under the circumstances, the US have been very restrained. And the more support we give them the less their Government will feel the need to retreat into its isolationist shell and strike out unilaterally. Americans deserve our support - as they gave it so freely in WWII.

Americans are reeling. This message from NASA to its employees is on the homepage of their site. They're giving them compassionate leave if they feel "uncomfortable".


NASA HQ Open Wednesday
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has decided that the Federal Government will be open Wednesday, Sept 12. An unscheduled leave policy is in effect.

This means that any employee who is uncomfortable as a result of Tuesday's terrorist attacks may take unscheduled leave. This must be confirmed with your immediate supervisor Wednesday.

NASA Headquarters remains under heightened security and as a result every automobile that enters the garage will be subject to search. It is expected that this action will cause extended delays, therefore employees are encouraged to use mass transit or other means of transportation.

>
>
>>Another thing, Pearl harbour - wasn't that a military attack against a military target in the context of a World War? There is no comparison.
>>
>Rubbish. This was a military attack, on a major military and financial target. It is tantamount to an open declaration of war. The comparison is wholly justified.

Okay - they're comparable in that both were a surprise and both were tantamount to a declaration of war against the USA (and democracy).

My point was that TV commentators who were comparing the events on _those_ grounds alone were missing the point. Pearl Harbour was primarily a military target. Yesterday's attack will go down in history because of the sheer number of civilian casualties. It was an assault not just on America, but the people of America. In that way, it can never be comparable.

>
>
>>Another thing, Pearl harbour - wasn't that a military attack against a military target in the context of a World War? There is no comparison.
>>
>Rubbish. This was a military attack, on a major military and financial target. It is tantamount to an open declaration of war. The comparison is wholly justified.

No, that is not true. This was a coordinated terrorist attack on military and civilian targets. It is not an act of war because there is no visible enemy. Neither is there a declaration of war.
The comparison with Pearl Harbour is that it was a shock to an understandably unprepared nation. The key difference is that there is no rational response other than a hope for justice.

It simply staggers me when I read some of the comments on this and the TV Forum that the hatred UK intellectuals have for the USA is so great that they think the US is getting what it deserves in some way,

I don't see this at all, which comments are you referring too.

or that the American people are all morons because they want military retaliation. They're angry for fuck's sake. And confused and in shock. We all feel it - how do you think Americans feel? New Yorkers? Washingtonians?

I agree, they are understandably angry, as am I that yet another attack has been made against ordininary defenceless people. The scale of the attack is staggering and no sane person would serious do anything other than sympathise.

>
>I think, under the circumstances, the US have been very restrained. And the more support we give them the less their Government will feel the need to retreat into its isolationist shell and strike out unilaterally. Americans deserve our support - as they gave it so freely in WWII.

I agree, with the above and Tony Blair's comments, this is not just an American issue it affects the whole world.

If I were to attempt comedy on this subject, which I'm not going to because it's too soon. But if I were, I'd go for something like this:

Noddy Holder is the obvious suspect. Although I doubt whether he would ever openly admit to direct involvement.
He's pulling the strings though.
Alvin Stardust has condemned it and denied any involvement. He actually looked genuinely shocked.
I can't see anyone wearing platforms being allowed on a flight anywhere for a while though.

Well, at least it's not sick. But it's still not funny either. Nice effort.

>(re: Raj Persaud)
>
>They actually called him in specially. He reckoned that people in America will be shocked by the news and should perhaps placate themselves by not thinking about it as much.
>

Is This Morning beamed to the States? I hope not. I can imagine boots going through TV screens up and down the country if they had to take in that platitudinous shite.

> He also seemed to be of the opinion that whoever arranged the terrorist act was probably angry about something but that it got completely out of hand.
>

A master of understatement as well as being a twat, eh? What fucking purpose did this serve?

>All this soup spat out of my mouth.

Joe, mate, I'm not at all surprised. Did you try covering your eyes and ears, humming and hoping it would go away? I would have.

I hope that the cunt sends his fee straight to whatever charity is most appropriate. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it, though.

What if I were to add that Mud were responsible for the last US Embassy bombing?

Bush press conference just on. At least he said a response would be 'patient' and 'focused'.

He's probably the hardest-looking president for a while.

>What if I were to add that Mud were responsible for the last US Embassy bombing?
>

I would be forced to attach explosives to my chest and rugby tackle Les Gray.

Next.

>>What if I were to add that Mud were responsible for the last US Embassy bombing?
>>
>
>I would be forced to attach explosives to my chest and rugby tackle Les Gray.
>
>Next.
>
was he in mud then? I should know really, being from Carshalton.

>was he in mud then? I should know really, being from Carshalton.
>

You're what? I was born in Epsom, and my dad was a porter at St Helier Hospital when I was a kid...

>>All this soup spat out of my mouth.

>Joe, mate, I'm not at all surprised. Did you try covering your eyes and ears, humming and hoping it would go away? I would have.

I was in the grip of fascinated aghast.

Gene Pitney was also in the studio to plug his new CD and sing a song. They chose instead to interview him about the tragedy - and he spoke far more sense that Persaud ever could.

>You're what? I was born in Epsom, and my dad was a porter at St Helier Hospital when I was a kid

I was born in St Helier and lived in West Ewell most of my life. I don't like this, you might know me and I might know you.

Sorry if someones already said this, but did anyone see the ITN?(BBC?) news this morning, where the reader was quoting Bushs' speech over film of The speech, and the V/O matched exactly with bushs mouth movements. was it intentional? it looked like TDT.

>I was in the grip of fascinated aghast.

I would have been too. It's a long shot, but did anyone tape it?

>Gene Pitney was also in the studio to plug his new CD and sing a song. They chose instead to interview him about the tragedy - and he spoke far more sense that Persaud ever could.
>

Amazing and yet utterly plausible. A bit of a Bruce Foxton moment, eh what?

>I was born in St Helier and lived in West Ewell most of my life. I don't like this, you might know me and I might know you.
>

I went to school in West Ewell (Glyn) and did my A levels in East Ewell (NESCOT). How old are you and what school did you go to? LF Barfe is my real name, so if you do know me, you should have realised by now.

So, judging by the tenor of conversation here at the moment, can we assume that it's NOT World War III?

>>I was born in St Helier and lived in West Ewell most of my life. I don't like this, you might know me and I might know you.
>>
>
>I went to school in West Ewell (Glyn) and did my A levels in East Ewell (NESCOT). How old are you and what school did you go to? LF Barfe is my real name, so if you do know me, you should have realised by now.
>

No, I don't know you. But now I know you're a Glyn Gay. You Glyn Gay. Did you used to congregate outside McDonalds after school hoping that the fight you heard about would kick off in Boots car park? Great days.
Weren't they, Glyn gay.

>So, judging by the tenor of conversation here at the moment, can we assume that it's NOT World War III?

There will NEVER be a World War III and this is why.

Obviously, with most substantial states possessing nuclear capabilities, any attack on a country by another would lead to retaliation on a larger scale. It would escalate in moments and any attack would be treated as nuclear, leaving the other country no option but to retaliate - and so on, until every ally was involved. And obviously, destruction is mutually assured.

Governments know this, hence while they may talk of a 'war against terrorism' they would never talk of a 'war against Country'.

>No, I don't know you. But now I know you're a Glyn Gay. You Glyn Gay. Did you used to congregate outside McDonalds after school
>

Nah, our lot used to hang around outside Sainsbury's in Epsom waiting for the Rosebery girls to pass. Kind of gives the lie to your arse bandit theory, eh?

> hoping that the fight you heard about would kick off in Boots car park? Great days.
>Weren't they, Glyn gay.

No. They were shit. And, for me, Glyn was the shittiest thing about those shit days. A pox on Taff Turner, the worst headmaster in Britain.

There's no reason why a world war would have to go nuclear
And even if it did in this case the USA have a lot more nuclear weapons than all the Middle East states and Afganistan. They could easily use them without much fear of world destruction.
But similarly so could the terrorists. I wouldn't be surprised if that happens. And who would the USA strike back against?
This will be no Gulf War all taking place miles away with no real casualties on our side. The terrorists are showing that they can make their struggle really come home to the americans (and quite possibly later on the Europeans)
Things look pretty bleak

>Governments know this, hence while they may talk of a 'war against terrorism' they would never talk of a 'war against Country'.

But the Americans ARE talking about a war against country and seem to be getting more gung-ho and vengeful by the minute - they plan to treat the country holding those responsible as they would those responsible.

It is possible the hi-jackers were themselves American.

According to the latest Eveing Standard, there is audiotape on which one of them can be heard talking to a pilot.

http://us.news2.yimg.com/f/42/31/7m/dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010912/ts/attack_military_dc_1.html

Speaks for itself

>There's no reason why a world war would have to go nuclear

There may be no reason why a world war would HAVE to go nuclear - but every reason why it probably WILL, with Bush's finger on the button.

>And even if it did in this case the USA have a lot more nuclear weapons than all the Middle East states and Afganistan.

But how many nuclear weapons do you need? Not many to wipe out an entire civilisation. It's not about who's got more of the fucking things - just who will push the button first.


>Things look pretty bleak

They certainly do

has anyone seen my "How to Fly a Plane Video" ?

every time i see an American baying for blood i care a little less. of course they have a right to be angry but you can't help feeling that if you have a 'we rule the world' mentality this sort of thing is bound to happen.

plus there is no one to take revenge upon, even if they got Bin Laden he would just become a martyr for his cause.

it is like Pearl Harbor in that Americans have a strong 'eye for an eye' desire. lets hope Afghanistan doesn't become the new Hiroshima.

Just got this.

�


----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Moore <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 7:53 PM
Subject: Death, Downtown


> Death, Downtown
>
> Dear friends,
>
> I was supposed to fly today on the 4:30 PM American Airlines
flight from
> LAX to JFK. But tonight I find myself stuck in L.A. with an
incredible
> range of emotions over what has happened on the island where I
work and
> live in New York City.
>
> My wife and I spent the first hours of the day -- after being
awakened by
> phone calls from our parents at 6:40am PT -- trying to contact
our
daughter
> at school in New York and our friend JoAnn who works near the
World Trade
> Center.
>
> I called JoAnn at her office. As someone picked up, the first
tower
> imploded, and the person answering the phone screamed and ran
out, leaving
> me no clue as to whether or not she or JoAnn would live.
>
> It was a sick, horrible, frightening day.
>
> On December 27, 1985 I found myself caught in the middle of a
terrorist
> incident at the Vienna airport -- which left 30 people dead,
both there
and
> at the Rome airport. (The machine-gunning of passengers in
each city was
> timed to occur at the same moment.)
>
> I do not feel like discussing that event tonight because it
still brings
up
> too much despair and confusion as to how and why I got to
live. a fluke, a
> mistake, a few feet on the tarmac, and I am still here, there
but for the
> grace of.
>
> Safe. Secure. I'm an American, living in America. I like my
illusions. I
> walk through a metal detector, I put my carry-ons through an
x-ray
machine,
> and I know all will be well.
>
> Here's a short list of my experiences lately with airport
security:
>
> * At the Newark Airport, the plane is late at boarding
everyone. The
> counter can't find my seat. So I am told to just "go ahead and
get on" --
> without a ticket!
>
> * At Detroit Metro Airport, I don't want to put the lunch I
just bought at
> the deli through the x-ray machine so, as I pass through the
metal
> detector, I hand the sack to the guard through the space
between the
> detector and the x-ray machine. I tell him "It's just a
sandwich." He
> believes me and doesn't bother to check. The sack has gone
through neither
> security device.
>
> * At LaGuardia in New York, I check a piece of luggage, but
decide to
catch
> a later plane. The first plane leaves without me, but with my
bag -- no
one
> knowing what is in it.
>
> * Back in Detroit, I take my time getting off the commuter
plane. By the
> time I have come down its stairs, the bus that takes the
passengers to the
> terminal has left -- without me. I am alone on the tarmac,
free to wander
> wherever I want. So I do. Eventually, I flag down a pick-up
truck and an
> airplane mechanic gives me a ride the rest of the way to the
terminal.
>
> * I have brought knives, razors; and once, my traveling
companion brought
a
> hammer and chisel. No one stopped us.
>
> Of course, I have gotten away with all of this because the
airlines
> consider my safety SO important, they pay rent-a-cops $5.75 an
hour to
make
> sure the bad guys don't get on my plane. That is what my life
is worth --
> less than the cost of an oil change.
>
> Too harsh, you say? Well, chew on this: a first-year pilot on
American
> Eagle (the commuter arm of American Airlines) receives around
$15,000 a
> year in annual pay.
>
> That's right -- $15,000 for the person who has your life in
his hands.
> Until recently, Continental Express paid a little over $13,000
a year.
> There was one guy, an American Eagle pilot, who had four kids
so he went
> down to the welfare office and applied for food stamps -- and
he was
eligible!
>
> Someone on welfare is flying my plane? Is this for real? Yes,
it is.
>
> So spare me the talk about all the precautions the airlines
and the FAA is
> taking. They, like all businesses, are concerned about one
thing -- the
> bottom line and the profit margin.
>
> Four teams of 3-5 people were all able to penetrate airport
security on
the
> same morning at 3 different airports and pull off this heinous
act? My
only
> response is -- that's all?
>
> Well, the pundits are in full diarrhea mode, gushing on about
the
> "terrorist threat" and today's scariest dude on planet earth
-- Osama bin
> Laden. Hey, who knows, maybe he did it. But, something just
doesn't add
up.
>
> Am I being asked to believe that this guy who sleeps in a tent
in a desert
> has been training pilots to fly our most modern, sophisticated
jumbo jets
> with such pinpoint accuracy that they are able to hit these
three targets
> without anyone wondering why these planes were so far off
path?
>
> Or am I being asked to believe that there were four
religious/political
> fanatics who JUST HAPPENED to be skilled airline pilots who
JUST HAPPENED
> to want to kill themselves today?
>
> Maybe you can find one jumbo jet pilot willing to die for t

> Maybe you can find one jumbo jet pilot willing to die for the
cause -- but
> FOUR? Ok, maybe you can -- I don't know.
>
> What I do know is that all day long I have heard everything
about this bin
> Laden guy except this one fact -- WE created the monster known
as Osama
bin
> Laden!
>
> Where did he go to terrorist school? At the CIA!
>
> Don't take my word for it -- I saw a piece on MSNBC last year
that laid it
> all out. When the Soviet Union occupied Afghanistan, the CIA
trained him
> and his buddies in how to commits acts of terrorism against
the Soviet
> forces. It worked! The Soviets turned and ran. Bin Laden was
grateful for
> what we taught him and thought it might be fun to use those
same
techniques
> against us.
>
> We abhor terrorism -- unless we're the ones doing the
terrorizing.
>
> We paid and trained and armed a group of terrorists in
Nicaragua in the
> 1980s who killed over 30,000 civilians. That was OUR work. You
and me.
> Thirty thousand murdered civilians and who the hell even
remembers!
>
> We fund a lot of oppressive regimes that have killed a lot of
innocent
> people, and we never let the human suffering THAT causes to
interrupt our
> day one single bit.
>
> We have orphaned so many children, tens of thousands around
the world,
with
> our taxpayer-funded terrorism (in Chile, in Vietnam, in Gaza,
in Salvador)
> that I suppose we shouldn't be too surprised when those
orphans grow up
and
> are a little whacked in the head from the horror we have
helped cause.
>
> Yet, our recent domestic terrorism bombings have not been
conducted by a
> guy from the desert but rather by our own citizens: a couple
of
ex-military
> guys who hated the federal government.
>
>� From the first minutes of today's events, I never heard that
possibility
> suggested. Why is that?
>
> Maybe it's because the A-rabs are much better foils. A key
ingredient in
> getting Americans whipped into a frenzy against a new enemy is
the
> all-important race card. It's much easier to get us to hate
when the
object
> of our hatred doesn't look like us.
>
> Congressmen and Senators spent the day calling for more money
for the
> military; one Senator on CNN even said he didn't want to hear
any more
talk
> about more money for education or health care -- we should
have only one
> priority: our self-defense.
>
> Will we ever get to the point that we realize we will be more
secure when
> the rest of the world isn't living in poverty so we can have
nice running
> shoes?
>
> In just 8 months, Bush gets the whole world back to hating us
again. He
> withdraws from the Kyoto agreement, walks us out of the Durban
conference
> on racism, insists on restarting the arms race -- you name it,
and Baby
> Bush has blown it all.
>
> The Senators and Congressmen tonight broke out in a
spontaneous version of
> "God Bless America." They're not a bad group of singers!
>
> Yes, God, please do bless us.
>
> Many families have been devastated tonight. This just is not
right. They
> did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at
Bush, then they
> did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for
him! Boston,
New
> York, DC, and the planes' destination of California -- these
were places
> that voted AGAINST Bush!
>
> Why kill them? Why kill anyone? Such insanity.
>
> Let's mourn, let's grieve, and when it's appropriate let's
examine our
> contribution to the unsafe world we live in.
>
> It doesn't have to be like this.
>
> Yours,
>
> Michael Moore
> [email protected]
>

>every time i see an American baying for blood i care a little less. of course they have a right to be angry but you can't help feeling that if you have a 'we rule the world' mentality this sort of thing is bound to happen.
>

Well, I'm not sure about "caring a little less", but for me, it's very telling that on all the Islamic websites I've visited, all but a few Muslims are condemning the attacks, even when the Yanks come along and natter on about how pleasant the fires will look when the Middle East is burning.

michael moore's on aol? who bankrolled bush's election campaign?

to be fair, he's gone up in my estimation after that, although the "one bloke in a tent" stuff was way too close to the media spin he's whinging about, and woefully ill-informed.

doh - mmflint's mitch, obviously. still, i got to bitch about aol.

Nope, I'm [email protected] - I think that really is Michael Moore's ema.

The circular came to me via a friend in Australia.

Michael Moore is from Flint, Michigan - hence 'flint' in the email address. So it's definitely him.

i wish i was better informed, then i could argue like that. Americans are their own worst enemy.

>>There's no reason why a world war would have to go nuclear
>
>There may be no reason why a world war would HAVE to go nuclear - but every reason why it probably WILL, with Bush's finger on the button.

What utter garbage. Politically, I despise Bush, but it is nonsense to suggest that just because the US are talking about retaliation they are going to shower everyone with nukes.

>every time i see an American baying for blood i care a little less. of course they have a right to be angry but you can't help feeling that if you have a 'we rule the world' mentality this sort of thing is bound to happen.
>
>plus there is no one to take revenge upon, even if they got Bin Laden he would just become a martyr for his cause.
>
>it is like Pearl Harbor in that Americans have a strong 'eye for an eye' desire. lets hope Afghanistan doesn't become the new Hiroshima.

This is what I was talking about earlier - "Hey those crazy Americans - they're war mad! They want to rule the world!"

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Imagine it was Britain those planes had hit - YOUR friends, YOUR family, YOUR colleagues maimed and killed. How would YOU feel the day after - don't you think you might be angry - that you would want military action? You wouldn't rationalise it away by saying to yourself that you don't know who did it - you would want something, anything to be done.

An American appeared on the Nine o'clock news tonight, looking for his father. He was asked how he felt and he said he wanted to know why America was hated. He wanted an end to the violence, no retaliation. No all Americans fit the pathetic narrow stereotype that seems to be gleefully proliferating here but no matter. After all Bush is their President, right? Even though he lost the popular vote and attained office by dubious means, all Americans must support him, must be 'gung ho', must want to rule the world.

Here's a newsflash for you. Americans are not responsible for all the world's evils. Who kicked off all the problems in Vietnam? The French. Who were the perpetrators of the greatest mass murder in human history? The Germans. Who were the greatest imperialists the world has ever known? That's right, us. We don't see our fellow countrymen and women as right wing loonies, we abhor the way right wingers in our country caricature the French and Germans, so let's stop caricaturing the Yanks the same way. What happened in New York was abhorrent, a tragedy. It merited the news coverage, and the Americans have a right to feel bewildered and angry. End of fucking story.

Here's a thought. Dubya said that no distinction would be drawn between terrorists and those who harbour terrorists. What if the terrorists in this case do turn out to be yanks? In this case, the 'rogue state' that harboured evil would be...er...Bush's USA. Hmm.

i'm completely out of fucking sympathy. i've always hated bloody america, fuck 'em all.

i can't believe they've cancelled bloody Seinfeld, cunts.

>i'm completely out of fucking sympathy. i've always hated bloody america, fuck 'em all.
>
If this is supposed to be humour, it's not funny. If it isn't, you are utterly despicable.

He's obviously trying to wind people up. I think it'd be better if people stop responding to messages like that.

>He's obviously trying to wind people up. I think it'd be better if people stop responding to messages like that.

Perhaps, but sometimes, especially at times like this, some people need telling...

He'll have flamed, moved on, and left you fuming. Getting fed up pointing out how dumb things like that are.

Nice Michael Moore piece. That's a decent way to argue. And that's the kind of satirical point scoring against the media consensus I'll be expecting if anyone wants to make jokes, not just taking the piss out of the dead.

I'm just hoping that by tomorrow morning the idea of attacking a whole state to get at a man no-one is even sure perpetrated the atrocity will seem even more stupid.

Latest news: two suspects have been named, and apparently the plane that hit the Pentagon was originally intended for the White House. I think they mentioned them having Saudi passports, as well. But they can't bomb Saudi Arabia, surely? (Especially since the suspects appear to be US-based and were thus being 'harboured' by that particular rogue state)

I've never much liked the right-wing bastard Matt Drudge, but http://www.drudgereport.com is a very effective source of info at the mo (even if it's just compiling it from other sources)

Kind of darkly amusing the speed with which the Taleban have offered Bin Laden's extradtition to the US...
Frankly they should nick him even if he wasn't behind this one... he's still wanted for th '93 WTC bomb, the '98 embassy bomb, and the USS Cole bomb.

Things do seem to be getting quite tense � or maybe that was just last night. We are all getting very tired.

As this is a TV site, we should realize how TV has been central to this whole process. The terrorists, knowingly, took advantage of the most media-saturated, camera-toting place on earth to act out their apocalyptic theatre. And the images have been hammered again and again into our skulls.

There is this new news techniques of perpetually running loops of the most sensational and violent images continually while interviews go on and studio heads talk. How many times have we seen the images of the passenger jet crashing in � it must be several hundred times now � in under two days? No wonder we're depressed.

The images � as intended � are so powerful. They aren't like disaster movies � every shot perfect. They're jagged, jerky, with human chaos all around the central images. Our media-savvy brains immediately tell us this is for real.

And, dare I say it, they have such appalling, trance-like beauty to them. The ease with which the beautifully shaped airliner slips into the building is almost pornographic. The tip of the tower going down is like "The Titanic." The clouds boiling through the streets of Manhattan � Manhattan! � is The Book of Revelation on acid.

I know of only one description that captures the awe of moments like this, and, ironically, its from a Muslim cleric in Afghanistan. The Mongol horsemen of Ghenghis Khan have arrived outside the wonderful, civilized city of Bukhara in 1220. There's over a million of them, the skies are black with dust. They rip into the city, put the citizens to the sword, then storm into the central mosque on horseback. They deliberately get their horses to dance up and down on the Koran. One Iman turns to another to complain. "Be quiet", the other answers, "It is the wind of God's omnipotence that blows."

Enough of this serious shit, Michael Moore was great.

I got the Michael Moore stuff last night and as usual he talks much sense. Any man that can stand a ficus plant for congress is ok by me.

Just going back to the possibilities of nuclear weapons - it is interesting that there is a huge amount of dipolmatic activity re: Pakistan at the moment as they are one of the few countries that we know to have nuclear capabilities.

More worrying to me is that it is acknowledged that some terrorist groups may have small nuclear devices that have probably come from the former Soviet Republics who admit that they have lost a few. Does the success of this attack make it terrorist 'open season' on the western world ?

Have to admit the more I think about it the more petrified I get.

Letter in this morning's Guardian;

'Now they know how the Iraquis feel.'

Patricia Tricker.

Glib cow.

Reuters 12:03 (BST)

Iraqi news agency says U.S. and British planes raid southern Iraq, hit homes.


-----

Hope it's not true.

>Reuters 12:03 (BST)
>
>Iraqi news agency says U.S. and British planes raid southern Iraq, hit homes.
>
>
>-----
>
>Hope it's not true.

Isn't this just a continuation of what's been going on for the last couple of years anyway in Iraq? Or is it an escalation?

>Reuters 12:03 (BST)
>
>Iraqi news agency says U.S. and British planes raid southern Iraq, hit homes.
>
>
>-----
>
>Hope it's not true.

Isn't this just a continuation of what's been going on for the last couple of years anyway in Iraq? Or is it an escalation?

Could just be a little that'll-teach-you-to-be-pleased-about-it bonus.

Another bit of jet-black humour to emerge from all this has been the sight of Yasser Arafat donating blood live on TV.

Presumably he's going to UPS it to New York, along with a big bunch of flowers, a box of chocolates and a singing telegram doing "It Wasn't Me"

Poor old sod was visibly crapping himself when he made his initial statement.

A very sensible defence analyst on C4 yesterday was saying that the problem with US defence policy is that it's all to do with "big ticket" items - aircraft carriers, nukes, cruise missiles.

This desire to buy big and flashy meant they had to borrow unglamorous minesweepers from Norway in the Gulf War, to avoid having their precious battleships sunk by WWI mines.

The side effect of this is that the US aren't keen on spending taxpayers' defence dollars on low-visibility defence - they need to have something big and expensive to show for it.

However, in this case, high visibility equipment is no use. What they should have been pouring defence money into was unglamorous donkey work, like intelligence gathering or low level infiltration of terrorist cells.

The analyst said that while America was dead set on maintaining its hard man image it would lose out by ignoring techniques that weren't "Clint Eastwood" enough to impress the taxpayers and the outside world.

It's obvious that this tragedy could have been avoided if America were less keen on punishing transgressors with bombs after the event, and more dedicated to analysing why certain groups hate America so much, and addressing those issues.

They could start by taking a serious look at sanctions in Iraq (and other interference in the Middle East) and comparing the seething resentment that they engender with, for example, the backlash from the crippling German reparations that sowed the seeds for WWII.

These people have got to be mighty pissed off to do carry out such a grisly, insane act. If the US stopped just assuming they're another bunch of uppity ragheads who need to be put back in line, and asked where these lunatics come from, they might be able to defend themselves better in future.

It is a sobering thought that while billions of dollars is being poured into anti-missile defence, that this job was pulled by a bunch of guys armed with STANLEY KNIVES.

Has anyone else read what Noam Chomsky has to say about Tuesday's events? I thought he made some good points. Mind you, I had it forwarded to me as an email, it could have been written by Nostradamus for all I know, so I won't spread it further.

>Have to admit the more I think about it the more petrified I get.

There's a good article on The Economist website (at http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=779652 ) which covers the feasibility of a successful invasion of Afghanistan. Hopefully the American military will think likewise.

Britain denies Iraqi report of southern air raid
LONDON, Sept 13 (Reuters) - Britain denied an Iraqi news
agency report on Thursday that U.S. and British warplanes had
raided southern Iraq, destroying homes.
"There is absolutely no truth in this statement from Iraqi
news agencies," a Ministry of Defence spokesman said.
"We (the United States and Britain) did not fly over
southern Iraq in the last 24 hours. Iraq has been known to make
the claim that coalition aircraft have attacked non-military
targets and such claims are made even when coalition air crews
are not flying," he added.
The official Iraqi news agency said the planes had fired
missiles at targets in Wasit province earlier on Thursday,
destroying houses and causing panic among civilians. It did not
say if the attack caused any casualties.
U.S. and British warplanes, which carry out frequent air
strikes against what Washington and London say are military
targets in Iraq, patrol northern and southern no-fly zones in
the country imposed after the 1991 Gulf War that drove Iraqi
invasion troops out of Kuwait.


REUTERS

No... post the Chomsky thing, I'd be keen to see it.

>It is a sobering thought that while billions of dollars is being poured into anti-missile defence, that this job was pulled by a bunch of guys armed with STANLEY KNIVES.

Yeah, and no amount of upped security on internal flights is going to stop someone with, say, a cut throat razor in their washbag, taking a plane down in a similar way.

The problem, as I said just now, isn't the weapons used, or the failures in security, but the policies that lead to these fanatics getting so pissed off. Those poor souls in New York, Washington and Pittsburgh weren't killed by guns, or bombs, they were killed by people. The US needs to sort out why these people exist, why they're so angry, and do something about it.

>No... post the Chomsky thing, I'd be keen to see it.

Oh, ok. This is what I was forwarded.


Today's attacks were major atrocities. In terms of number of victims they do not reach the level of many others, for example, Clinton's bombing of the Sudan with no credible pretext, destroying half its
pharmaceutical supplies and probably killing tens of thousands of people (no one knows, because the US blocked an inquiry at the UN and no one cares to pursue it). Not to speak of much worse cases, which easily come to mind. But that this was a horrendous crime is not in doubt. The primary victims, as usual, were working people: janitors, secretaries, firemen, etc. It is likely to prove to be a crushing blow to Palestinians and other poor and oppressed people. It is also likely to lead to harsh security controls, with many possible ramifications for undermining civil liberties and internal freedom.

The events reveal, dramatically, the foolishness of ideas about "missile defense." As has been obvious all along, and pointed out repeatedly by strategic analysts, if anyone wants to cause immense damage in the US, including weapons of mass destruction, they are highly unlikely to launch a missile attack, thus guaranteeing their immediate destruction. There are innumerable easier ways that are basically unstoppable. But today's events will, nonetheless, be used to increase the pressure to develop these systems and put them into place.

"Defense" is a thin cover for plans for militarization of space, and with good PR, even the flimsiest arguments will carry some weight among a frightened public. In short, the crime is a gift to the hard jingoist
right, those who hope to use force to control their domains. That is even
putting aside the likely US actions, and what they will trigger -- possibly more attacks like this one, or worse. The prospects ahead are even more ominous than they appeared to be before the latest atrocities.

Noam Chomsky

so, if it doesn't go to ww3 status, what will it be called? we normally end up with some useful shorthand term for a big event.

cnn are going with 'america under attack,' but that won't ring in the long run. 'osamagate'? 'binladengeddon'? or just 'the world trade center attack'?

CHOMSKY: "It is also likely to lead to harsh security controls, with many possible ramifications for undermining our civil liberties."

An article in yesterday's "Telegraph" by the excellent John Keegan on the appalling effect this atrocity could have on our civil liberties. (How weird is this crisis that it brings together Chomsky and the Telegraph?):

http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/dt?ac=005997313807439&rtmo=QexLmQwR&atmo=rrrrrrrq&pg=/01/9/12/do02.html

STANLEY KNIVES. Very good article by William Saletan on how the terrorists main - and virtually only weapon - was their intelligence. They used simply used everyday objects and turned them into weapons. Indetectable. Especially relevant now its turning out that up to 30 spent 18 months in Florida learning to fly:

http://slate.msn.com/framegame/entries/01-09-11_115230.asp

thanks for Economist reference.

There have been plenty of suggestion on this forum and elsewhere that the problem is US foreign policy and a radical overhaul of it will prevent future atrocities. Whilst such an overhaul is long overdue, I think people are underestimating the depth of hatred that exists in the terrorist cells that carried out Tuesday's attacks. These are the same kind of people who assassinated Rabin. They do not want peaceful co-existence between Israel, Palestine and other Middle Eastern states. They lionise Sadaam Hussein, and the Taliban, two leaderships deeply distrusted by most Arabs. For long term change and security changes in foreign policy are needed. But the kind of groups who carried out Tuesday's attacks are not interested in peace. They do not hate the USA because it has an aggressive foreign policy but because it symbolizes something that they cannot accept - liberal, secular democracy. I am afraid that this is a scenario where some kind of military action may not only be inevitable but necessary.

Incidentally, has anyone noticed that the arguments used against sanctions on Iraq are exactly the same as the arguments Thatcher used against South African sanctions (it only hurts the poorest, the leadership are immune etc. etc.) Can't say I'm 100% behind Iraqi sanctions myself, but I've never been able to square this apparent contradiction.

re: the futility of american defense spending - who else saw ehud barak on newsnight, who, when asked by jeremy vine about Son of Star Wars's validity, (since it would have been incapable of preventing thursdays attack), responded, "but this re-inforces the need for star wars!" or words to that effect. he then dribbled on his shirt.

re: the futility of american defense spending - who else saw ehud barak on newsnight, who, when asked by jeremy vine about Son of Star Wars's validity, (since it would have been incapable of preventing thursdays attack), responded, "but this re-inforces the need for star wars!" or words to that effect. he then dribbled on his shirt.

re: the futility of american defense spending - who else saw ehud barak on newsnight, who, when asked by jeremy vine about Son of Star Wars's validity, (since it would have been incapable of preventing thursdays attack), responded, "but this re-inforces the need for star wars!" or words to that effect. he then dribbled on his shirt.

>These are the same kind of people who assassinated Rabin.

Rabin was assassinated by an Israeli Jew.

>>These are the same kind of people who assassinated Rabin.
>
>Rabin was assassinated by an Israeli Jew.

I took Al to mean that it was the same sort of mindset that created fundamentalist terrorism, no matter what the religion. If it was Islamic terrorists that were responsible, anyway. Which is admittedly looking more and more likely.

I agree. Sorry for misunderstanding.

Fantastic - Bush has just appeared in the Oval Office to tell us the focus of his administration is now "Whooping terrorism".

He was right on the verge of saying "Nobody Fucks with the Lone Ranger".



Yee-haw

$1bn to be spent on an enormous can of "Whup-Ass" to be installed in geostationary orbit above the middle east.

>
>Yeah, and no amount of upped security on internal flights is going to stop someone with, say, a cut throat razor in their washbag, taking a plane down in a similar way.
>
>The problem, as I said just now, isn't the weapons used, or the failures in security, but the policies that lead to these fanatics getting so pissed off. Those poor souls in New York, Washington and Pittsburgh weren't killed by guns, or bombs, they were killed by people. The US needs to sort out why these people exist, why they're so angry, and do something about it.
>

I'm not sure I completely agree with this. I think even if Gore had won and brought in a moderate policy, they'd have tried this attack.
It's not US foreign policy alone, but the whole mindset of intractability on all sides. I don't think Bush being elected helped, but you should also consider the rightwing Israeli government being voted in as a factor in this. Not to mention the culpability of the Taleban, Iraq etc. in encouraging a view of America as the Great Satan.
I think the security should have been tighter on internal flights and it could have made a difference. It was apparently reviewed by then-VP Gore during the Clinton administration but the industry rejected tighter security.
I have had penknives and scissors taken off me when flying. There's no reason you couldn't X-ray hand-luggage competently and confiscate straight-razors. No system is perfect, but it might have prevented some of these hijackings and alerted the authorities.
The Boston airport was fined for lax security recently. In tests with dummy guns and bombs, half got through.

But I agree that if Bush wants to defend American interests, he should definitely avoid lashing out and killing more civilians and perpetuating the cycle of violence.

Anyone want to have a good night's sleep recommended to go to:

http://www.nukebinladen.com/

not even an email address to try and reason with these lunatics.

"we do not support random attacks on Arabs in the U.S." afghans are fair game though. scum.

then there's this -
http://www.getbinladen.com/

>then there's this -
>http://www.getbinladen.com/

this is the funniest thing i've seen so far,

'You can help...AND SAVE MONEY ON YOUR LONG DISTANCE BILL EVERY MONTH!'

Interesting article from the Guardian:

"British retailers are sweeping the Microsoft Flight Simulator computer game off their shelves after worries emerged that the US terrorists could have honed their flying skills using the game.

Virgin Megastores and Woolworths have already cleared their shelves of the game and HMV looks set to follow suit.

And another computer game, in which players compete to defend the World Trade Centre from kamikaze pilots, has been withdrawn from sale.

Microsoft refuses to withdraw the Flight Simulator from sale and has said assertions that the game may have been used by the terrorists are "highly inappropriate, speculative and counter to what the investigators are saying".

But nonetheless Virgin Megastores has decided to remove the game from its shops.

"Microsoft Flight Simulator has been sold at software retailers all over the world for years. Experts tell us it would have no relation to events in the US," a statement from the company said.

"However, as a mark of respect, copies will be withdrawn from sale forthwith."

Woolworths has taken two versions of Microsoft's Flight Simulator from its shelves and has also removed another game, Playstation 2's City Crisis, which had the player saving people from a burning building.

A spokeswoman for Woolworths added that the retailer was poised to announce a customer competition to win a trip to New York, but has now scrapped the plans.

Music and games retailer HMV is urgently reviewing whether to discontinue stocking the game completely.

"HMV's policy is not to act as a censor of the products it sells. But in light of the exceptional circumstances we are currently reviewing whether we intend to stock this title in the future," said a HMV spokesman.

In the wake of the tragic events in the US this week, another computer game, WTC Defender, has been removed from sale over the internet.

Players had to shoot down planes which were heading for the twin towers. If an aircraft managed to get through, the buildings blew up."

wow. do you think if i strap a bayonet onto paul scholes' head and chuck him at the queen mum, EA will withdraw FIFA 2001?

>Anyone want to have a good night's sleep recommended to go to:
>
>http://www.nukebinladen.com/
>
Hang on... weren't we all condemning TV for showing the pictures of Palestinians dancing on the West Bank as somehow typical? I'm sure this is hardly typical of the feelings of Americans, no matter how justifiably angry they may be.

Al, go away.

>Al, go away.

Why? Have I said something unreasonable or offensive? If so, please point it out. If not, I don't see why I should 'go' anywhere.

Al should stay.

>Al, go away.

I think the real issue here is that jame likes to hide his winky between his thighs and skin ladies.

What an absolute load of crap about MS Flight Simulator. "Even though we know these allegations have no basis in fact, as the terrorists were trained with ACTUAL PLANES, and flight simulators are useful and entertaining, we will withdraw them as a 'mark of respect'."
Apparently there is a game called 'Quake' available which simulates the use of guns and explosives and which could be used to train terrorists to capture US flags!

>>Al, go away.
>
>I think the real issue here is that jame likes to hide his winky between his thighs and skin ladies.

;)

> Apparently there is a game called 'Quake' available which simulates the use of guns and explosives and which could be used to train terrorists to capture US flags!

aparently there's a game called pac-man which evil arabs could use to learn how to navigate mazes and eat suspicious-looking pills.