Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Saturday September 11, @07:03AM   Printer-friendly

Today marks the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. These were "a series of four coordinated terrorist attacks [...] against the United States of America on the morning of Tuesday, September 11, 2001."

Of the 2,977 people who died, 2,605 were U.S. citizens and 372 non-U.S. citizens (excluding the 19 perpetrators). More than 90 countries lost citizens in the attacks, including the United Kingdom (67 deaths), the Dominican Republic (47 deaths), India (41 deaths), Greece (39 deaths), South Korea (28 deaths), Canada (24 deaths), Japan (24 deaths), Colombia (18 deaths), Jamaica (16 deaths), Philippines (16 deaths), Mexico (15 deaths), Trinidad and Tobago (14 deaths), Ecuador (13 deaths), Australia (11 deaths), Germany (11 deaths), Italy (10 deaths), Bangladesh (6 deaths), Ireland (6 deaths), Pakistan (6 deaths), and Poland (6 deaths).

It was a tragedy not only for America, but for the world.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by PinkyGigglebrain on Saturday September 11, @06:07PM (12 children)

    by PinkyGigglebrain (4458) on Saturday September 11, @06:07PM (#1177036)

    The thing about the Patriot Act that few people understand is, it was ready and waiting.

    Project for a new American Century [wikipedia.org] was a think tank of neo conservatives, many ended up in the G.W.Bush administration, that in 1998 published a report that contained a "wish list" of changes to surveillance laws and search powers by law enforcement agencies, The PATRIOT act enabled every one of those changes.

    The report also called for regime change in Iraq.

    Of particular note is the fact that the report itself pointed out that the listed changes would be impossible to enact unless there was a "modern Pearl Harbor".

    --
    "Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Interesting=1, Informative=2, Total=3
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Saturday September 11, @09:15PM (10 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday September 11, @09:15PM (#1177094) Homepage Journal

    For what it's worth, that PNAC site changed pretty dramatically in the months after Bush was elected. First time I landed on the page (someone posted a link in a forum) it spelled out pretty explicitly that the goal was to have every man, woman, and child on earth working to enrich Wall Street. Over several months, the language was sanitized, to be less obvious about enslaving the world for Wall Street profit. Neocons are little better than neonazis.

    --
    Let's go Brandon!
    • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday September 11, @11:36PM (9 children)

      by fustakrakich (6150) on Saturday September 11, @11:36PM (#1177125) Journal

      So, everything was a lie? Except for the Bin Laden part? I'm still waiting for justification for the invasion

      --
      Ok, we paid the ransom. Do I get my dog back? REDЯUM
      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 12, @12:04AM (8 children)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 12, @12:04AM (#1177130) Homepage Journal

        Haven't we had this discussion before? Bin Laden justified a punitive expedition. He did not justify a lifetime of killing brown men and women and children. I'm surprised liberals don't call it a genocide - we were intent on erasing a way of life, and imposing our own way of life on them.

        --
        Let's go Brandon!
        • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday September 12, @01:12AM (6 children)

          by fustakrakich (6150) on Sunday September 12, @01:12AM (#1177144) Journal

          Bin Laden justified a punitive expedition.

          You have yet to show how, other than official press release

          --
          Ok, we paid the ransom. Do I get my dog back? REDЯUM
          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 12, @02:05AM (5 children)

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 12, @02:05AM (#1177150) Homepage Journal

            I say it was justified. Laden bloodied our noses, he ran off to hide in Afghanistan, brief talks with the Taliban saw them thumb their noses at us, so we should have gone in and kicked ass. Then, as I've said several times already, we should have GTFO. Total length of campaign 18 months, with a target of 10 months.

            --
            Let's go Brandon!
            • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday September 12, @02:12AM (4 children)

              by fustakrakich (6150) on Sunday September 12, @02:12AM (#1177151) Journal

              brief talks with the Taliban saw them thumb their noses at us

              Not true. They demanded evidence before turning him over, as any reasonable person would do. The US refused and invaded.

              --
              Ok, we paid the ransom. Do I get my dog back? REDЯUM
              • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 12, @02:30AM (3 children)

                by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 12, @02:30AM (#1177156) Homepage Journal

                They didn't demand proof so much as they demanded payment, and that bin Laden would be tried in a "neutral" country - that is a Muslim country.

                https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/09/20/newly-disclosed-documents-shed-more-light-on-early-taliban-offers-pakistan-role/ [foreignpolicyjournal.com]

                Note that these negotiations were taking place BEFORE 9/11/01.

                --
                Let's go Brandon!
                • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday September 12, @02:48AM (2 children)

                  by fustakrakich (6150) on Sunday September 12, @02:48AM (#1177159) Journal

                  Heh, your link confirms everything I said about the refusal to provide evidence. The invasion was already planned and authorized. Your Bin Laden was the sales pitch, and you fell for it. You chose to believe the lie.

                  --
                  Ok, we paid the ransom. Do I get my dog back? REDЯUM
                  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 12, @06:07AM (1 child)

                    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 12, @06:07AM (#1177181) Homepage Journal

                    Heh, your link confirms everything I said about the refusal to provide evidence.

                    You're ignoring that bin Laden was the primary source of contention, before and after 9/11?

                    --
                    Let's go Brandon!
                    • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday September 12, @04:59PM

                      by fustakrakich (6150) on Sunday September 12, @04:59PM (#1177243) Journal

                      You never verified the authenticity of any "Bin Laden" communiques. You certainly never allowed any cross examination. You accepted the belligerent's translation at face value. See, because the ones I remember admitted no guilt, only pleasure. Your hearsay is even more feeble (and deadly) than Russiagate.

                      --
                      Ok, we paid the ransom. Do I get my dog back? REDЯUM
        • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday September 13, @01:51PM

          by Freeman (732) on Monday September 13, @01:51PM (#1177404) Journal

          Attacking a country, because they bombed you first, doesn't mean you are committing genocide.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide [wikipedia.org]

          The United Nations Genocide Convention, which was established in 1948, defines genocide as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such" including the killing of its members, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, deliberately imposing living conditions that seek to "bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part", preventing births, or forcibly transferring children out of the group to another group. Victims have to be deliberately, not randomly, targeted because of their real or perceived membership of one of the four groups outlined in the above definition.[4][5][6][7]

          I'm still on the fence with regards to having responded in any direct way. Let alone, starting a war, so we could target an individual for Assassination. Which, is still illegal, right?

          Ah, there we go, "targeted killing" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Targeted_killing [wikipedia.org]
          So, as long as you declare war, it's open season.

          Then there's this bit:

          Obama Administration position on combat drones
          [...]
          NBC News released in February 2014 an undated Department of Justice White paper entitled "Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al Qa'ida or An Associated Force" in which the Obama Administration concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be "senior operational leaders" of al-Qaida or "an associated force" – even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S.[88][89] However any such targeted killing operation by the United States would have to comply with the four fundamental law-of-war principles governing the use of force which are necessity, distinction, proportionality and humanity – i.e., the avoidance of unnecessary suffering. (Page 8 of[89]). The memo also discusses why targeted killings would not be a war crime or violate a U.S. executive order banning assassinations:

          "A lawful killing in self-defense is not an assassination. In the Department's view, a lethal operation conducted against a U.S. citizen whose conduct poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States would be a legitimate act of national self-defense that would not violate the assassination ban. Similarly, the use of lethal force, consistent with the laws of war, against an individual who is a legitimate military target would be lawful and would not violate the assassination ban."[88]

          I guess it's "not a problem", until it becomes one. That is one slippery slope.

          --
          Forced Microsoft Account for Windows Login → Switch to Linux.
  • (Score: 2) by krishnoid on Monday September 13, @06:44PM

    by krishnoid (1156) on Monday September 13, @06:44PM (#1177464)

    Not to be crude [youtu.be] (ok, fine, no way of getting around it), but I'm imagining the reaction of the authors and proponents of that legislation after the initial shock ...