The Myth of "Facts"

Stories

Diaries

Polls

Users

Web Adequacy.org

Home

About

Topics

Rejects

Abortions

This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.

The Myth of "Facts"

Author:

manifold

Topic:

Liberal Myths

Posted:

Sep 20, 2001

Comments:

If there is one thing that this disaster brings home to us, it is the need for swift and decisive action against our enemies to ensure that this travesty never occurs again. I, along with 94% of fellow Americans, feel that we need to strike, and strike hard, in order to punish the guilty.

But who is the guilty? Is it the Palestinians, eager to avenge American support for Israel? Is it Iraq, still bitter over the Gulf War and led by a madman that has already supported the attacks? Or is it Osama Bin Laden, the notorious terrorist who has already struck once against the World Trade Center? How can we tell? Where are the facts?

Well I've got one thing to say - the facts don't matter.

More stories by

manifold

	Eugenics: The choice for a superior generation
	Electronica: The threat to our youth
	Religion: The Appendix of Modern Society

The events of September the 11th 2001 are quite simply the most outrageous attack upon our great nation in history, and our President is entirely correct in proclaiming it as an act of war. And like in any war, we need to strike back at the enemy in order to defeat them. If we make no such move, it is obvious to even the least intelligent observer that this will only encourage further strikes. You don't stop a bully by submitting to his threats.

Liberals across the country are clamoring for "time to reflect" before we launch our retaliation. But this is just another ploy to weaken us, to force us to submit to the will of one-world one-government bodies such as the UN rather than deal with our own problems as every mature adult would. The Liberals are claiming that we cannot attack, because we do not know the facts yet, and a decision of this magnitude must be firmly based on facts.

They are wrong.

Facts are great for trivial matters, for games of logic and wit, but when it comes to matters that are this weighty we simply cannot afford to sit around and wait for the propellerheads to "gather information", "generate hypotheses" and engage in mental masturbation over who has the biggest theory. If we waited for the "experts" to come to a consensus, then we would have lost the opportunity to act; as with pets, punishment must swiftly follow a transgression or else the causal link is forgotten.

No, it is our instincts and intuition that must be bought into play here. Throughout history man has relied on their gut feelings when acting, not hordes of ivory tower academics. Can you imagine that Alexander, Hannibal or Sun Tzu chose their plans on the advice of others? No! They felt, and they acted, and they became the best commanders in history, remembered today for their skills in evaluating situations and coming to instantaneous decisions.

Even mathematics, that most supposedly logical and fact-based of systems supports human instinct over the rule of facts. Through the technique of inspection, mathematicians follow their instincts, not relying on any rules to come to the answers they want to. What facts alone could not gain them, sheer insight can, and this is the hallmark of every great mathematician.

Quite simply, we need to act, and act now. To waste time with matters of fact is pointless; we know who the culprits are, and we know what it is we must do. Any less is purely and simply un-American, and I pray that our President knows what it is he has to do.

	Strike Back (3.60 / 5) (#4)
	by Avicula on Thu Sep 20th, 2001 at 12:30:44 PM PST

	Manifold: I wonder how much of this just came to you by intuition? Yeah, the states have atom-bombs, just drop some at the middle-east (preferably include the whole Palestina/Israel area as well, some of the other arab countries, maybe even parts of Africa). Done. Silence. Hey, and the whole Balkan could use a bomb, too! Maybe even some in Europe, since they are quarreling over some stupid currency (they might as well have the us dollar!). Problem solved. Then we can ask the Russians and the Chinese to submit and run over India since they ignore human rights and kill and abort and so on. Maybe the South could use one too, there are a lot of KKK-members. And we could open up a camp where all the stupid people are sent, to concentrate on what the did by existing. Maybe that might also apply to politicians, lawyers, doctors, teachers, professors, gorvernmental staff... and when we have done that we can sit back on our stone chair and look out for another mammoth to hunt, take the club in our hands and go hunting with our fellow stone age buddies. Don't rate this. If God the Lord wanted you to rate, He would have put appropriate buttons on each of us. Praise the Lord - for He is great!

	'"Facts": an Absurd Liberal Myth' surely (2.00 / 1) (#5)
	by otak on Thu Sep 20th, 2001 at 12:49:17 PM PST

	I came to the same conclusion... (4.20 / 5) (#6)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Sep 20th, 2001 at 01:00:50 PM PST

	... after repeated sharp blows to my skull with a heavy, blunt object. No, it is our instincts and intuition that must be bought into play here. Hell, why not saw off our thumbs and climb back into the trees?

	Great, but... (4.75 / 4) (#7)
	by twodot72 on Thu Sep 20th, 2001 at 01:43:16 PM PST

	I fully agree with your conclusions; swift and forceful retaliation is against all and every suspect is what is needed at this point. Act first, think later! However, I find your article somewhat... redundant. As you can read in any newspaper today, the bombers are already on their way, and with a brilliant mission name too. Innocents killed in our part of the world will soon be avenged with innocents killed in their part of the world. Voila, we have infinite justice! As the white house press secretary said today: "It's time for action, not words" Furthermore, your proposed course of action already has broad support from the american people. Polls have shown a large majority to be in favor of the plans for retaliatory strikes. Arguing for it, at this point, is simply not necessary. As a side note, I hope the publication of this article is an exception. It's mainstream opinions fit better on cnn.com or yahoo news. It would be a pity if adequacy.org went from being the premier source of controversial opinions, to being just another mainstream news site.

	Oxymoronic (none / 0) (#47)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Sep 24th, 2001 at 09:43:40 AM PST

	Voila, we have infinite justice! As the white house press secretary said today: "It's time for action, not words" But all the White House gave us was a lame name for the operation... words!

	what's most maddening (3.75 / 4) (#8)
	by alprazolam on Thu Sep 20th, 2001 at 02:16:24 PM PST

	Is the liberal wussies who are crying that bombing the hell out of the Middle East will have some sort of negative affect on the USA. Like hell it will! If we bomb the hell out of them, there's no way they can fight back. If we burn their homes and cities to the ground, they'll have no way to defend themselves. We have justice to think about! American needs vengeance, and it needs dead Arabs to feel safe. Once all of our so called "friends" in the Middle East have been taught a lesson, they will quit fucking with us, I guarantee. There are five dangerous faults which may affect a general: Recklessness, which leads to destruction; cowardice, which leads to capture; a hasty temper, which can be provoked by insults; a delicacy of honor which is sensitive to shame; over-solicitude for his men, which exposes him to worry and trouble.

	But that's the whole point! (3.66 / 3) (#9)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Sep 20th, 2001 at 02:23:54 PM PST

	You said: If we bomb the hell out of them, there's no way they can fight back. This is ludicrous! I want them to fight back, because if we bomb the hell out of them, then whose ass can I personally kick? I mean, killing from a safe impersonal distance is great and all, but I won't feel avenged until I've got something on the end of my bayonet. I need closure, and the only way I can get that is by beating the shit out of and/or killing someone. Preferably someone related to that Osama guy.

	Israel (2.00 / 4) (#10)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Sep 20th, 2001 at 05:28:05 PM PST

	I think it was Israel.

	Finally (2.00 / 3) (#16)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Sep 21st, 2001 at 07:11:03 AM PST

	If I were an Isreali, suffering so much critisicm for "assasinations" of my terrorist neighbors, then the best way to get rid of that critisicm would be to incite a witchhunt on terrorism at large. Now, how could I do that? Or just as easily it could have been any member of the defense department, trying to increase the Defense Budget, get more bombs, planes, etc. Plant a turban here, a Koran there, and bam! I got my new aircraft carrier, and Washington shuts up about the cutbacks. Or it could have been Bill Gates. Why? because, duh. :)

	Or.... (none / 0) (#44)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Sep 24th, 2001 at 08:31:12 AM PST

	How do you know it wasn't me? [GROUP K: PREPARE FOR OPERATION KULAK; L.A., CA; 10/1/2001] Heh heh heh.

	Indeed (none / 0) (#48)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Sep 24th, 2001 at 11:32:28 AM PST

	Indeedy. I have long suspected Group K's involvement. However, upto this point I was willing to discredit my suspicions as the heresay of an old man. However, I have now seen the light. Bewarned rapscallion. Also, it must be noted that dropping M&Ms on the enemy not only slows their march and costs less than bombs, but also has the pleasant side effect of fattening them up. Let Bin Laden gain 60 ot 80 pounds and bitch then. Fat bastard. --ken

	Future reference (none / 0) (#11)
	by Sparky on Thu Sep 20th, 2001 at 06:40:45 PM PST

	It's good to see that everybody is mad as hell. I hope that in ten years when you are held up at the airport and a flight dosen't leave on time remerber that THERE IS A REASON. Oh yeah, and all of the marshalls and new security, taxes or outrageous airline costs. Either way we loose. So enjoy the ass kicking, because the party has only just begun.

	Indeed (4.00 / 1) (#19)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Sep 21st, 2001 at 08:12:20 AM PST

	One should forgive one's enemies, but not before they are hanged. --Heinrich Heinen 1797 - 1856

	Please do not try to end this discussion (1.00 / 1) (#21)
	by typical geek on Fri Sep 21st, 2001 at 08:29:19 AM PST

	by Godwin's law, we do not need any invocations of Heinen, or Starship Troopers, or Nazis, please. gcc is to software freedom as guns are to personal freedom.

	Ner ner neer ha ha ha... (2.50 / 2) (#23)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Sep 21st, 2001 at 11:36:48 AM PST

	Hitler. Suck it down!

	On Hitler (1.00 / 1) (#25)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Sep 21st, 2001 at 11:50:49 AM PST

	Indeed he did. And he sucked it well. I'm sure. Murphy's Law this and Murphy's Law that. Murphy was an optimist. --Again, Ken

	Discussions (3.00 / 2) (#24)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Sep 21st, 2001 at 11:48:25 AM PST

	lol For the "discussion" of which you speak to end, it must have first begun. Which it should be noted, it has not. All that has occured, up until this point in time, is a transaction of statements. Cast a glance around you sir, and you will find neither head nor tail of discussion here. We know not that animal's name. However, if you want for self-proving diatribe: then sir, you have found your mark indeed. We offer all specimen, from moronic to patriotic if poorly thought out. Welcome, indeed. "The truth is the only thing nobody will believe." -- George Bernard Shaw 1856 - 1950 Your Truly, Ken

	If I am not mistaken (5.00 / 2) (#28)
	by motherfuckin spork on Fri Sep 21st, 2001 at 12:11:51 PM PST

	Godwin's Law is not practiced here on Adequacy, thus it is senseless to even mention it. I am not who you think I am.

	Heinen != Heinlein (1.00 / 1) (#46)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Sep 24th, 2001 at 08:52:22 AM PST

	And gcc sucks!

	Heineken (1.00 / 1) (#49)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Sep 24th, 2001 at 11:38:07 AM PST

	Heineken ! I suppose your all right. But then I suppose Albert Einstien was a blood thirty rabbi posing as a pacifist, so that his city-killer bombs could fall on us all the easier. Enola Gay, Ken

	Reading newspapers is not omniscience (4.66 / 3) (#12)
	by lowapproach on Thu Sep 20th, 2001 at 06:59:38 PM PST

	Is it at all possible that the American public at large, liberal or otherwise, is not privy to all intelligence relating to the background, supply chain and allies of the hijackers? Oh, wait, I forgot. Media corporations became infallible and complete in their knowledge of any and all events last week. Pardon my mistake.

	Of course! (4.00 / 2) (#13)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Sep 21st, 2001 at 12:06:13 AM PST

	You're completely correct - this is a crime so horrible that even innocence is so defense.

	what is wrong with facts? (none / 0) (#14)
	by ragnar on Fri Sep 21st, 2001 at 01:42:18 AM PST

	I think it makes perfect sense to take time to understand the enemy before striking. Believe me, the terrorists spent years studying our infrastructure before attacking it. A knee jerk reaction would have failed, whereas planning and forethought worked. We are all very angry, but you simply can't go into a war without being entirely sure that you can win. No amount of feel-good patriotism will change this, and our pursuit of facts will reveal our capacity to fight terrorists. Clearly, we don't want to do nothing, however I would say that nothing is a better option than a rash disregard for facts. That said, I'm one of these liberal people you speak so kindly of. I think we need to understand the enemy in order to know if the war effort will yield peace. It is more important to advance peace than to satisfy our taste for revenge. I don't know what action will be most appropriate after we gather the facts. It may be war, and then again it may not. Why hazard the wrong choice?

	yeppers (1.00 / 1) (#18)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Sep 21st, 2001 at 07:17:52 AM PST

	beware the rednecks

	Peace (none / 0) (#20)
	by twodot72 on Fri Sep 21st, 2001 at 08:13:38 AM PST

	I think we need to understand the enemy in order to know if the war effort will yield peace. If the enemy are all dead, there will be peace, will it not? So, a knee jerk reaction will work very well, provided it is forceful enough. The US has plenty of missiles'n'stuff though, so the attack is bound to blow a few minor countries out of existence.

	kill 'em all (1.00 / 1) (#39)
	by Canadian Right on Sun Sep 23rd, 2001 at 09:41:29 PM PST

	I have bad news: the bad guys are widely dispersed all over the world and you CAN'T kill them all without nuking the whole planet back to the stone age. The USA was attacked because fanataics hate it, and they thought the USA was weak. A dozen soldiers die in Somolia and the USA pulled out. But boming Afghanistan will only shift the existing rubble - they have already been bombed back to the stone age. Special ops is going to hunt down and kill the terrorists with massive support from the regular forces. Anarchists never Rule

	Somalia... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Sep 24th, 2001 at 08:50:33 AM PST

	>The USA was attacked because fanataics hate it, and they thought the USA was weak. A dozen soldiers die in Somolia and the USA pulled out. Err..."pulled out"? The U.S. was there on a humanitarian mission, was it not? Those soldiers were there to give aid to the locals. Once they were attacked they were probably like "Uhhh, why the fuck are we here trying to help if they're just going to kill us and drag us through the streets for it?" and decided to leave. Doesn't sound like a military retreat to me.

	what's the point of this war? (5.00 / 1) (#22)
	by alprazolam on Fri Sep 21st, 2001 at 09:07:23 AM PST

	The point of this war is to feel better after having somebody attack our country. We all know that we can't be certain that all the terrorists are dead, especially since they live all over the world. But bombing the fuck out of the middle east will make people sleep a little easier at night, and will be something that can make you feel good about the god-blessed US of A. Plus if we kill them all we can take all the oil for ourselves.

	True True... but (1.00 / 1) (#26)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Sep 21st, 2001 at 11:54:54 AM PST

	A side-effect of war, is that it can make us feel good. The point of war is --> defense. Let us make an example, learn them a lesson, and hope it is enough. For if it is not, more lessons must be taught. :) Your Devouted Teacher, Ken

	Defense? (1.00 / 1) (#33)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Sep 21st, 2001 at 03:35:27 PM PST

	Don't be absurd. If the point of war was defense, there would never be any wars! Defense is quite obviously only half the point of war.

	lol (none / 0) (#43)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Sep 24th, 2001 at 05:50:09 AM PST

	A dead enemy is no enemy at all. :)

	if you don't need facts (4.00 / 3) (#15)
	by Nobody on Fri Sep 21st, 2001 at 07:05:13 AM PST

	If you don't need facts, why don't you just blame fellow Americans for what has happened? You might as well bomb yourselves. Honestly, you guys don't seem to care about the consequences of your actions or the hypocrisy of killing a load of innocent people in retaliation. All you see are your pseudo-principles and an opportunity for revenge. You're like teenagers who are looking for a fight. Some Americans seem to be GLAD about what's happened - it's an opportunity to "kick some ass" and show off how much you've been brainwashed into loving your country.

	And.... (5.00 / 2) (#17)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Sep 21st, 2001 at 07:16:08 AM PST

	Come on now, we just want blood to feel better. America is a war-like country. As George Carlin says, if we don't like something in America: We declare war on it. The war on drugs, the war on poverty, the war on crime, the war on terrorism. We are, afterall, the only country who's national anthem mentions rockets and bombs. We were hurt, and now we are gonna crush. Opinions which differ, should be kept to yourself. For your own safety. Rednecks, being what rednecks are.

	Asbolutely false. How dare you lie like that? (none / 0) (#30)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Sep 21st, 2001 at 01:46:16 PM PST

	We are, afterall, the only country who's national anthem mentions rockets and bombs. Eh, this is certainly not true. At the very least, the original version of the Puerto Rican national anthem mentions canons. It goes something like "Hey, Puerto Ricans, let's go grab our machetes and kick some Spaniard butt, just like the Cubans are doing. The thunder of the cannons will please us." I find the willingness with which you hold back these facts in order to support your point appalling. You have shown us your moral character, and it is definitely not good.

	Bah (1.00 / 1) (#42)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Sep 24th, 2001 at 05:47:56 AM PST

	Character is a liberty that we cannot afford in days like these. P-ricans, notwitstanding, they are merely an island for our casinos. :)

	I think you miss the point: (4.50 / 2) (#29)
	by momocrome on Fri Sep 21st, 2001 at 12:38:53 PM PST

	American military might is fantastically more powerful than all the rest of the world combined. Yet we are so benevolent and invested with a sense of fair play that for decades now, provincial upstarts like Iraq, the Taliban, et al. have had free reign to profess 'anti-Americanism' and nip at our heels with attacks on embassies and the occasional military targets like the USS Cole. These various and sundry factions are quite clear in their position and yet have been allowed to operate with much freedom by virtue of our good graces. At any moment, the US could easilly obliterate to a man these avowed enemies, with our rather unprecedented ability to 'erase' entire nations at will using nuclear, chemical, biological, or even conventional means. The very fact that we restrain ourselves is an indication of our rightness. Surely their are political pressures, other nations such as Russia and China to keep our power in check, but frankly, if pushed to the appropriate extremes, even these nations could not withstand US might, nor oppose our will in whatever theatre we decided to dominate. The might of the US arsenal is unmatched, and the disproportionate nature of our might is perhaps without precedent through all of history. Individuals taking such positions against the world's former super powers would have found themselves in quite a different position indeed. Relatively un-opposed in might in the way we find ourselves today, a Stalin or Hitler would have NO qualms about destroying these minor irritants and the entire populations that harbor them. The Roman Empire would have likely conquered these miserable regimes ages ago, crucifying every other man in the opposing country to make their message clear. I would ask you to take a moment and consider the destructive capability of a single US Navy Carrier group (one of the four presently deployed to the Mid East). One Carrier, with 100 war planes. One Cruiser, bristling with missiles of varying destructive capability. Two to four Destroyers and several frigates- and 2 nuclear missile bearing submarines quite immune to any conceivable form of retaliation. Each one of these vessels could easilly defend against the combined might of all the forces used in World War One, such are the mighty advances made in the past fifty years. A single carrier group is quite capable of destroying all human life on any given continent, much less a given nation. And yet we restrain ourselves from using such awesome power... The situation we find ourselves in today boils down to simple issues of power and restraint. The regional warlords that profess anti US sentiment and lash out in such a cowardly manner do so only because we are a fundamentally goodly people, in the historical context. They operate only because our goodliness is a weakness they can take advantage of. They fail to realize that the shifting sands of public opinion can move from open democracy to fierce empire in a single generation. They fail to realize that if pushed too far, we can reform our opinons and lay the fist down in each of their cities, occupy their lands with fervent and final ruthlessness. The facts actually matter very little in a situation like this. The fundamental point is that these regions have been left to develop whatever points of view they desire, with minimal involvement on the part of the US. Sure we provide aid, conduct an occasional sortie or manipulate our position through sanctions, but at all points in the past, the soveriegnty of the countries involved has been assumed to be sacrosanct. In the past, with other great powers, this has not been the case. But when put to the test, when our native capacity for rightness and goodness is pushed up against the wall, when these uncooperative and brutal peoples attempt to bring their misery to our doorstep and impose their shortcommings and inability to achieve civilised decency apon our very citizenry, they will soon find out what power really is. They will soon find out that taking advantage of our inherent high moral fibre and out loathing of shamelss military dominance can be quickly overcome.

	Afghanistan isn't the only culprit. (none / 0) (#34)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Sep 22nd, 2001 at 05:15:16 PM PST

	It's kind of obvious to many that Saddam Hussien's Iraq had a hand in the events of Sept. 11th as well. Why not kill two birds with one stone, and take out the Iraqi regime as well as the Taliban? Otherwise these freaks will just come back to strike at us again one day--perhaps with nuclear or bioweapons next time. George Bush Sr. was wrong to let the Hussien regime survive the Gulf War. The results are a perfect example of what happens when you let short-tem geopolitcal considerations take precidence over doing the right thing. We should do the right thing this time, and clean house in the Middle East.

	self-righteous (none / 0) (#40)
	by Nobody on Mon Sep 24th, 2001 at 02:39:53 AM PST

	"The very fact that we restrain ourselves is an indication of our rightness." Before you get all self-righteous ... you know you're not the only ones with nuclear weapons! Where there's a will there's a way. I'm sure those terrorists could have done worse if they'd wanted to on the 11th. I just hope that America comes to the realisation that innocent lives are more valuable than your ego. :)

	hear hear!! (1.00 / 1) (#53)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Sep 25th, 2001 at 03:29:15 PM PST

	amen

	Well said! (none / 0) (#50)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Sep 24th, 2001 at 01:03:34 PM PST

	You are my hero!

	Show some compassion, man! (none / 0) (#27)
	by William Jefferson Klinton on Fri Sep 21st, 2001 at 11:55:35 AM PST

	As I said, show some compassion. I've been around some pot-smokin' hippies and draft evaders in my day, and let me tell ya that they aren't much different from me or you. Just good-old folks relaxing in any way they can. Heck, next thing you know, one of them might be working for the government. :)) Don't knock us liberal types, we're OK in my book. -- Amateur politician, liberal, and sex enthusiast. There is no contradiction.

	This character is getting old (none / 0) (#36)
	by jsm on Sun Sep 23rd, 2001 at 06:24:15 AM PST

	I thought this was quite funny when it started, but it hasn't developed. Unless I see some signs of new material coming through, I'm going to pull the plug on this account,. to give you the incentive to develop a new one jsm ... the worst tempered and least consistent of the adequacy.org editors ... now also Legal department and general counsel, adequacy.org

	Step back..... (2.00 / 1) (#31)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Sep 21st, 2001 at 02:18:30 PM PST

	I think it is time that this nation steps back from the knee-jerk aproach of "bomb the bastards" and looks at it rationally. Does anyone really think that dropping bombs will stop terrorism in large? Such a notion is insane. As Noam Chomski recently pointed out, look at the confilict between Ireland and Northern Ireland. When one side kills X amount of people, the other side feels that it needs to turn around and kill X+1 people. This we will teach you a lesson idea has no basis in logic. Even apply it to the attrocity against the WTC and the Pentagon. By using this logic, we shopuld not be attacking them since they killed many of us. Also look at it as a parrallel to the drug situation. There is a pointless supply side answer that is ultimatly self-defeating, and a demand side answer. Perhaps instead of answering violence with violence, we should try to fix what is causing this extreme hate against the US. One place to look is the UN sancitons agianst Iraq that by our own numbers are killing 1/2 a million children a year. by the way, my email is kafer77a@ameritech.net if anyone cares....

	We Need To Act Now, And... (none / 0) (#32)
	by cburley on Fri Sep 21st, 2001 at 02:39:47 PM PST

	...for those who believe that military action is a dangerous solution in this case, there is another option that they can choose, an option which might well make the military approach irrelevant, without requiring anyone to interfere with it (by discouraging its use, slowing it down, reducing its funding, etc.). Will those who profess peace act now, or leave the field of action to those who favor the use of military force? History will record the answer for future generations to see and learn from.

	A follow-on to what I said earlier (none / 0) (#35)
	by lowapproach on Sun Sep 23rd, 2001 at 05:57:15 AM PST

	This, from washingtonpost.com's story, "Investigators Identify 4 to 5 Cells Linked To Bin Laden Operating in the U.S.," on 22 Sept 01: In a New York trial of the embassy bombing conspirators, testimony emerged about bin Laden's radio-telephone conversations over a special satellite system that were intercepted by U.S. intelligence. Once that testimony was published, "conversations on that circuit ended," an intelligence official said yesterday. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10846-2001Sep22.html If releasing proof of the involvement of bin Laden or groups under his aegis would compromise efforts at destroying him and his network, then it will not happen. People seem to forget that he and his allies have claimed responsibility for multiple terrorist acts in the past. Probable cause at the minimum is in the public domain.

	Trojan Horse (none / 0) (#37)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 23rd, 2001 at 03:32:53 PM PST

	I am English. I like Americans, and I am glad that you are rediscovering a new sense of patriotism. You have a lot to be proud of. That is why I would not like to see good young men falling over themselves to get killed in some far-off, strange country. This 'War against Terrorism', is really an excuse to bolster Israel. Let Israel support and defend itself. The same for Bosnia and Kosovo. Let America defend itself. For a start, kick out your Moslems. If you want examples of how 'peace-loving' Moslems are, see recent riots in Burnley, Oldham and Bradford in the UK. These once prosperous towns have been turned into third world ghettos by ignorant ,selfish towelheads who believe it is their duty to enforce their Arab bullshit in the Dar-Al-Harab (land of the Infidels). These people take, take , take and never give. They cause misery and ultimately poverty wherever they swarm. Islam means 'absolute submission', according to Iraqi born scholar N.J. Darwood in his english translation of the Koran. Muslims expect everyone to submit. This means YOU.

	war at all costs (none / 0) (#38)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 23rd, 2001 at 03:51:58 PM PST

	As stated in this article by a Russian who has many years experience fighting in Afghanistan, you will never win a war on Terrorism by attacking Afghanistan. There is nothing to bomb (Afghanistan is a poor country that has been battered by wars for centuries. It has almost no infrastructure worth bombing). It is almost impossible to seperate terrorists from the millions of innocent civilians. And by killing innocent people, which will be unavoidable if invading or bombing, you only make more terrorists. Although Americans want revenge and rightly so, war against Afghanistan is not the answer. It will not accomplish the detruction of terrorist organisations and terrorism but in my view would feed the hate there is in this region against America and lead to more and worse terrorism attacks. The planning and execution of a biological attack on America would be significantly easier and more effective (in the number of casualties) than the WTC attack. I think this is on our doorstep. Hopefully we will never see a large-scale biological attack on any population but I'm afraid that this problem will get worse before it gets better.

	TT's take (none / 0) (#51)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Sep 25th, 2001 at 09:51:19 AM PST

	http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2001/09/24/tomo/index.html

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.