Fear in the Geek Community

>>Gandhi's ten principles of nonviolence

1. Humiliating or deliberately provoking your opponent invites violence;

2. Knowing your facts and arguments well helps avoid violence;

3. If you are open about your cause your opponent is less likely to be violent;

4. Look for common ground between you and your opponents to promote trust and understanding;

5. Do not judge others harder than yourself (alternatively do not judge others);

6. Try to trust your opponent. They will sense this trust;

7. Compromise on inessential items to promote resolution;

8. Sincerity helps convert your opponent;

9. By making personal sacrifice you show your sincerity;

10. Avoid exploiting weakness in your opponent. Aim for integrity, not simply to win.

Nonviolence is the respond.

As a simple guy doing free software, I'm really urging governement to not react by violence or law breaking the freedom (like extension in the DMCA).

Peace, Love and Free Software.

i'm going to take an unusual step of cross-posting a message from a forum that normally requests that cross-posting not be done, because the content is relevant advice that is off-topic from ntbugtraq's charter, anyway.

Sender: Windows NTBugtraq Mailing List
<NTBUGTRAQ@LISTSERV.NTBUGTRAQ.COM>
From: Russ <Russ.Cooper@RC.ON.CA>
Subject:      Administrivia - Terrorism attacks September 11th, 2001
To: NTBUGTRAQ@LISTSERV.NTBUGTRAQ.COM
Status: RO
Content-Length: 2202
Lines: 53

 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

 In case you haven't already heard, both towers of New York City's
World Trade Center have now collapsed and a serious fire rages at the
U.S. Pentagon, all due to terrorist attacks using hijacked planes.
Check your local news for more details.

 As someone who has lived in a war zone for more than a year in my
past I can tell you that there are some things you should consider
when talking to anyone who may have been affected by today's events.

 1. Don't joke about it, even if you think it might help cheer someone
up.

 2. Don't coddle. Treat them with respect and help them in the ways
you would normally help. Offer support, but assume they will tell you
if they need help.

 3. Don't speculate, and don't act like you understand or know how
they feel. If you haven't gone through an extremely traumatic event
you don't know what its like. Talk to them, but listen more than
talk.

 If you're affected by this directly yourself, take our condolences
and hopes that you recover. If we can help, ask.

 Sincerely,
Russ Cooper - NTBugtraq Editor
705-878-3405

 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.5.2

 iQCVAwUBO54uxBBh2Kw/l7p5AQHtKgP9HK5p3DZMtxsgljCow6yC2bmstZk89xTD
94ZxWaTKuKK0ZFsoZcP5+meOXqusW/0oBE9U08Uia4tZJjR1gJN1JEc3UD7m5tKf
gX1UdRI1mYO+RdgHAezFLbxIPeAlp97jHNpJhmegiZMAKXZxlP2BWQ8v4kA15NcT
MrKkV8vTbkc=
=EfOG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 ============================================================================
Delivery co-sponsored by Trend Micro, Inc.
============================================================================
TREND MICRO SCANMAIL FOR EXCHANGE 2000 -- SECOND to NONE

 If you are worried about email viruses, you need Trend Micro ScanMail
for
Exchange. ScanMail is the first antivirus solution that seamlessly
integrates with the Microsoft Exchange 2000 virus-scanning API 2.0.
ScanMail
ensures 100% inbound and outbound email virus scanning and provides
remote
software management. Download a FREE 30-day trial copy of ScanMail and
find
out why it is the best:
http://www.antivirus.com/banners/tracking.asp?si=8&BI;=240&UL;=/smex2000
============================================================================

this i am forwarding as more detailed advice on how to deal with someone who has been affected.

regarding war, anger, retribution and the consequences, again: i repeat what i posted as a reply to one of the other articles:

what does 'an eye for an eye' mean?, posted 12 Sep 2001 by lkcl

it doesn't mean, "if you lose an eye, you should take their eye".

it means, "if you take someone's eye, you will lose yours".

retribution is gasoline on the fire. try sand, instead.

so, if i was to make a comment on your article, it would be that the consequences of your urgings might be to enflame people into action that may result in serious harm to them and to others, and i would advise you and anyone else to think carefully about whether you wish to receive the consequences of such precipitous action.

remember, these are terrorists who believed that america is so out of line - in some way or form - that they were prepared to kill themselves in order to guarantee that their statement to the world would catch everyone's attention.

might it not be better for america and americans to do some serious soul-searching in order to ascertain exactly what those beliefs are that caused these people to take their lives and others?

it's a matter of consciousness. most americans are extremely low consciousness individuals, and i have to say that your article in some way reflects this, inasmuch as it encourages people to go to war without considering alternative measures or the consequences of such action [notwithstanding that you also encourage people to give blood, which is extremely responsible of you, and i hope that people do, as a result].

what i sincerely hope is that people will use this shockwave to jolt themselves out of a really quite negative trap.

i do not know if you remember the tit-for-tax diplomatic expulsions [that happened in the late 1980s?] various countries expelled various diplomats, etc. etc.

wars start because someone decides to escalate the stupidest little thing into a big thing, or they use a little thing as an excuse.

i really hope that america and americans calm down, stop rattling the guns. because believe me, that's EXACTLY what the terrorists want: america to cause further instability and for america to lose its self-control and thence its status, and thence all power over the rest of the world - especially and not least of all, the countries which the terrorists are purported to be working for.

remember the pictures of people in palestine celebrating? did the news commentators _say_ anything at that time? or, as on BBC1, did they let you watch in silence? did anyone - _anyone_ see these celebrations in palestine with a non-eastern news service voiceover actually saying something? did anyone hear a news service from the west say "well, these guys are celebrating because they think that america did something bad, and they think that america has got what it deserves, and they're celebrating because finally they got to express - in the worst possible way - that they _can_ make america feel some of the pain and suffering that they feel every day"?

_spread_ that pain and suffering around, we need more of it.

now - can you see the pointlessness of encouraging people to go to war?

seems that i broke some of gandhi's nonviolence guidelines myself, in that response. hmm.

if you disagree with, or are offended by, anything i said, please express it here in this forum, i won't mind, in fact i'll be relieved.

The well-grounded worry is that more innocent civilians in Afganistan or elsewhere will be killed in US-retiliations.

The track record is not good,
Clinton retiliated by bombing a medical factory in Sudan
for being in a personal jam (the Lewinsky affair).

People should be worried!

I spent some time writing something that I felt communicated my thoughts in a nice nonthreatening tone of voice. As I read it over several times it occured to me that such veneer was just crap and nearly dishonest in tone.

Three step program. 1. For each and every terrorist group: Destroy their training grounds, houses, headquarters, etc.

2. For each governement supporting terrorists now or in the past: Impose a complete blockade. Period. If you support terrorist activities you have absolutely no place in the civilized world. Other than military and espionage excursions, completely black list these nations. Lifting the blockade would require that the government turn over the bodies of all known terrorists operating within their borders, and destroy (we would confirm) all such sites as listed in #1.

3. Stop training terrorists (guerillas) in other nations. If we don't aprove of the way a nation is ruled, either take it up with the ruler, or shut the hell up about it.

There, that's how I really feel. Especially #2.

scottwimer

Joseph,

I believe we in the U.S. cannot let this horrible deed go unpunished. We must hunt down the fanatics who did this evil deed. We need to use the full strength of our intelligence and military communities, as well as those of our allies, to track down who has done this, to dismantle their operations (by military force if necessary) and to bring the people ultimately responsibile to justice. In my mind, "justice" includes things beyond a trial to include seizing all assets of associated organizations and doing other things to shut down their operations. We must do this. If we do not, I believe we leave ourselves wide open to future attacks of this nature.

From all appearances, we have the full support and cooperation of all of our allies, and even countries that have been historically less friendly such as Russia and China. NATO has invoked Article 5 in that this is now considered an attack against all NATO countries. It looks as though all these countries will help us and will support us in the execution of an appropriate response.

But it is the level of this response that is my greatest concern and fear. What is the appropriate response? I think it is appropriate to go after whoever has done this as mentioned above. But... I have very little faith in the current U.S. administration to stop there. I have a grave concern that this attack will provide the excuse for the U.S. to go after anyone who the gov't views as sponsoring or harboring terrorists. If indeed it is determined that Osama bin Laden is behind this, will the US gov't also take out the Taliban regime as well, since they have provided support to him in the past? While it is at it, why not destroy the Iraqi military as well? Or Iran? Or the Sudan? Or Libya? And how many innocent people will be killed in the process? (And what if the intelligence is wrong?)

The current U.S. president had only been outside the U.S. something like three times prior to being elected President. While his father had enormous interest in foreign affairs, the current president has previously seemed to have very little interest in or knowledge of the subject. With the possible exception of Colin Powell, most of his advisors seem to be of the unilateralist, "America is always right", right-wing, militaristic mindset. His election was not supported by the majority of U.S. citizens and there is the general perception (right or wrong) that he is pretty lightweight intellectually. He has a lot to prove and will be judged strongly on his response to this situation. I could see him feeling he needs to show the world how tough he is - and his Cold-War-era advisors will back him up.

Though I am almost always an optimist, I fear this time that such a situation may occur. I fear that the bloodlust and thirst for revenge may drive the response of the U.S. gov't to an extreme.... and I fear that extreme retaliation will only escalate the cycle of violence. If we slaughter leaders and create more martyrs, we will only strengthen the causes for which they fight... and drive their supporters further underground, where it may be even harder to find and track them. If our response is too far off the scale, we will, as lkcl said, only be throwing gasoline on the fires. I believe this is behind the concern voiced here in Advogato by others as well.

I fear, too, for our own freedom and liberty. I fear that factions within our government (and other governments) that would like to strengthen central gov't control will use this horrific event as an excuse to, in the name of "security" and "defense against terrorism", impose restrictions on our own freedom. Greater surveillance, monitoring, further loss of privacy of information.... more of a "police-state" existence. Not exactly what I want the U.S. to be, but you already see the talking heads on TV suggesting these things may be necessary.

I desperately hope I am wrong. I dearly hope to be surprised by the current U.S. administration. I hope that through working with our allies and international partners, we can bring the perpetrators to justice and do so in an appropriate and balanced way. I dearly hope so.

Only time will tell... and I imagine we will not have to wait too long.

Under the right circumstances, the non-violence that Ghandi suggested was the right course of action and probably the only thing that could have worked. The problem with invoking non-violence here is that Ghandi was dealing with rational people oppressed by a rational government, not a nation at war with a world-wide group of violent religous fanantics. If you seriously believe that most (or any) of these principles can be used to defend yourself from a suicidal fanatic who intends to kill you, you're sadly, perhaps fataly mistaken.

>>Gandhi's ten principles of nonviolence
>>1. Humiliating or deliberately provoking your opponent invites violence;

The victims of this attack had never had dealings of any sort with the individuals and/or countries that plotted and payed for their murder. If these terrorists have a gripe with some policy or other of the US, this is not a civilized way to deal with it. This is simply a criminal act by religious fanatics and an act of war by the nation(s) that supported them.

>>2. Knowing your facts and arguments well helps avoid violence;

So you think if we'd offered to have a nice little public debate full of facts and arguments with them, they'd have landed their planes and turned themselves in? Think about what you're suggesting - it just doesn't make any sense.

>>3. If you are open about your cause your opponent is less likely to be violent;

In what way is America not open about its cause? I think, rather, it is because America is so open and free that these Islamic nuts have said they intend to destroy it. All you have to do is look at some of the Islamic web sites (someone posted links to a few in diary entries a day or so ago). They are condeming America because we allow our women the freedom to go around with their heads uncovered, we allow our citizens the freedom to listen to music, choose their own religion, and Allah forbid, we allow dancing. What these people want is to turn the world into some sort of Islamic prison-camp like Afghanistan and, at the moment, the US has been openly standing in their way so we're a target. And how do you reason with a group willing to kill that many people to save the world from the evils of music and dancing?

>>4. Look for common ground between you and your opponents to promote trust and understanding;

I think the point you're missing if you think this is possible is that these people don't believe there is any common ground. Either we all convert to their religion and allow them to rule us or they'll just have to kill us all - I don't know how many ways to say it: these are not rational people, they are religious fanatics. Besides, what kind of "common ground" do you look for with someone flying a plane full of innocent people into an office building that's going to convince him not to do it?

>>5. Do not judge others harder than yourself (alternatively do not judge others);

Fine, we'll do unto them exactly as I'd want it done unto me if I start flying planes into the office buildings of people whose beliefs I disagree with.

>>6. Try to trust your opponent. They will sense this trust;

Yes, these sensed our trust and took advantage of it to kill many of us. If you've been watching the news, they're learning that these killers lived in the US for months as they planned this. They went to US schools to learn to fly the planes, some of them even stayed in the homes of US residents. The US is a country that welcomes people of every race and belief - the struggle now will be to continue to welcome and trust strangers.

>>7. Compromise on inessential items to promote resolution;

You mean like offer to let them blow up just one building full of people if they leave the other alone? Uh, sorry, that's no way to deal with terrorists.

>>8. Sincerity helps convert your opponent;

I sincerly think these people are evil and that it's well past time the world did something about it. If you want to help us, you're welcome to join us. If you're afraid to stand up to them, that's fine too but please stay out of our way.

>>9. By making personal sacrifice you show your sincerity;

To suggest that the US hasn't been making personal sacrifices in the last few days is just plain insulting.

>>10. Avoid exploiting weakness in your opponent. Aim for integrity, not simply to win.

It was the Islamic terrorists who were exploiting weakness here, not us. We aim for integrity and we will win anyway. Thank you very much.

>>Nonviolence is the respond.

Sorry, doing nothing won't help. It will only lead to more and larger terrorist attacks if they realize that no one is going to hold them responsible for their actions. The US must respond with force and destroy these terrorist organizations and, if necesary, bring the countries who supported them to justice as well.

A question: whom to attack are you calling for? Which country - children, woman and men - do you want to punish for the actions of a hand full of terrorists?

One you know, stop for a second and find out under which circumstances those people already live. Than ask yourself, why these people live in this poverty.

Than ask yourself, why some of them hate a country. Find out how many (in %) that are and compare to extreme groups in other countries under economic pressure. (Here I'd advice to compare to NATO nations in Europe.)

Next compare it with the past and tell me an example, where a peace brought by pressure stood up and did not provoke even more violence. My most recent example would be Croatia.

Now remember please, that there was an insight, not hate, behind the law of nations. This requires that the must be a current (continuing) threat from a country (i.e., a government) after the evidence was given. The government must continue to reject to cooperate in the fight against the terrorists. Than the nations might start a war.

Still revenge and retribution are not part of the law of nations. For a reason.

I sincerely hope the terrorism will be fight by the police - as it should - not by the army.

Sorry to tell it now, but (about DMCA)..

Geeks doesn't rule the world
Geeks will never fight for their freedom (you see what fight really is :((
All geeks' talk will do nothing, becouse the community, which is fully constituted authority for US now - will not listen to such talks
You could change country (it is solution for Internet communities), but actually it will not help also.

You could do nothing.... (BTW Sklyarov still in prison, doesn't he?)
:((

The only peacefull way to make future better - is to educate children the way you like.
It means - go to schools as part-time teachers. Make educational soft and games for all - from 3-till students, write SF books.
It's ideology...

But.... talk will do nothing to thouse, who do not know your language....

Jerry,

I must ask you, how do you intend to get the police of nations that have historically harbored, funded, and assisted terrorists to suddenly change sides and work to eliminate them?

Surely you are not suggesting that our police officers are the ones best suited to enter another country to find and arrest terrorists.

We are dealing with nations that consider these terrorists to be heros. Not villians, but national heros.

Somehow acts like this can not be allowed to occur in the future. Terrorism has absolutely no place in the civilized world. How do you propose to ensure this without the decisive application of overwhelming force?

scottwimer

I agree with Malx, in a sense, there is not much we can do with talk here. Ultimately to change public policy you need change public opinion. Without any independent voice, the media and government officials will continue to manipulate public opinion to suit their needs. And we can expect more violence in the future at home and abroad until we can take control of our government and pursue sensible policies.

I have friends who are being deeply affected by this, its disturbing, horrible, there are sometimes no words to describe it; But let's try to keep our principles in check. Nationality can shroud our views.

"As to how to react, we have a choice. We can express justified horror; we can seek to understand what may have led to the crimes, which means making an effort to enter the minds of the likely perpetrators. If we choose the latter course, we can do no better, I think, than to listen to the words of Robert Fisk, whose direct knowledge and insight into affairs of the region is unmatched after many years of distinguished reporting. Describing "The wickedness and awesome cruelty of a crushed and humiliated people," he writes that "this is not the war of democracy versus terror that the world will be asked to believe in the coming days. It is also about American missiles smashing into Palestinian homes and US helicopters firing missiles into a Lebanese ambulance in 1996 and American shells crashing into a village called Qana and about a Lebanese militia ­ paid and uniformed by America's Israeli ally ­ hacking and raping and murdering their way through refugee camps." And much more. Again, we have a choice: we may try to understand, or refuse to do so, contributing to the likelihood that much worse lies ahead." -Noam Chomsky

"Those who would give up essential liberties for a measure of security, deserve neither liberty nor security." B. Franklin

for more info

Now, I will stop to write comment and will continue to hack around smart card.

Peace and respect.

The part that I'm worried about is that the type of retaliation this would tend to inspire would be one that has an illogical translation embedded in it.

It's embedded in phrases like "We do not negotiate with terrorists" and "We shall not show weakness" and "We should condemn what happened". I support those concepts but I am worried about what those concepts mean in the minds of those who say them.

I worry that these minds equate those concepts with the certainty that our foreign policy is correct, that we are doing nothing wrong, that we are justified in everything we do that might be inspiring these terrorists to act against us. They equate an effort of taking a second look at ourselves as a sign of weakness, of being beaten, of negotiating. I am worried that the reaction against this terrorism will further reinforce America's conviction that all of our foreign policies are just and correct. From democrats and republicans, we aren't hearing one hint of anyone wondering about the source of anger or how it could be addressed or defused. Because that would be weakness, negotiation, caving. Skip over the possibility that somewhere there might actually be a reason for why we should look in the mirror.

But no one wants to say it or think it - why? Because it would be unpatriotic... because it would be weak... because it would somehow legitimize what the terrorists did. But that's just wrong. Nothing would legitimize what they did. We are in no way to blame for this act. In no way did we deserve what happened. We can still condemn it in every way, and we can even retaliate. But that shouldn't be mutually exclusive from looking at ourselves. So am I afraid of retaliation? Yes, because I'm certain it will happen without us examining ourselves.

tune

Even with the significant number of casualties taken during the collapse of the world trade center, it doesn't make the chances of you getting killed by terrorists anywhere near as big as the chances of, for example, getting killed in a car accident while driving to work.

Unless, of course, you work in a place like the World Trade Center which looks almost designed to be struck by terrorists. Rebuilding the twin towers as they were before would be exceedingly foolish. Fortunately, there isn't another target anywhere near that inviting left in the United States.

My point is, there's no need to panic here.

It will be interesting to see what financial markets do when they reopen though - the dow was due for a big drop anyway...

What happened in NY is a tragedy. We could smell the smog for two days. Many could say that aggression does not achieve anything, but I disagree. Bombs have been exploding on the streets on Jerusalem for years now. Only then US and other ``civilized countries'' assumed it's a regional phenomena and pushed Israel to do nothing, but rather surrender territories. So terrorists got more and more confident. Should people finally understand that retaliation would stop civil population from supporting them and fight back, there will be no more terrorism. It's easy to say BS like kind Clinton used to cater, but do nothing; and soon there won't be much of civilized world left. In Jerusalem, Palestinians were celebrating attacks by giving out candies and such. Should world leaders make people that support terrorism understand that supported endanger the supporters there will be no more terrorism. Terrorists are not people in the sense many of us understand it. They do not understand/appreciate being nice to them. Since Israel started ``peace process'' death toll just went sky-high. First many Israelis thought we were not just nice enough to them and many supported left-wing leaders, but today even former PM, who is left wing, says that one cannot lay communication channels towards a person who denies you basic right to exist. I think US could learn a lot from experience Israel has had.

Nice to see that stupid, petty domestic politics stayed out of this for all of five minutes...

Happybob,

You are true - I did not think of that - the police around the world has a reputation of being terrorism friendly. Actually they are supposed to be not, but that seems to be the difference between theory and practice. At the other hand the army never was better.

As for the hero issue.

Are you sure that those nations really do consider the terrorists heros? If so, why do their leaders publically condem the act and even give blood? The pity thing is that those news channels mostly show the pictures of these 300 people. Not those thousends who don't celebrate.

How I would propose to ensure a violence free world without decisive application of overhelming force?

First of all let me tell you that I lived the first 24 years of my live under the overwhelming force. Than we got rid of it. Actually without overwhelming force. We had candles and flowers we gave to the police. And minutes of silence.

At that time the officials (our force; govt, media, mil.) did not understand why the people opposed their doing. The govt. claimed their doing was only for the public and good. And believed what they said. They also did not realize that the street took a different view point.

Few years later the country became poorer. Suddenly there was violence against foreigners. I was in the states at that time. In the media I saw people at home applauding to the fire sticked onto the guest houses. No protesters? Did our people change so much? No, I came back -- here there was a very different news feed: few idiots applauding a small group.

No, i don't believe everything I'm told because I never saw an independant media. But I know revenge and retribution have no place in this world anymore. There is no value in being at feud.

And for the rational part: you know that there are a lot of countries, which have a reputation of having a lot of corruption going on? Some of them are well know for have nuclear weapons. There have been people arrested for dealing with nuclear material. Don't you think those who where able to plan and do such a terrible terror attack are unable to bye enough for a bomb? Maybe they can study physics as well?

And some more brain food I would like to remember.

I think the best way of countering terrorism is, perhaps, implementation of a Rainbow 6 type of operation. IMO, declaration of war and show of military force will not make a dent on these terrorist organizations. Surgical infiltration with complete annihilation of a target is probably the best defense against it.

It is only wartime if the USA makes it so. Until then it is an act of terrorism and a massive tragedy, nothing more.

It is realistic to fear an escalating cycle of violence.

It is realistic to fear supression and loss of civil liberties in the name of defence.

It is realistic to fear further loss of innocent lives - in the US or overseas.

It is realistic to fear hate crimes against Islamic Americans.

It is unrealistic to fear the destruction of the US way of life by terrorists. The US has easily the most powerful offensive military capability in the world. No threat could become so large as to strategically threaten the US in the immediate future.

The US has the right to seek justice for this crime. But retribution? It is realistic to fear that international law and will be forgotten in the name of justice.

For those of you who demand retribution, not justice, who would go to war against the people who have armed trained and sheltered these terrorists - gather your evidence carefully. The trail may just lead back to the the US - there is a very good chance that Osama bin Laden was trained to fight communists by the CIA... There's also a chance he didn't do it.

so.

we have the united states training terrorists, encouraging terrorism.

then we have those terrorists attacking the united states.

the phrase, "an eye for an eye" springs to mind. what you sow, so shall you reap.

i understand your frustration and desire to kill people before they kill you.

however, there are more ways out of an escalating conflict than killing.

perhaps as the more MATURE and more ADVANCED nation, you might want to consider that it is you that must take the first step to back down, and to "tame" and "condition" what you consider to be the "lesser animal"?

perhaps then you might even be able to see that those you consider to be beneath you, as savages, are in fact human beings too, and that you've backed them into a corner [with your OWN atrocious acts that your government is trying, and succeeding, to hide from you] so far that they only way they know how to react is to strike out.

this is TOO BIG to mirror the antics of the animal kingdom.

GJF: the inquiry into the US embassy bombings brought to light a lot of evidence about Bin Laden. He *was* supported by the CIA, both financially and with training, until he turned against the USA following the Gulf war (apparently he thought the US military presence in Saudi Arabia was sacriligious).

I'm really not an anti-American, I am actually quite sure that American supremacy has been a better thing than the available alternatives, namely the colonialism of the ancien regime American hegemony replaced (if there's one thing worse than capitalist imperialism, its colonialist imperialism), and the various totalitarian alternatives that have tried to become global superpowers. I just hate the neo-totalitarian twinges that American patriotism has. It is right to criticise America, and if criticism is unpatriotic, then so much the worse for patriotism.

The twists and turns that a good patriotic American has to make are similar to those that Orwell describes a good Stalinist had to make in the 1930s. Just like overnight Stalinists had to switch from demonising Hitler to being his apologists (Molotov-Ribbentrop pact), so too good patriotic Americans had to switch in 1990 from seeing the Taliban as brave freedom fighters to crazed enemies of freedom. What I find most scary is that these good patriots do not seem to be aware of the contradiction between todays beliefs and yesterdays. (btw, I'm not an admirer of Chomsky. I think he's often right, but he's also a hypocrite and never seems to recant his errors.)

The loss of life, at the WTC alone is staggering, and beyond the scope of my imagination.

Imagine this.

Up to 5,000 people may have died on September 11th. 24,000 people die each day in the third world from hunger and treatable disease [0].

September 10th, September 11th, September 12th,... tick, tick, tick. For them, it's just another day.

Each of those deaths is more easily prevented than deaths caused by terrorists. So why does the western world not declare war on poverty and starvation?

Gerv

[0] Source: The Hunger Site.

The USA doesn't declare war on poverty because that can't be used to justify more military spending, and exploiting the third world is good for the US economy.

White people (US and EU etc) are only 1/3 of all people in World.
Most of people are Arabic and Asian
59% of World wealth($$) is in US, which has 14% of all people.....

from local news[ua]

For those of you who say that all nations who support and train terrorists should be destroyed: would you agree that those who trained Osama bin Laden and the like should be destroyed?

Well, guess what: the US trained Osama bin Laden and taught him and his allies how to be terrorists. Of course, we wanted him to attack the Soviet occupiers of Afganistan.

bin Laden intends, wants, is praying for US retaliation. See Robert Fisk's analysis (this respected British journalist has interviewed bin Laden).

bin Laden wants the US to go to war with the Islamic world so that he can overthrow the moderate Arab leaders who are US allies (the leaders of Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia). We should not fall for it.