BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


POST NEWS UPDATES HERE

 
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
 
Enamon
20:42 / 11.10.01
Are both governments protecting their cattle? Seriously folks, all this talk about biochem attacks, well it seems highly unlikely. A much more effective way to cripple a nation and drive its people to panic is to use biological agents that are harmful to cattle. All a terrorist organization has to do is get 10 or 15 of its members to go around the world and spread foot and mouth disease to cattle populations. If enough places are infected and the cows are killed there will be a severe meat shortage. If enough meat exporting countries are hit this could be devastating.
 
 
Enamon
20:52 / 11.10.01
quote:Originally posted by Flux = VVX232:
I hope that this does not seem callous, but I'm hoping that if there is indeed another attack this week, it is in a place other than New York.

Part of me is very skeptical of their ability to pull off another large attack given the new state of security, and that they failed the majority of their attack on Sept 11th (really, if you look at it, they did. they only hit two of their intended targets, and even the damage to the Pentagon was likely not nearly what they had anticipated)


Contrary to popular belief, I am sure that the attacks that occured on Sept. 11th were acts of war instead of terrorism. Look at the targets: The white house/pentagon (representing the political and military rulers of the U.S.) and the world trade center towers (representing the commerce rulers of the u.s.) If whoever planned these attacks really wanted to create terror then they would be able to kill a lot more civilians just by downing a single airliner into a major population center like the South Bronx. The population density there would guarantee deaths of waaaay more than 5000 people and it would have an added benefit of creating terror since in this case ordinary citizens are targeted. That means anyone could be next. However, seeing as what was attacked on Sept. 11, I assume that whoever did this would attack another critical target (stock exchanges for example).

On another note, I do not believe that Osama bin Laden was behind the Sept. 11 attack. If the U.S. was sure of his guilt it would have waited and let the Taliban extradite Osama to Pakistan just like the Taliban offered to do a few hours before the bombing. Instead I suspect the reason we bombed is that I believe there is a lack of evidence. Mind you, the U.S. and U.K. said they have evidence against bin Laden. What about evidence concerning other groups? And did the U.S. follow up on the admission by the Japanese Red Army (a group of 6 or 7 japanese terrorists who mastermind terrorist operations and then recruit people in the Middle East to carry them out) saying that they were behind the Sept. 11th attack, so far being the only group to have claimed responsibility.
 
 
Ethan Hawke
12:00 / 12.10.01
Paranoid thought of the last few days:

Dick Cheney has been said to be spirited away to an "undisclosed location" to preserve teh chain of succession. He hasn't been seen or heard from in about a week.

I think he is dead or had a serious cardiac incident and the gov't is hiding it from us.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
12:49 / 12.10.01
How very Soviet.
 
 
Cherry Bomb
14:15 / 12.10.01
I don't want to sound paranoid, 'cuz I really don't feel paranoid, but I just KNOW the authorities know more about this "alert" than they're telling the public.

Here's why: the u.s. has had several such alerts since the attacks, but the reaction of the law enforcement/military authorities is different on this one.

Here in Chicago, the 911 Center, which was opened immediately after the attacks, remaining in use for 10 days, was re-opened yesterday in response to the FBI alert. What is it about this alert which caused such a more serious response?

Here at my building (the third tallest in Chicago, modelled in the style of the WTC and owned by a company that had one of the highest number employee casualties in the attack), the security is like Fort Knox I swear.

The security was all ready tight - the only way to get in this building is with your name and picture on file with building security, and you have to pass through three security check points. If you're a visitor, you have to go the security desk with an ID and a name/extension of someone who works there. The security guard then calls the extension, informs them that you have a visitor and they have to come and get you. The visitor then waits behind the security desk until the tenant comes down, at which time you both wait in line and show IDs to the security guard again. The security guard gives the guest a temporary pass which is taken away at the next checkpoint.

It's intense!

But today they've added MORE to this security. In addition to the above, they searched everyone's bags. PLUS - and here's the real scary part - right now there are busses outside, apparently waiting to remove people from the building in the event that we're evacuated today! They're also putting up cement barriers as well.

A little scary.
 
 
Ethan Hawke
14:19 / 12.10.01
Anthrax case reported in NYC

see my other thread.
 
 
rizla mission
13:53 / 13.10.01
Sorry for the lack of coherence or specifics, but I read in the paper this morning as an aside to the Anthrax story that some US agencies or other have 'reason to believe' that some terrorist attacks might take place this weekend..

..which makes me think, even if they did have 'reason to believe', why the hell would they make an announcement like that, accentuating people's fear but failing to mention any specifics or plans to foil said attacks?

Oh heck, I'm talking about 'them' again, maybe time for a nice cup of coccoa..
 
 
autopilot disengaged
19:18 / 14.10.01
quote:As strikes resumed, the Taleban offered to discuss handing over Osama Bin Laden to a neutral country if the US agreed to halt air strikes.

But Maulvi Abdul Kabir, the Taleban's second in command, repeated the demand that the US should show them evidence of Bin Laden's connection to the attacks.

The US was quick to reject the offer. President Bush said there was nothing to negotiate about. (BBC)
 
 
The Return Of Rothkoid
08:06 / 15.10.01
And now, Anthrax makes an appearance in Australia. Discounted as hoaxes, though it's still worrying...BBC report.

SMH story in which the PM says the equivalent of 'fahgeddaboutit'.

The Age's report.
 
 
Robot Man Reformed
10:32 / 15.10.01
In the light of the successful war protests, here's the downside: 200 dead in Nigerian religious riots
 
 
Ierne
18:11 / 15.10.01
India Attacks Pakistan

from the BBC:

India has attacked Pakistani positions along the Line of Control that separates the two sides in the disputed territory of Kashmir....

...Pakistani military spokesman Major-General Rashid Qureshi said one person had been killed and 25 wounded in the firing...

...News of the attack came as US Secretary of State Colin Powell arrived in Pakistan to shore up support for the US-led coalition against terror...

Oh boy.
 
 
grant
18:58 / 15.10.01
Decision time, isn't it....
 
 
MJ-12
19:19 / 15.10.01
India & Pakistan, FWIW, have been shelling each other intermittently for years, so in and of itself this isn't as earthshaking as one might think at first glance. Damn bad timing for it now, though.
 
 
Naked Flame
09:22 / 16.10.01
CH4 News reckoned it was an attention-grabbing move timed to coincide with Colin Powell's visit to Pakistan.

Oh deary deary me.
 
 
Ierne
13:03 / 16.10.01
US bomb hits Red Cross building

An International Red Cross warehouse was hit on Tuesday by a US bomb which destroyed wheat and other humanitarian supplies...

A Red Cross spokesman said the compound was only 1km from the airport, but was very clearly marked from the air.

"It is definitely a civilian target. In addition to that it is a clearly marked ICRC warehouse," said Robert Moni, head of the ICRC delegation in Kabul and now evacuated to Pakistan.

"It is marked on the top with a red cross. People should take all necessary measures to avoid such things," he said.


Good morning everyone.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
13:18 / 16.10.01
I guess Tony Blair's comments about the need for a "viable Palestinian state" are also worth mentioning here, since they haven't been yet.

quote:Tony Blair yesterday used a meeting with the Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, to make his most unequivocal endorsement yet of the creation of a Palestinian state.
He told a joint press conference with Mr Arafat at Downing Street: "A viable Palestinian state, as part of a negotiated and agreed settlement, which guarantees peace and security for Israel, is the objective."


A cynical attempt to get the Palestinians onboard with the coalition, or an important step forward? Full story here.

I think this says it quite well:

 
 
sleazenation
13:55 / 16.10.01
hmmmm possibly the start of a whole other topic but since we are unlikely to get governments to do the right things for the right reasons (and yes we can argue all day on what constitutes 'right' but come with mew on this) are we and should we be prepared to accept goverments doing the right thing for the wrong reasons?
 
 
Jack Fear
15:43 / 18.10.01
Here's what the boys in PsyOps have cooked up... quote:"Attention Taliban! You are condemned. Did you know that? The instant the terrorists you support took over our planes, you sentenced yourselves to death. The Armed Forces of the United States are here to seek justice for our dead. Highly trained soldiers are coming to shut down once and for all Osama bin Laden's ring of terrorism, and the Taliban that supports them and their actions.

"Our forces are armed with state of the art military equipment. What are you using, obsolete and ineffective weaponry? Our helicopters will rain fire down upon your camps before you detect them on your radar. Our bombs are so accurate we can drop them right through your windows. Our infantry is trained for any climate and terrain on earth. United States soldiers fire with superior marksmanship and are armed with superior weapons.

"You have only one choice ... Surrender now and we will give you a second chance. We will let you live. If you surrender no harm will come to you. When you decide to surrender, approach United States forces with your hands in the air. Sling your weapon across your back muzzle towards the ground. Remove your magazine and expel any rounds. Doing this is your only chance of survival."

Full horrifying story hither.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
19:15 / 23.10.01
Blair: The only aims that ever can or should succeed are those pursued by democratic and peaceful debate.

He was talking about Ireland, of course. But perhaps there's hope.
 
 
Frances Farmer
09:22 / 27.10.01
http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/10/26/ret.afghan.attacks/index.html

Guh. They bombed Red Cross again. (Look at the bottom)
 
 
autopilot disengaged
09:22 / 27.10.01
yeah, me and lo(lita nation) were talking about this. she said she didn't know whether to laugh or cry.

i said: alternate.
 
 
lolita nation
13:24 / 28.10.01
[laugh] [cry] [laugh] [cry] [laugh] [cry] [cry] [cry] [cry]....
 
 
Hieronymus
15:05 / 29.10.01
U.S. Bombers Kills Kabul Family, Bus of Refugees


I think I'm going to be nauseous.
 
 
Mr Tricks
18:43 / 02.11.01
here's a new one. . .

in short.... Bush was behind JFK jr.'s plane crash . . .
 
 
Enamon
16:45 / 03.11.01
Here's an interesting bit:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,2001370005-2001380535,00.html
 
 
The Return Of Rothkoid
15:12 / 05.11.01
Bush extends paper order rules quote:By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush issued an order Thursday night that lets past presidents, beginning with Ronald Reagan, keep some of their White House papers private even after the 12-year wait now required by law.

Advocates for government declassification expressed disbelief. Some said the executive order would usher in a new era of government secrecy.

Some 68,000 pages of Reagan's White House records, including the vice presidential papers from President Bush's father, were supposed to have been opened in January, 12 years after Reagan left office, as provided by law. But the White House delayed the release three times to review constitutional and legal questions.

White House counsel Alberto Gonzales defended Bush's executive order Thursday, but did not say when or if the Reagan papers would be opened to the public.

Vanderbilt University historian Hugh Graham said the draft was a ``real monster,'' and complained, ``They would reverse an act of Congress with an executive order.'' Bruce Craig, director of the National Coordinating Committee for the Promotion of History, said it was ``blatantly unlawful top to bottom.'' He predicted a quick legal challenge.

The issue likely will come up at a hearing Tuesday by a House Government Reform Committee panel, initially scheduled before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Reagan's records were to have been the first released under the 1978 Presidential Records Act, which followed Watergate and former President Nixon's attempts to hold on to his papers and tape recordings. It made presidential records the property of government, not ex-presidents.

Under the act, presidential records are to be released after 12 years, except for those withheld for national security or certain personal reasons specified by law. A former president can still claim executive privilege to prevent the release of certain documents. A sitting president has the final say.

Under Bush's executive order, a sitting president could not override a claim of executive privilege made by a former president.

These claims of executive privilege, however, can be appealed in court, Gonzales said.

``It will not be driven by politics or what looks good, it will driven by what is allowed under the Constitution,'' Gonzales said. ``Look, we haven't withheld a single document yet. There's been a delay, no question about it, but there has been no decision not to release a document. Let's see how this process works.''

Some historians have suspected the Bush White House is worried about what the Reagan papers might reveal about officials now working for President Bush who also worked for Reagan. Among them are Secretary of State Colin Powell, Budget Director Mitch Daniels Jr. and White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card.

Gonzales says that is not the reason.

``There may in fact be embarrassing documents,'' he said, but added that would not be considered a legitimate reason to withhold something.

Some historians suggest that the White House is using heightened public interest in national security as a screen for clamping down on the release of presidential papers.

Craig said the Bush White House might be worried that the war on terrorism may generate documents it would rather not see exposed down the road.

``Everybody is in agreement that materials that can be used by terrorists to threaten national security should be closed up,'' Craig said. ``There already are existing laws and exemptions that keep that kind of stuff closed up.

``This is about confidential information - communication between a president and top people - that they would simply prefer not to be released to the public.''

-

On the Net: National Archives: here

Ronald Reagan Presidential Library: here
 
 
Enamon
19:05 / 05.11.01
I'm betting we'll be bombing Iran next.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/11/02/ED90804.DTL

quote:It's about oil
Ted Rall
Friday, November 2, 2001
©2001 San Francisco Chronicle

URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/11/02/ED90804.DTL


New York -- NURSULTAN NAZARBAYEV has a terrible problem. He's the president and former Communist Party boss of Kazakstan, the second-largest republic of the former Soviet Union. A few years ago, the giant country struck oil in the eastern portion of the Caspian Sea. Geologists estimate that sitting beneath the wind-blown steppes of Kazakstan are 50 billion barrels of oil -- by far the biggest untapped reserves in the world. (Saudi Arabia, currently the world's largest oil producer, is believed to have about 30 billion barrels remaining.) Kazakstan's Soviet-subsidized economy collapsed immediately after independence in 1991. When I visited the then-capital, Almaty, in 1997, I was struck by the utter absence of elderly people. One after another, people confided that their parents had died of malnutrition during the brutal winters of 1993 and 1994.

Middle-class residents of a superpower had been reduced to abject poverty virtually overnight; thirtysomething women who appeared sixtysomething hocked their wedding silver in underpasses, next to reps for the Kazak state art museum trying to move enough socialist-realist paintings for a dollar each to keep the lights on. The average Kazak earned $20 a month; those unwilling or unable to steal died of gangrene while sitting on the sidewalk next to long- winded tales of woe written on cardboard.

Autocrats tend to die badly during periods of downward mobility. Nazarbayev,

therefore, has spent most of the past decade trying to get his landlocked oil out to sea. Once the oil starts flowing, it won't take long before Kazakstan replaces Kuwait as the land of Mercedes-Benzs and ugly gold jewelry. But the longer the pipeline, the more expensive and vulnerable it is to sabotage. The shortest route runs through Iran, but Kazakstan is too closely aligned with the United States to offend it by cutting a deal with Tehran. Russia has helpfully offered to build a line connecting Kazak oil rigs with the Black Sea,

but neighboring Turkmenistan has experienced trouble with the Russians -- they tend to divert the oil for their own use without paying for it. There's even a plan to run crude through China, but the proposed 5,300-mile-long pipeline would be far too long to prove profitable.

The logical alternative, then, is Unocal's plan, which is to extend Turkmenistan's existing system west to the Kazak field on the Caspian Sea and southeast to the Pakistani port of Karachi on the Arabian Sea. That project runs through Afghanistan.

As Central Asian expert Ahmed Rashid describes in his book "Taliban," published last year, the United States and Pakistan decided to install a stable regime in place in Afghanistan around 1994 -- a regime that would end the country's civil war and thus ensure the safety of the Unocal pipeline project. Impressed by the ruthlessness and willingness of the then-emerging Taliban to cut a pipeline deal, the State Department and Pakistan's Inter- Services Intelligence agency agreed to funnel arms and funding to the Taliban in their war against the ethnically Tajik Northern Alliance. As recently as 1999, U.S. taxpayers paid the entire annual salary of every single Taliban government official, all in the hopes of returning to the days of dollar-a- gallon gas. Pakistan, naturally, would pick up revenues from a Karachi oil port facility. Harkening back to 19th century power politics between Russia and British India, Rashid dubbed the struggle for control of post-Soviet Central Asia "the new Great Game."

Predictably, the Taliban Frankenstein got out of control. The regime's unholy alliance with Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda terrorist network, their penchant for invading their neighbors and their production of 50 percent of the world's opium made them unlikely partners for the desired oil deal.

Then-President Bill Clinton's August 1998 cruise missile attack on Afghanistan briefly brought the Taliban back into line -- they even eradicated opium poppy cultivation in less than a year -- but they nonetheless continued supporting countless militant Islamic groups. When an Egyptian group whose members had trained in Afghanistan hijacked four airplanes and used them to kill thousands of Americans on September 11, Washington's patience with its former client finally expired.

Finally the Bushies have the perfect excuse to do what the United States has wanted to do all along -- invade and/or install an old-school puppet regime in Kabul.

Realpolitik no more cares about the thousands of dead than it concerns itself with oppressed women in Afghanistan; this ersatz war by a phony president is solely about getting the Unocal deal done without interference from annoying local middlemen.

Central Asian politics, however, is a house of cards: every time you remove one element, the whole thing comes crashing down. Muslim extremists in both Pakistan and Afghanistan, for instance, will support additional terrorist attacks on the United States to avenge the elimination of the Taliban. A U.S.- installed Northern Alliance can't hold Kabul without an army of occupation because Afghan legitimacy hinges on capturing the capital on your own. Even if we do this the right way by funding and training the Northern Alliance so that they can seize power themselves, Pakistan's ethnic Pashtun government will never stand the replacement of their Pashtun brothers in the Taliban by Northern Alliance Tajiks. Without Pakistani cooperation, there's no getting the oil out and there's no chance for stability in Afghanistan.

As Bush would say, "make no mistake": this is about oil. It's always about oil. And to twist a late '90s cliche, it's only boring because it's true.

Ted Rall, a syndicated editorial cartoonist, has traveled extensively throughout Central Asia. In 2000, he went to Turkmenistan as a guest of the State Department. His latest book is "2024: A Graphic Novel" (NBM Books, May 2001).

©2001 San Francisco Chronicle Page A - 25
 
 
Cherry Bomb
17:26 / 09.11.01
The Northern Alliance is claiming to have captured Mazar e Sharif.

quote: - Opposition forces entered Mazar-e-Sharif in heavy fighting Friday, claiming to have captured the key northern city from the ruling Taliban militia in what would give a major boost to the U.S.-campaign in Afghanistan. An American official said Taliban fighters were on the run.
***********

The Taliban confirmed that opposition troops had entered southern parts of Mazar-e-Sharif ``after heavy American bombing,'' according to the Pakistan-based Afghan Islamic Press. The agency said Taliban forces were assembling outside the city.
 
 
Enamon
23:43 / 09.11.01
http://slate.msn.com/?id=2058508

quote:Whopper of the Week: Donald Rumsfeld
By Timothy Noah
Posted Friday, November 9, 2001, at 9:53 AM PT


"Within recent days—in fact, I think while I was in Pakistan—at his request, he was extracted from Afghanistan with a small number of his senior supporters and fighters, I believe for consultation in Pakistan, and undoubtedly will be going back in there at that point where those consultations are completed. … [H]e requested to be extracted for a period, and we cooperated to extract him."

—Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, describing the U.S. rescue of Afghan opposition leader Hamid Karzai, leader of a prominent Pashtun tribe, at a Nov. 6 news briefing

"In a satellite telephone interview with the BBC World Service today, Karzai not only repeated his assertion that he had not left Afghanistan, but disputed statements by U.S. officials that American aircraft had attacked Taliban forces in support of him. U.S. planes that were in the area when he was at risk of being captured by the Taliban last week appeared to be attacking targets that were 'not close to us,' he said. … Karzai said he and his supporters escaped on foot, with only bread and green tea for sustenance—and without help from the U.S. military. 'We walked for three days from village to village after the attack, and we reached a safe position,' Karzai told the BBC."

—Molly Moore, "Opposition Leader Denies U.S. Chopper Rescued Him in Afghanistan," Washington Post, Nov. 9.


[Update, 3:30 p.m.: Many readers have pointed out that it's possible that Karzai is lying, either because he doesn't want it known that he's in Pakistan or because he doesn't want it known that he's fraternizing with the U.S. military. If that's the case, Rumsfeld is at worst guilty of being indiscreet. But why would Karzai make a secret of his trip to Pakistan? If he were lying low, surely he wouldn't give an interview to the BBC in the first place. And wouldn't anyone who considered following Karzai into battle with the Taliban have to understand the U.S. to be an inevitable ally? Chatterbox will, however, keep track of future developments and file whatever updates or corrections that circumstances warrant.]

 
 
Cherry Bomb
11:38 / 12.11.01
Looks like a plane crashed in Queens shortly ago and buildings on the area are on fire. Can't get ANY info about it and don't know if it's terrorist related. If you can post it please.
 
 
tracypanzer
11:40 / 12.11.01
NPR is reporting it was an American Airlines 767. That's about all the information they have.
 
 
tracypanzer
11:41 / 12.11.01
CNN has it posted here:
http://www.cnn.com/
 
 
Ethan Hawke
11:45 / 12.11.01
It was in the Rockaway Beach area of Queens, near JFK, and apparently it crashed as the pilot was trying to land.

Pretty Unnerving for those of us in New York, with friends/family in Queens.
 
 
The Return Of Rothkoid
11:49 / 12.11.01
From the BBC story: quote:Monday, 12 November, 2001, 14:38 GMT
Passenger jet crashes in New York

(pic caption: Every available emergency vehicle is on its way to the scene)

An American Airlines flight on its way to John F Kennedy airport has crashed in New York.

At least four buildings in the Rockaway Beach area of the city's borough of Queens are on fire.

It is not known why the aircraft crashed or how many people were on board, or in the buildings now ablaze.

New York Mayor Rudolph Guiliani is on his way to the crash site and has called a level one alert.
And from robots.cnn.com quote:Updated: 09:36 a.m. EST (1436 GMT) -- 12 November 2001

Plane crash in NYC
An American Airlines 767 has crashed in the Queens borough of New York City. Port Authority officials say the plane was bound for JFK airport. Thick black smoke was billowing over the area, and local media reported several houses on fire.
FULL STORY SOON
 
 
Naked Flame
11:52 / 12.11.01
Oh. fuck.

on the case looking for info
 
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
  
Add Your Reply