Letters Special Assault On America

I just wanted to recognize The Register for not placing banner ads on the pages dealing with the apparent terrorist attacks in the US.  It is a very kind gesture, thank you.
 
Bob Strusa

OK, now for the vitriol.

---

Andrew Orlowski,

Are you a shithead, or what? It's amazing how the technophiles of the world assume that because they are conversant with something as complex as the inner workings of a pc or how to smash the stack on an AS/400, they are the only intelligent people on the face of the earth and everybody else is just a big, fat fucking idiot. Frankly, I take great exception to your asinine presumption that mass retaliatory strikes would "neatly suit the terrorist [sic - nice grammar shit for brains] goals". Really? How's that? You say that dropping cluster bombs on Bin Laden's training facilities is counterproductive? Or that pummeling Iraq is? What a foolhardy, defeatist load of crap.

You're forgetting something, you pompous ass: everybody KNOWS who supports and shelters terrorists in the world. Just because a US attorney hasn't dragged a terrorist before a federal court and produced a preponderance of evidence linking them bodily to an act of war DOESN'T mean there's ANY question of who's actually responsible.

It is precisely your "we shouldn't do anything because nothing's going to solve any problems anyway" attitude that they are counting on. Why do you think Bin Laden never announces his responsibility for the acts he perpetrates? Because he's ashamed? It's because he knows that in our "innocent until proven guilty" mindset, as long as there's a shred of doubt (read that, anything but ABSOLUTE certainty) we will doubt the efficacy of our actions and will therefore decline to do anything. Frankly, I agree that "surgical strikes" are a misnomer. That's why I'm in favor of carpet bombing. Because that's what war IS. It is dirty, messy, and horrific and thing like hospitals and children get blown up. Just ask the people of London or Bremen. By not acting decisively and WIDELY, all we do in ensure that the status quo that allows these evil fucks to operate remains in place.

So, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

I'm as fierce a civil-libertarian as anyone, but I don't see any problem with having a navy, for christ's sake. Nor do I see any problem with face scanners at Airport check-ins. I daresay that if a 767 took off from YOUR airport, flew by YOUR office window, over YOUR apartment, and crashed into a building HALF A MILE from where your PREGNANT WIFE works you'd be singing a different tune. So shut the fuck up, you DICKLESS ARMCHAIR-WARRIOR FUCK.

Nathan McCourtney
Arlington, VA

---

Our link to Alexander Cockburn's initial piece drew both praise and flames. For the record, I felt it was appropriate because it conveyed the historical magnitude of the attack for non-US citizens better than any other single piece we'd read.

Cockburn is too independent to be tagged with any label - his Al Gore: A User's Manual, best explains for us why a Republican sits in the White House, and it's nothing to do with the Supreme Court - but readers have a few labels of their own:-

I have to say I am rather appalled by the fact a respected online journal like the Register would use a link regarding the terrorist attack on the WTC and Pentagon by a noted lunatic fringe leftist like Alexander Cockburn, a man who has spent his life defending Scientology cultists and spewing Marxist agitation and propaganda. And yes by the end of the article I was ready to hit him, but the same could be said any other time I happened across his bomb throwing vitriol

Joe Varga

Not everyone agreed:-

Thanks to The Reg for covering this event. Just as with the ballot problems last presidential election, The Reg is my first stop because I trust the writers (including trusting them to redirect me when they don't understand =-).

-Paul Komarek

But David Woyciesjes thought it unpatriotic:-

Jeffrey and Alexander,

In regards to your "Flying Bombs" piece... http://www.counterpunch.org/ ... The article started out good, but by the end you sounded like two dumb-ass half-blind ignorant anti-American fuckheads.

What gives? Did someone piss in your Wheaties?

---

But that's nothing compared to the vitriol aimed at Washington Bureau Chief Thomas C Greene.

Tom asked two simple questions in this opinion piece - who are we fighting?, and how will we know when we've 'won'? Which seem sensible for anyone to ask.

But this isn't what some of you what to hear:-

I am completely outraged as The Register's moronic commentary on the events surrounding the Sept. 11th mass murder.

Did you people actually see the planes slam into the buildings? To be critical of the US (or the US President) during these times is completely backwards. The people that did this were backed by orginazations and governments that CANNOT be reasoned with, only their destruction will bring any sense of security. So quit blathering on about the US entering another Vietnam when there's no outside military support for these murders and their crime is so clear cut.

Chip Homme

Mr. Green,

Yes...we are far from perfect. We have made many mistakes in the past and I am sure we will make more mistakes in the future.

It is easy for you to poke fun at us, isn't it? Here's an idea... why doesn't a highly educated person as yourself, suggest a prudent coarse of action for the US? Please don't bother hiding behind the "I only report the news I don't make (or comment) on it" because you clearly have your own opinion and are not afraid to voice it.

It seams that we can do nothing right according to you. Furthermore, if anything bad happens to the US, I am sure you will find a reason why we deserved it.

It's always easier to find fault then to offer a solution, isn't it...

I like The Register, and IMHO I think it would be a better site if it never published another "Thomas C Green in Washington" article.

It's time to rally around the flag, agrees this correspondent:-

Your right our President and all our leaders should have acted hysterically inciting fear and terror into the general population. After all mass panic is such a minor thing. I sure it would have helped our nation to also have our President put himself in a position to be killed.
 
Sarcasm aside-you can’t even make up your own mind. First you imply the President should have been more emotional. Then you state he should have flown to the oval office. Presumably the best reason for him to be at the oval office was to allay peoples fears. Yet you chastise him and others for presenting a calm front. WELL WHICH IS IT!!! Do you want him to scare people and therefore help the bastards who crashed the planes or remain calm and prevent them from having a more symbolic victory. The President has the responsibility of protecting America. His personnel pride is insignificant to this task. If the military and secret services tell him it is in the best interests of the country to go to a safe place he should. If the general is screwing around on the front line and gets killed, he can’t order the reserve forces up to cover the flank when the enemy attacks. Therefore not only did he kill himself he killed many others. That general is stupid as are you.
 
Unfortunately there are too many people such as yourself who know how to do nothing but try and tear other people down no matter what the costs. You should be standing united with the rest of us not helping the enemy.
 
Everyone knows hasty decisions are not always the best or even right. But GOD DAMMIT we elected him to make those decision and in a time of crisis we should back him up.
 
Scott Olsen
Portland OR

---

However some of America's own leaders might fail the current patriotism test. This correspondent (who wishes to rename anonymous) pointed us to this news:-

As recently as May, the US was the main benefactor of the Taliban, even as we sold arms to their civil war opponent, the Northern Alliance.

Here's Robert Scheer back in May when we paid them $43 million to declare growing opium against the will of God:

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n922/a09.html

Confused? We know we are.

The most paranoid letter of the past ten days was this one, in response to Kieren's piece about the US espionage network, This is how we know Echelon exists.

Subject: WAKE UP

I've got nothing to hide do you?

Way to go buddy why don't you let all the terrorists know about something they shouldn't.

Haven't you ever heard of the kind of secrecy requiered by the public in regards to sensitive information about how one operates during World War
2.

Putting this kind of information out takes away our edge. Wise up and take "This is how we know Echelon exists" off the www. We have to trust this network as
a tool against terrorism. We have to all get together and stomp out this evil.

Why not get all the hackers together and launch an attack on any web site that is a threat?

Robert Davis

That's right - we shouldn't be mentioning Echelon, because it's one of our prime weapons against terrorism.

Whoops, we've mentioned it again.

Twice, in fact. ®