"You Don't Understand Our Audience" --what John Hockenberry (formerly of NBC, now at MIT Media Lab) learned about network news--good guys and bad guys, the "emotional center", synergy, facts, and why fewer and fewer watch nowadays.
posted by amberglow on Dec 31, 2007 - 65 comments

Martin Amis on 9/11 and the cult of death: [more inside]
posted by chuckdarwin on Sep 11, 2007 - 71 comments

Zeitgeist, the movie [Google Video link embedded] - An interesthing, if bizarre, mix of buffed-up comparative mythology, 9/11 conspiracy theories and New world order rambling about banks, loans, debts and war. Is paranoia the spirit of our times?
posted by Baldons on Jul 26, 2007 - 32 comments

The "same people who attacked us on 9/11"? It may be the very latest talking point from the Administration, but it's actually true--altho it's not Al Qaeda in Iraq, but Saudis. Although Bush administration officials have frequently lashed out at Syria and Iran, accusing it of helping insurgents and militias here, the largest number of foreign fighters and suicide bombers in Iraq come from a third neighbor, Saudi Arabia ... A historical note: 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis.
posted by amberglow on Jul 16, 2007 - 84 comments

Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip ends tonight, and Aaron Sorkin will be leaving television production for a while. His current project is Charlie Wilson's War, a movie starring Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts and Philip Seymour Hoffman, based on the late George Crile's excellent, funny nonfic book of the same name. The movie will trace "party animal" Congressman Charles "Good Time Charlie" Wilson's (D, TX) rise from a scandal (he was caught in "a hot tub tryst with two cocaine-sniffing showgirls in Las Vegas",) to his role in the 1980's covertly funding Afghanistan guerrillas so they could expand their war with the Soviet Union. Wilson's actions would eventually help collapse the Afghan PDPA government, a power vacuum which would be filled by the Taliban. Who would have thought ending the Cold War would be so easy?
posted by zarq on Jun 28, 2007 - 60 comments

Missile Defense- the biggest security lapse on 9/11. Condoleeza Rice was to deliver a speech regarding the White House's position on national security on September 11th, 2001. The speech contained no mention of al-Qaeda and stated missile defense as the central focus of security, implicating Bill Clinton for "not doing enough about the real threat - long-range missiles." An interesting revelation coming from the campaign claiming their opponents are "wrong on defense."
posted by XQUZYPHYR on Apr 1, 2004 - 37 comments

John Dean's analysis of the administrations case for War. "What I found, in critically examining Bush's evidence, is not pretty. The African uranium matter is merely indicative of larger problems, and troubling questions of potential and widespread criminality when taking the nation to war. It appears that not only the Niger uranium hoax, but most everything else that Bush said about Saddam Hussein's weapons was false, fabricated, exaggerated, or phony."
posted by thedailygrowl on Jul 18, 2003 - 73 comments

Saddam Hussein Trained Al Qaeda Fighters - Report Blair's evidence to convince the Brits that attacking Iraq is going after Saddam is needed because he has been directly involved with Qaeda network.
posted by Postroad on Sep 14, 2002 - 27 comments

If you have dignity, the terrorists have already won Ted Rall writes about the cheesification of 9/11.
posted by hmgovt on Sep 10, 2002 - 40 comments

Plans For Iraq Attack Began On 9/11 "CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq — even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks." Rumsfeld: "Go massive ... Sweep it all up. Things related and not."
posted by owillis on Sep 5, 2002 - 61 comments

Why We Fight. In case you'd forgotten, William Bennett is here to remind you.
posted by Ty Webb on Apr 10, 2002 - 42 comments

Art Fights Back — an exhibit of poster art at Veterans Memorial Auditorium in Des Moines, Iowa — displays images dedicated to the memory of September 11 and support of the Unites States and its troops. Seems like a typical thing to do around war time, right?

Take a close look at the actual poster design. Don't they seem rather non-American in their artistic style? In fact, they recall an era of poster design for a dramatically different context than what was typically thought of as U.S. patriotism.
posted by Down10 on Mar 11, 2002 - 39 comments

"Peaceful Tomorrows" launches tomorrow (Feb 14th). "Peaceful Tomorrows continues the work of family members who took part in the Walk for Healing and Peace from the Pentagon to the World Trade Center (winter 2001) as well as those who met with Afghan families affected by the subsequent bombing campaign (January 2002). Our goal is to facilitate dialogues on alternatives to war that utilize all of America's collective wisdom, skills and talents. "

Good luck Peaceful Tomorrows!
posted by crasspastor on Feb 13, 2002 - 1 comment

The New War on Terror Noam Chomsky has written a book called 9-11. He analyses the situation in a long essay published in Counterpunch. Quote: We certainly want to reduce the level of terror, certainly not escalate it. There is one easy way to do that and therefore it is never discussed. Namely stop participating in it.
posted by alex63 on Oct 26, 2001 - 62 comments

US Special Forces now operating in southern Afghanistan Let's pray a repeat of Mogadishu doesn't happen and any innocents on the ground aren't harmed...
posted by mmascolino on Oct 18, 2001 - 4 comments

On September 30th, there was a peace protest in Washington D.C. I'm surprised no one else linked to this -- about 50 students from my college attended and joined the crowd of a few thousand. I would have gone, but I'm dubious about the efficacy of public protest despite the fact that I'm an affirmed pacifist. What do you folks think? Will a totally non-military action be an appropriate response? (And is there any possiblity of the US acting in such a way?) Is the loss of a single additional human life in this new war justifiable?
posted by tweebiscuit on Oct 3, 2001 - 109 comments

Dack is back, but not in the blogging sense. Many here at MeFi thought he'd bring his blog back after it ceased in May. His front page is now a collection of links urging peaceful resolution of the Current Situation. Refresh a few times to see a variety of quotes.
posted by msacheson on Oct 1, 2001 - 9 comments

Americans threatened to attack Afghanistan two months ago. Was the terrorist attack a pre-emptive strike?
posted by liam on Sep 21, 2001 - 25 comments

What Happens Next? Six options beyond war and peace. Which is best?
posted by ericost on Sep 21, 2001 - 7 comments

'AMERICA and Britain are producing secret plans to launch a ten-year “war on terrorism”..' declares this (otherwise fairly generic) article without citing its sources. Be prepared for the possible oxymoron of a line that is 'the whole focus of the long-term American approach was being driven by Richard Cheney..' Oh yeah -- hate to promote Murdoch media but also noteworthy in this mornings edition of the London Times are the revelations that whilst 200 British 'are certain to have perished', a further 800 are missing following the disaster and a piece warning of a 'nightmare scenario' in which Pakistan could lose control of its nuclear weapons to none other than THE TALIBAN.
posted by Kino on Sep 20, 2001 - 8 comments

9-11peace.org
Working for peace in the wake of September 11.
For those who have wondered just what exactly they can do besides flying the US flag or posting on MeFi (myself included in the latter).
This comprehensive site offers all sorts of concrete actions for those who believe that war is not the answer. You can email your elected officials; sign petitions; browse a list of suggested actions (from donating supplies for rescue dogs to flying the UN flag); and find out about upcoming events.
posted by mapalm on Sep 18, 2001 - 49 comments

Troops Massing on Afghanistan/Pakistan Border: 20,000+ Taliban troops and an unreported number of Pakistani reinforcements have been deployed in anticipation of a Pakistan-based U.S. strike.
posted by ryanshepard on Sep 17, 2001 - 11 comments

Appeasement. Chamberlain sat at a table with Hitler in 1938 signing a treaty and proclaiming "peace for our time". Shortly after, World War II began. Killing innocent people does not solve the problem, but sitting at a table with your enemy and proclaiming peace (when he just wants to kill more) does no good either.
posted by owillis on Sep 15, 2001 - 36 comments

A coalition of 13 nations declares war on those nations who are implicated in this attack. (There's nothing more dangerous than 300 angry teenagers.)
posted by Steven Den Beste on Sep 14, 2001 - 25 comments

Can you go to "War" against an individual? Laws may limit exactly what the US can do, and whether or not an assasination attempt will be possible.
posted by mathowie on Sep 13, 2001 - 23 comments

NY Times: Taliban Plead for Mercy to the Miserable in a Land of Nothing Perhaps they should have thought of this when they sheltered so many "un-Islamic" murderers such as bin Laden. The perpetrators, co-conspirators, and accomplices of this massacre will receive no quarter from the U.S. whether they are Afghani, Iraqi, Saudi, or even American.
posted by lenticular on Sep 13, 2001 - 54 comments

Wondering why those in power are so earnestly characterizing an act of terrorism as an act of war? Because under New York Consolidated Law S3203.a.17.c.1.C, insurance companies don't have to pay for acts of war. (More inside.)
posted by Allen Varney on Sep 12, 2001 - 21 comments

From PVP Online's Forums: "If we do wage war, will we be any better? What happened today, 9-11-01, was atrocious and could not be justified by any means. However, how could we justify violence while abhoring it?"
posted by philulrich on Sep 12, 2001 - 11 comments

Paratroopers? Or cruise missiles? What will America's military response be if the Taliban are determined to be liable? The Russians certainly didn't too well with a conventional military attack on Afghanistan.
posted by MattD on Sep 11, 2001 - 34 comments

Explosions in Kabul. There are missles coming in Afghanastan. (Saving front page bandwidth, more inside)
posted by geoff. on Sep 11, 2001 - 23 comments