Hacker News Reader

Comment by barking | Hacker News Reader

None. By their nature, measures like this annoy people. If this was the 12th of September 2001 would your opinion be different and if so, why?

View on HN

As a Brit, I have a huge problem with all this. In the old days of US funded IRA attacks against amongst other things, our government, we never let the terrorists win. We didn't budge our principles or give up core freedoms. Sure our side did some very iffy things to combat the terror, but it was still illegal. We didn't try to legitimise it by tearing up principles that applied to normal people. But once 9/11 happened and the US gave US freedoms up, we and other nation states were heavily leaned on to also give up those freedoms and principles. Sadly, we capitulated to US pressure.

So, no my opinion never budged before, during or after 9/11. In fact, it hardened. But, I'm afraid the terrorism worked. We lost freedoms, rights and principles all due to the 9/11 attacks and US reaction to it. Terror won. Bin Laden won. We became more like them.

Is indefinite detention without trial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment) of members of a particular 'native' ethnic group in your country a sign of a free society? This happened during the 1970's in Northern ireland

Just last week david cameron had to apologise for the UK security forces' actions in passing information to terrorist groups to enable the murder of, amongst others, a lawyer. He also had to apologise for cases where the security forces had prior knowledge of murder and did nothing about it and for the wilful destruction of evidence by the police and the army. Is that the 'iffy' stuff that you refer to?

Edit: link to youtube of apology http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcS_FswjqrM

I disagree, the US haven't faced a real threat since 2001. I agree with you that the UK cannot have a position of moral superiority. Perhaps the UK has learned the error of their ways, and in recent times has sought to mend them. A apology more than twenty years after the incident isn't much solace though.

This article about an incident in Northern Ireland may be interesting to you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami_Showband_killings

>In the old days of US funded IRA attacks against amongst other things, our government, we never let the terrorists win.

Are you implying our government funded the IRA? Also, it's pretty rich being criticized by a Brit for the surveillance state. You guys have a camera system that would have made Orwell proud.

9/11 was an inside job, designed (along other things) to take away personal freedoms.

Please leave.

Why?

Simply stating what you believe is frowned upon here, you are supposed to include your reasons.

The basic assumption that we all hold about our opinions is that everyone else would believe in them too if they knew the facts we did, so it is best to accompany all statements of opinion with a logical argument for their validity.

Rules are made to broken (especially on a site called Hacker News) ;-) Plus I don't think jacquesm's "Please leave" has anything to do with the rules.

Anyway, out of the numerous reasons I believe 9/11 was an inside job, here's my favorite:

1. On 9/10 David Rumsfeld, the US secretary of defense, hold a pres conference (it's on CNN.com, etc.) and stated there are 2.3 trillion dollars, that the Pentagon cannot account for.

2. On 9/11 a part of the Pentagon, including the budget analysis department rooms, was destroyed. Most of the victims were accountants.

3. Same day WTC building 7 (not mentioned in 9/11 commission report, not investigated by any other authority) was destroyed in NY. Pentagon's primary financial information backup site was inside.

One out of the many, many "coincidences" on 9/11 ...

Re: Item 1 and Item 2

Are you claiming that the government 'whipped up' the terrorist attack in under 24 hours?

No, a possible scenario is there was a group of Pentagon employes that knew about the missing money and were pushing for investigation for months. 9/11 was (among other targets) a way to delay the investigation, eliminate key people/evidence and give a lesson to the rest.

"By their nature, measures like this annoy people."

You know what annoys me? How many tax dollars are spent on a full body scanner, when the airport bar right on the other side is full of breakable glass. Nevermind the tests that showed that a knife, gun, or even high explosive could be snuck through the checkpoint; a determined attacker could just make their weapons after passing through security. This is not to mention the large, densely-packed crowd of people waiting to go through the checkpoint, a prime target for terrorists.

"If this was the 12th of September 2001 would your opinion be different and if so, why?"

People were talking about terrorists making their weapons after passing through airport security in 2001. People were talking about the crowd of people waiting to pass through security being a target. People were talking about the corruption, the friendly contracts that pour tax money into well-connected companies' coffers, in 2001.

When was the last time a locked cabin door annoyed you?

There is nothing inherent about security measures that cause annoyance. Security theater measures on the other hand...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com