Re: First Run: A view askew?° /I'm seeing two specific parts here that I haven't meshed in my brain quite yet, so perhaps I'm looking at it from the wrong angle, but I'll start with this:There is wisdom here that I do not deny, but rather limit to a condition whereby we might presume, conclude, determine, or otherwise arrive at the value X to represent the number of terrorists existing on any given day. I don't think the number is important at all. If you're putting a salt lick out to see if deer will congregate in your back yard, the number that show up isn't important until you run out of salt. Maybe I missed your point. /If this base number declines as we pick off terrorists, then I think we're examining a sound strategy. But I feel--and in the long run must endeavor to determine for sure--that X is at least remaining constant, if not growing, as time passes. Yeah, you're right. It's a tough nut to crack for sure. You might be making things worse by trying to fix it. I'd say the pro-active agressive approach seems to be working if you can wade through all the people saying that the other people are lying, but I gotta say I can't tell who is lying, who is misinformed, who is insane or who is sincere. I'm pretty sure what I'm getting is that in general the Iraqis are mostly digging that Sadam is gone. That is about all I'm pretty sure about regarding the situation. I realize that most of you will disagree with that assessment and quote polls etc. I base my opinion on what I've heard from people who are/have been in the region. I figure pretty much everyone else has an agenda to satisfy. Oh, and the aforementioned approach seems to be working, I don't know that it is, i just think it's a pretty good idea given what I think I know. /And that's where my sense of disagreement arises. Perhaps in a theoretical field, the idea still bears merit, but it seems to me that people who were mere spectators rooting for "their team" might be prepared to take the field whereas a different political and military strategy might not have called them to arms. I assume you're talking about the strategy in question of deliberately pissing them off to an extent? As such, I'd say that they were already at arms as evidenced by 9/11 and the number of other terrorist activity type things around the world for the last decade or few. /Here I'll admit to sloth: I'm too lazy to go look up a link. I've posted around here a political cartoon, I think by David Horsey or Steve Benson, that shows a split-frame with Rumsfeld on the one hand declaring that events have had no negative impact on recruiting while the other shows a terrorist recruiter voicing his full agreement. Well, if it's time for the ship to sink, it will sink. /And therein lies the danger I perceive.A counter-strategy isn't just "Iraqnam," but "Iraqestine." We might pause for a moment to recall the recent topic about the IDF training US military hit squads, for lack of a better phrasing. If the terrorists can draw this out and cast the American occupation as something akin to Israeli methods regarding the Palestinians, they'll dent the American prestige that Bush's strategy has made so vulnerable. That is quite true, but I'd say that his strategy hasn't made it more vulnerable than it already was with those susceptable to that message. It's not like he created terrorist, he's responding to them in what I think is a risky but reasonable strategy. Inaction has a much greater set of risks to me. I think a position of strength and aggression is likely the only way to manage this. Get the majority of them dead, then keep close tabs on the leftovers and a heads up for new developments. Really there seems to be little choice. Even you draw the line of pacificism somewhere. We got punched. I'd say that's indicative of punches to come. It's hard to say what effect punching back will have, as you never know what's gonna happen in a fight. I'd say though, that the smart move is to bet on yourself. Of course that doesn't mean you'll win. /Would it be petty to include that the Iraqi contributions to terror had the full endorsement of at least two United States presidents? Not petty, but maybe a little naive. /He ought to crow proudly on his way down about how he "conned" Rumsfeld and the Reagan administration, about how Chirac was so willing to sell him what he needed. I don't think he is sane, so I don't think he is of much use. Maybe I'm wrong. /He can still hurt the Bush administration insofar as he can give them a black eye on his way down. I have to agree there, but I'm guessing Bush will take measures to ensure that doesn't happen. Just my opinion. /But by and large it does seem a sound strategy, though I question its produce and intent. I'm looking for something to illustrate the concern without resorting to severe analogies like the soundness of certain Nazi strategies. The severity is unwarranted. But perhaps that hint can suggest the mechanics of idea that I'm describing. It's a sound strategy, if . . . . I follow you, but I'd say the bane of the president is that your if cannot be clearly resolved, so he is stuck with "i gotta make a decision".
"You might be making things worse by trying to fix it. I'd say the pro-active agressive approach seems to be working if you can wade through all the people saying that the other people are lying, but I gotta say I can't tell who is lying, who is misinformed, who is insane or who is sincere. I'm pretty sure what I'm getting is that in general the Iraqis are mostly digging that Sadam is gone. That is about all I'm pretty sure about regarding the situation. I realize that most of you will disagree with that assessment and quote polls etc. I base my opinion on what I've heard from people who are/have been in the region." If that is the case, and you are sincere, please address what "a little bitch like hype with your passive aggressive bullshit" has been trying to introduce to this discussion: There are proven and immediately applicable alternatives to the American overkill and "showdown" mentality that is inflaming and destabilizing the mideast, and compromising America's security and international legitimacy. These alternatives I have been pointing out do not include inaction. You can repeatedly make insinuations about my masculinity or psychological profile to our mutual entertainment, but to dismiss what I am offering as a retreat to apathy just pisses me right off. Now: The most notorious enemies we are so up in arms about are very familiar to those who take a more than superficial interest in world events, because the United States was instrumental in giving them their starts as our proxy mujaheddin against the Soviets and Iranians. There would be advantages in letting the record show how the CIA, so much more than Allah, gave them their start: Our past intimacies with our present enemies are far more embarrassing to them than to us- Remember, we are operating from an established political base and they are not. There would be advantages in giving greater voice to moderate Muslims who can effectively expose the sins against Islam not only in terms of violence, but in terms of heresy, that most prominent militant islamist groups have committed. It would then be would be of immense tactical advantage for all Western participants in this conflict to move beyond fixation on personalities and organizational facades among militant Islamic groups and secular dictatorships like erstwhile Iraq (and yes, we're all happy Saddam is in a cage). American war cries are very effectively promoting the terrorists' agendae, and working very much against our goals of diffusing this situation and enhancing our own security. As I have already mentioned, and will refrain from reiterating in detail, using military force in large scale (instead of police force in minimal scale) is extremely counterproductive in a conflict where foreign military presence is at the very root of the wounded Arab and Muslim pride that is stirring up the troubles. Fought as a war of attrition, the United States will lose, as popular support increases in the Mideast, and decreases in the Midwest. If fought as a war of colonialism, support will multiply among the natives, and falter in the homes of the legionnaires. If allowed to degenrate into cultural or religious war- and don't dismiss this, it's happening- only hate and fear will gain ground everywhere. We can cooperate in ending this dangerous conflict, but we cannot dictate. The greatest weapon militant Islamists are deftly weilding is American arrogance and ignorance of human nature and history. Our enemies are inciting us to over-react, and acting with absolute certainty of success. Outsiders have had their times of dominion in the mideast, and it is now well understood how to cast them out: An anguished process of sacrificing lives and prosperity for generations forever awaits foreigners who come in force. The more the United States militarizes this needless conflict, the more enemies we will face. We can influence the Mideast profoundly, and do in so many ways- but placing this region at gunpoint, whatever our intentions, we will only be despised. The remnants of the killers who hit us on 9-11 are in Saudi Arabia and the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan. They require money. They have other enemies (we are not their primary foe). Quietly wait where they seek both and kill them. This makes few headlines, doesn't stir the passion for Hollywood-inspired glory in young American men , and doesn't feed the urge for conquest. But that's the whole point: We can't get distracted about what we're doing. "War on Terror" is embarrassingly indicative of our dangerous confusion: We must get about the business of catching terrorists spawned by foreign intervention, and in the process, we must avoid any new interventions of a scale and character that has been shown to spawn more terrorists. American arrogance and forcefulness drew us into this conflict, and responding with the same will certainly and explosively worsen the situation.
Comment to wesmorris Didn't read all of your comments in this thread, but I agree in almost every way with your opening statement. Your rational analysis of the situation stands out starkly here at sciforums. I would be the last to suggest that the Bush administration or the Pentagon really though that Iraq had much left in the way of WMD. However, I do think that there is an ever-present fear in this and former administrations that a terrorist will deploy a chemical or nuclear weapon in an American city. Apart from the destruction that this will cause to life and property, great damage will be done to our economy, which as was observed after 9/11, is extremely fragile. That's the unspoken reality, know by every administration; that terrorists actually have a LOT of power. It will take only one or two weapons deployed under the right circumstances to cripple the West's economic engine. All of which underscores the importance of a presence in Iraq - not because they had any WMD, but because it is an ideal position from which to control the flow of weapons in the regions. ***************************************
hype, I know you're well intentioned, but you and I have a serious communication/ideology gap. i have a hard time justifying to myself the effort required to reply, when I know from experience that you will select what you wish from my argument and ignore most of the stuff I feel to be important at your convenience. while i don't want to compell you to do anything you don't want to do, you might see why I'm reluctant to bother with YOU, konw what I mean? I respect you as a well-intentioned intelligent man but ...well, I also think you're insane. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Hehe.
I'm very sorry to intimidate you so, wes. Now on with the thread with a retraction: "They require money. They have other enemies (we are not their primary foe). Quietly wait where they seek both and kill them." I must correct the above stupid and brash statement on my part: Apprehension, not assassination is most effective in dealing with perpetrators of terrorism- Deadly force, of course, when necessary. Watcher: Please explain how US forces in the midst of an unpopular occupation of Iraq somehow blockade the introduction of nasty things into the USA. Also, please explain why importation of material from the mideast (granted more DU is available there now for easy collection) is necessary or even practical for creating havoc here in the USA. Nothing has to be infiltrated under our radar- much technology and materials available in our country are easily convertible to WMDs. What most increases the likelihood of the unleashing of some terrible weapon on American citizens at home is the our governments' overseas provocation of rage against us. There is no such rage at how Americans live their lives in America, no such rage over what America stands for, no such rage over America's most popular religions, customs, clothing, music, or any domestic activity. The terrorism the US is confronting has very clear origins. These are acutely disaffected movements who want to reshape the mideast (not the United States). These are significant movements with dire and legitimate issues involving brutal oppression, and lack of political leverage and representation, like any revolutionary movement including that of the original United States. The adoption of terrorist methods is not the choice of an entire movement- but the entire movement nevertheless fuels and reinforces terrorism when there are few visibly effective means of expression and change. The objectives of terrorism are very important to understand: Terrorism is employed specifically in order to provoke a superior power structure into eroding its own legitimacy through undisciplined application of force. As Americans engage in international conflict it is extremely irresponsible and extremely dangerous not to understand the motivations of the enemy, and not to stay focused. Because we are a democracy every citizen has a responsibility far beyond flag-waving and "supporting our troops" in being selective about what we democratically support even through apathy. So pay attention. Iraq is henceforth fertile ground for myriad groups like Al-Qaida, unlike during the days of Saddam's regime, which brutally suppressed any movement not devoted to Saddam's self-centered and secular interest. What the US has now wrought in Iraq is going to be very counterproductive in limiting terrorist activity; it has made groups like Al-Qaeda jubilant. But bear with me as we set Iraq aside, and go back to the specific roots of Al-Qaida. Al-Qaida is not a heirarchically organized movement, but rather an affiliation of revolutionary extremist, fundamentalist islamic organizations that are waging an internal long-term conflict in the Arab and Muslim worlds. The primary objective of movements we have come to associate as "Al-Qaida" is the creation of a cornerstone revolutionary fundamentalist Sunni Islamic state. Think of it as the Project for a New Islamic Century: One radical vision for the future among many. OK leave PNIC aside for a moment, and zoom out to the Mideast as a whole. This is a region undergoing a transition in many ways similar to Europe's move from monarchies to democracies. In this case it is a transition from monarchies and autocracies to democracies (similar). Also similarly, there is sharp division of wealth, and flagrant institutional favoritism and corruption. Dissimilarly and significantly, there is what I call historical acceleration whereby higher technology and flow of information increases volatility and accelerates change. Some very sick governments are on some very thin ice. Some immense stress points are geoethnic, i.e. the Arab-Israeli land dispute (also issues of Kurds, Armenian, Druzeetc.). Other serious stress points are religious, i.e. the shia-sunni schism in Islam. The entire creaking lattice is an obsolete structure that rapidly coagulated during the end of the colonialist, and dawn of the zionist eras. Needless to say, this teetering powder keg is nothing to idly poke at from the outside: Turbulent times are inexorably and tragicly ahead in the mideast. Zooming out further, observe the United States, the "lone superpower" wielding the greatest observable influence on the region from without. In recent history, the US was dependent on mideast oil (we no longer are), and suspicious of Soviet designs on the very same resources. During that period, relationships born of necessity and not political affinity/similarity were developed with the Saudi, Iraqi and Gulf States. From a perspective of US interests, a point has come where propping up these regimes will unavoidably come at ever increasing cost to the US. A revolutionary Saudi movement, understanding not only this but also (from a popular fundamentalist perspective) the ridiculous and insulting dependency of the ruling elite on protection from Washington, endeavored to rock the boat by antagonizing the United States as shockingly as possible. From there I need not illustrate, except to point out the notable sleight-of-hand by the US government to keep Saudi Arabia as far from the limelight as possible, fearing scandal and collapse from within and around the isolated Saudi Royal Family. So where does this towering house of Semtex cards leave the United States in it's duel with Islamic terrorists? First of all, as the inner circle of American power understands, Terrorism is not as big a concern as are other events increasingly likely to unfold. The War on Teror is cover for some heaviweight positioning prior to a coming hot war. With hardly a media ripple, Israeli submarines have slid under the waves with nuclear WMDs. Saudi Arabia has been armed and trained with front-line (conventional, what are we, stupid?) weaponry, and her deserts are crammed with hardware that Saddam could only have dreamed of. A grab has been made for massive additional permanent US bases in Iraq and Qatar. While these momentous strategic moves attract little attention in the eye of the American public, they are a source of white-hot rage for Arab and Muslim revolutionaries. They want these weapons unleashed. The United States is entering a predicament, whether by the design or providence of revolutionaries, is a trap. The mentality of the "War on Terror", and the collision of PNAC with PNIC are bringing the world to the brink of a furious mideastern war. Wake up and stop it. America's reckless involvement/exacerbation of mideast war is not necessary. The United States is in a position to help the region avoid conflict, but is instead falling into a trap. Every American is complicit.
A furious mideastern war If you would please elaborate on the specifics of a furious mideastern war. Are you suggesting an Arab coalition vs. the U.S. and Israel?
I am suggesting a conflict with many unpredictable courses, all very complex and probably impossible to predict. Here is one dark scenario, and I want to emphasize that it is not inevitable, but increasingly likely with continued "War on Terror" nonsense. US overextension in Iraq, caught in middle of a civil war. US public disillusionment with involvement in fighting in the mideast. Collapse of the Saudi government. Israel demands US not abandon its war materiel in the Arabian desert, and threatens to force America's hand. This is obviously not the only way to a large conflict can be ignited in the region. Basicly, in any number of ways, the political structure of the mideast region is ready for a shakedown, and the US is not only missing the point, but injecting massive weaponry into a potential theater of conflict in which they will not be able to "secure the perimeter".
I disagree As long as the U.S. and Israel are allies in that region, they will control the sea and the air without question. Yes, SA has a decent Air Force, but they would not challenge the might of the U.S. and Israel. And nobody has a Navy to speak of in the region. I think the U.S. has proven without a doubt that when you have total air superiority you can make the job of your ground troops exponentially easier. But I don't even think what you suggest is worth discussing on a tactical level. There is simply no way that Saudi Arabia is going to bite off the hand that feeds it. And I am aware that they are no longer the #1 supplier to the U.S., but they aren't stupid enough to disconnect themselves from the world (see Afghanistan under the Taliban) and cut off the money pipeline. For all the connections on a religious level to the Taliban, Saudi Arabia is light years ahead in terms of its population being westernized and having an irrestible craving for MP3's, Range Rovers and free access to the West.
I don't mind you're disagreement, but I hope you don't misunderstand: I am not fretting over, or postulating a war launched by a state or group of states deciding to take on Israel and the US. I am talking about a collapse of any of several states precipitating panic on the part of neighbors. I am suggesting that America is falling into a trap by intervening in and arming up a region that is poised for political upheaval. The US has some very careful maneuvering to do, and in the event that things get out of hand, the weapons we have sold and doled out in the region will be a horrific liability.
Thanks for the demo: /I'm very sorry to intimidate you so, wes. LOL. Thanks for your sincere apology.
That is something we definitely agree on No doubt the idea of SA collapsing is a disturbing prospect considering that if we somehow did wind up in a fight against them we would fighting F-15's of our own design flown by Saudi pilots. Indeed that is a frightening prospect. But I still don't think the collapses that you speak of are imminent. As is pretty obvious from my monniker, I am no fan of the Saud government, but I counter that by thinking that they rule with such an iron fist that the militants (OBL) that oppose them stand very little chance of overthrowing the Royals anytime soon.
Provocative talk of hot war is seductive, and I'm obviously as ghoulishly guilty as any of us. But what I think is more interesting and important at the present juncture, and in a thread addressing the War on Terror, is that we focus more on what this War on Terror really is, and not on it's longer-term implications. Somebody, please. Write something brilliant. "F-15's of our own design flown by Saudi pilots" Interesting you should mention that, because I strongly suspect that it was former Saudi F-15 pilots who flew airliners at high speed onto target on 9-11.
Let's Review wesmorris & 15ofthe19 are here defending the effectiveness of the War on Terror. I come not to demean them, but to politely share my reflections in a spirit of friendship at their pathetic and muddle-headed positions. With my own complicity, this discussion has become convoluted. Perhaps a summary can get us back on track. Perhaps the fans of the WoT will only scurry. So here goes, from the top: wesmorris: "I've heard mention infinite times that this or that action by the Bush administration will "whip the terrorist into a frenzy" so to speak. Now I've been wondering... is that necessarily a bad thing?" (another honorable antagonist of the WoT fans) Ranxer: "we have killed tens of thousands of people in afghanistan and iraq.. i can't imagine that we have made any friends at all with these efforts.. to the contrary we have created more terrorists than ever before." wesmorris then postulated that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq headed off coming attacks that would have killed more Americans in greater numbers than the victims of American invasions. He then unsteadily discounted the probability that US actions have inspired more terrorists "ranxer: "to the contrary we have created more terrorists than ever before." wesmorris: "that's a mixed bag brother. try to validate that statement without presumption. I don't think you can. I'd say it's almost as valid to say that if they became a terrorist (from the US perspective) based on current history, then they were really already terrorists.. and it's better to draw them out and get rid of them before it gets worse. that is merely a perspective though, and I do see others that are valid. this is just the one that comes from me. it's somewhat of a gamble either way." Things deteriorated from there from a standpoint of the transfer of information. I was of course compelled to leap into the fray when the following got to me: wesmorris: "I think certain cultures are mutually exclusive" hypewaders: "Please elaborate." wesmorris: "Since you asked nicely: It's pretty simple. Note zionists and people who hate zionists. Note the people in whereever that hate the people of wherever, like the serbs hating whoever, and blah blah blah. Easy enough to comprehend or would you like to accuse me of something else?" Not at all easy to comprehend , because it is untrue. Wesmorris did elaborate on hatred, but made no case that certain cultures are mutually exclusive. In spite of the clashes he mentions, there is also coexistence which has been the long-term norm between spasms of ethnic violence. I would now like to accuse wesmorris of missing the point: No cultures are mutually exclusive, and history is increasingly interposing all cultures more time goes on. In some cases vexing hatreds and competitions appear, but human coexistence and survival requires compromise, which we are learning. No cultures are mutually exclusive: This is Earth, not a Star Trek episode. wesmorris: "Getting everyone on the same page really only seems to happen as a result of a catastrophe." hypewaders: "If the goal of the "War on Terror" is truly to avoid catastrophe, your observation is nonsense." Wesmorris: "You confuse nonsense with irony." (my mistake) But then Wes took it up again:. wesmorris:"So what, now I have to hope for a really big catastrophe in order that the world acheive harmony?" hypewaders: "No. You have another think coming." wesmorris:"Was that a typo or an attempt to be clever? That latter bombed" A "really big catastrophe" is obviously not what we need for world harmony, but The War on Terror draws us in that direction. Those inciting the WoT are endeavoring to bring about a clash of civilizations. What I'm trying to bring together through this thread is that such a clash will benefit none of us, and those of us who are sincere need to recognize the deception and resist it. White House rhetoric is calling Americans to continued violent sacrifice that is claimed to be necessary for our security. Although the "Crusade" word rarely slips out, the present mentality that has come to the fore in USA is furthering the objectives of radicals in the Mideast. This veiled and easily morphing crusade is seriously compromising the political base of moderates in the mideast. Similarly, in the USA, a fundamentalist but well-accepted minority is amenable to direct and open conflict with Islam. Like multiple explosives connected by det chord, the Arab-Israeli conflict is entangled at many points of US government and American mainstream religion. The War on Terrorism can very likely jump the tracks and become a clash of civilizations: All it needs is a little more speed. Anyone who understands me, and who loves their country, who loves prosperity and peace should seriously consider doing something to avoid a very unpleasant possibility in our future, while there is time to make a difference. Right here and now, identifying the danger is important. I realize that I come off a bit radical and disturbing to many, but this is because a majority unfamiliar or only superficially interested in these issues is being deceived into complacently falling in behind radical, volatile, and potentially catastrophic movements. The War on Terror as it is being carried out is heading America and the mideast toward conflict and misery, due to a zealous minority in power, and a confused and unaware majority. I hate sounding apocalyptic, but history is accelerating, and if we don't keep up there will be hell to pay. So: I'm inviting a return now to the thread wesmorris so appropriately began, because the ability of the moderate majority to understand and act on what this War on Terror is going to mean to us all is of extreme importance. Those who wish to expound some braindead Dr Strangelove ignorance about "fuggin nukin em all anyway" or "they don't like us, so let's go in shootin" can certainly do that too, and if so, I only ask that you show some backbone, instead of whining about being asked to explain yourself. I am offering a challenge for proponents of the War on Terror to explain here how, in the ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, terrorist recruitment is not outstripping the detainment and killing of terrorists. I am calling on proponents of the WoT to explain the controls by which this conflict will not escalate into a devastating clash of cultures that will by its nature take developed countries back much farther than lesser-developed ones. Answer, War on Terror supporters!
Clash... Hi. I personally believe that the war on terror hasn't been very effective. I was watching some special on CNN, it was a expose on growing Islamist terrorism in the SE Asian corner. Since nations like Indonesia and Malaysia, etc are Muslim, yet they are western. We have a clash, and recruitment to al qaeda and other radicals (neither negative nor positive connotation) is growing. How do the SE Asians deal with it? Well the Pilipinos are dealing with it as a war scenario, Indonesia as a police action. They have arrested the leader of their "Al Qaeda" without a singe shot. Terrorism in that region is the fastest growing. A major raison why is the abject poverty that millions live in Indonesia, and general ignorance of tolerance. There you have Christians vs. Muslims, Hindu's vs. Muslims. It's a clash btwn modernism and traditionalism. To us in the west surely modernism is best, but to them it isn't. I think that our sometimes obvious or subtle influence has shown them that we "commercialist westerners" are just out for their money and we really don't care about them. You have understand the basic premise of the war on terrorism from the other side. It is a war of survive, to maintain the Islamic way of life, to significantly reduce western influence. I don't think the basic premise is hatred of America, no I think it's hatred of America in the ME. Actually psychically in the ME, and economically. Is it jealously? I don't know, maybe some feel that way, but I won't dare say that it's a premise. You have to ask yourself a simple question though. Why do they attack America and not Japan? They both represent western culture, Japan more so. It is impossible to fight a war on terror without deal with the premise of the war on terror. You can kill, maim, defame, deface, invade, pillage, democratize Stalinize, etc. all you want, it only makes the situation worse. What I think should be done, is that the US should work with nations and secretly and effectively work with the local populations, and get rid of the support for terrorism. Also to have a special wing of the US military that does covert missions (more then the green beret's or seals) one's who very purpose is to be so mobile so fast that no one would know what hit them, literally. Invasions like Iraq could have been avoided. Killing isn't helping anyone here, working together is.
I remember the day when Bush get "elected" very well, me and my friends were driving to the countryside to our summer-house to spend relaxing weekend and we did talks about politics hole way trough there. We were very "not so happy" because of the new president of US. We just couldnt believe that Bush have something good to offer to world-politics. Hes agendas was so transparent, and nothing good didnt echoes from hes words. Well, world kept on turninig, Bush did hide in hes vacation untill...Yes, the day of sorrow, the 9/11 happened. That day we all remember I´m sure, but what everybody does/doesnt remember of that day is a different story. My first reaction was "this couldnt be happening", then "damn those frikin terrorist" and then when the dust had settled and the mass-hysteria wasnt so bad, I started to do some researching of that horrible day. And thousands of question did rise, something was so badly wrong about those official reports of that day...When I did try to discuss of those illogicals in official reports, I found out that (allmost) everybody didnt give a shaaaait about those, they did have their opinions allready, based on the mass-media TV and newspapers; Osama did it, lets kill all the frikin ragheads ! Now, I´m not starting here to talk about the 9/11 bullshit official reports since its been around so long in every forum and none of those questions answered (classified information they say, surprise) but this much I can ask for you, nothing technical, just common sense questions...If buildings are builded to survive of an impact of commercial aeroplanes, and most of the kerosin is burning straigt away in impact (the firestrom-ball) how the hell is possible that the towers did collapse like builded with matches ? The meltdown theory, ofcourse ! Why didnt airforce act ? They were nearby and normally in situation like this there would be some planes in the air. And what about the identification of quilty ones, first they can run all over US and FBI was on their trail, next, with boxcutters they hijacked the plains and hole US airdefence paralyzes, and then in the next day their faces were everywhere, like they were under surveillance all the time, but not in the 9/11 day ? This was just sracth on the surface, there are unbelievable things in official reports to buy, but thats that...Few days after Bush slams the Patriot act 1 to the table, its clear that it has been written long before the 9/11 day, then comes Patriot act 2, then comes the wars... What has been amusing is that in forums like this there is mentality like... "if you against the war you are with terrorist ! (does that ring the bell ?) "you dont like a capitalism, so you are a communist" and so on... Only black and white exist and soon you are forced to take a side, no questions asked. Sure I dont like terrorist, but was this the only way to fight them ? Its funny that there is no need to black ops or anything like that now, just the old fashion war is the only answer ? During the "peace-times" black ops were running wild but now that it could be a good tool with international consensus, those were not needed, bombs away. In my eyes world look very Orwellian (1984) at the moment, with the faceless enemy the war have been brought to us, inside of us. No matter of the ways, but the means... And for arguments; tell me a better way to deal with terrorists ? its just too late, Bush did make sure of that there will be no open debate how to deal with them. They did have all the answers and rest of the world just watched mouths full open him raging the holy war...So, here we are, the terrorist didnt push us here, they were just showing the way so to speak. These tactics now in hand, first bombing and then winning the hearts and minds, the Middle East is boiling hotter than ever, we will see if US really can win the hearts and minds (does that sound naive or is just me ?) So why did the victorious Allies draw the maps like they did after WW2, why wasnt there example nation called Kurdistan and so on ? one word; GREED...As for myself, I havent take the side, because all the smoke and mirrors, I´m standing here in polar circle and learning, I must be pain in the ass for those who "got all the answers". Peace, cheers, Moose
In my eyes world look very Orwellian (1984) at the moment, with the faceless enemy the war have been brought to us, inside of us. not to say you are wrong .... i justed wanted to make clear that not the whole world lives in fear now ! in the place where i live - we sit aside and watch the show Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
BlueMoose, the WTC simply wasn't capable of withstanding the heat, and neither was America. The floors just buckled and cascaded, as did American restraint. Given sufficient time without further escalation, a calmer and more detailed understanding can emerge for the American majority, and though we may never have all the answers we want, our choking fear and blinding rage can't endlessly billow down the streets of foreign cities. My hope is that as things do become clearer, Americans will see that we especially, because of our high estate, need cooler heads in power to prevent so much more from crashing down. Little by little, my heart grieves Little by little, I call your name Little by little, my tears fall Little by little, everything changes Little by little, the time goes Little by little, the days pass by Little by little, the air clears Little by little, I can breathe again I can breathe again - Back at the mirror, your good friend Talk to the mirror, to play out your game Slap in the middle, I stop then Look at the winner, and the price you pay Hum! Cold was the winter, I tremble Long was the fall, that had no end Now little by little, the air clears little by little, I can breathe I can breathe again I can breathe again I can breathe again, Call your name- Everything changes- I can breathe again- -Robert Plant
9/11 As I see the towers going back up on the NY skyline: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=31504 Hopefully America can finally move on. 9/11 was a horrible event, and any nation that suffered it would feel the same way Americans felt. But Americans still don't get it, Americans (i guess out of naivety) believe that somehow war is going to stop terrorism. Osama has already said the problem is America. You would think it's America's plain existence...but it isn't. The major issue facing the US is her support of secular terrorist states. No one here can deny that Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Morocco, etc. are major human rights abusers, and are basic monarchial or dictatorial regimes. America does support these regimes, and for the most understandable of reasons. America needs security in the ME, but are they really getting it? I think 9/11, and the constant apartment bombing in Saudi Arabia are telling. They tell us of a policy that is logical for the US, but is harming her. America is a great state, and I know she can stop terrorism. But war is not the way to do it. What is the way is to play the propaganda war, America and Americans have to court the Arab world. But to avoid Americanizing the Arab world. Democracy in Iraq is Americanization, and it's not welcome. Wouldn't it have been better for the US to use Turkey, or Lebanon as a example of democracy? Also I think the US should invest in relationships in the region like Iran, and Syria. So the US looks like a honest broker. Or the other alternative...just plain get out altogether. buildings are builded to survive of an impact of commercial aeroplanes, and most of the kerosin is burning straigt away in impact (the firestrom-ball) how the hell is possible that the towers did collapse like builded with matches ? Blue Moose, the WTC were designed to survive attacks by 707's at a significantly lower speed. I think those 757's. and 767's were going over 400 mph?
